Homelessness [split from Leadville and Salida Ranger Districts]

[Morgana]

Here's a good article on one part of this problem (drug addiction and mental illness, and proposed changes to the federal system that might take some people suffering from these problems off the streets)
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/01/mental-hospitals-drug-users-congress-00132671
It doesn't provide answers, but it has a lot of good questions.

 

[RonDean]

The true financial cost to build and maintain “affordable” housing and to have staff responsible for overseeing such programs is very high. The word “affordable” is simply not accurate. It is financially subsidized housing.

I stand by my opinion that we need more affordable housing. Subsidized housing is only one option but it does remain affordable to the renter. When local govts allow 2nd "mother-in-law" dwellings on the same property, it would help provide more inexpensive housing. Getting away from strictly single-family zoning and building more apartments or townhouses would help. And in a time when we are talking about how to build structures on the Moon and Mars, I can't believe we are still building most homes stick by stick and brick by brick. One reason we do is because that is all the folks in charge understand. It's time to change the rules.

Finally, affordable (in my mind) is more of a scale than an absolute. Cost on one side and income on the other. For too many ppl the cost side has bottomed out and the income side is dangling in the air. An increase in lower-end incomes might be an even better answer.

 

[RonDean]

An addendum to homelessness and housing.
I watched a few videos about Housing First plans and why some work and others don't. In Norway, because of the balance of public and privately owned real estate, they have enough available dwellings to put homeless people in. In California, they do not. Without enough available housing, no plan will do very much.

 

[WanderingRose]

The true financial cost to build and maintain “affordable” housing and to have staff responsible for overseeing such programs is very high. The word “affordable” is simply not accurate. It is financially subsidized housing.

We need more housing, period, as in more apartment buildings and more modest, single family dwellings,

But federally subsidized housing would make this traditional housing affordable to many of the working poor who are not living in vehicles or on the street by choice.

More Section 8, would be where I would vote to put money.

 

[Morgana]

A lot of things are "subsidized" in our system. Randomly off the top of my head with about 2 minutes thought: ranching, bank deposits, export support, small business support, national park visits, education, flood insurance.

The price of the food we eat is subsidized by people, often children, who carry out backbreaking and dangerous labor. Elder care and childcare are already unaffordable; imagine what they'd cost if the people who did the work were paid a living wage. These people making it possible for us to live comfortably on relatively little money -- sure, they're not the government, and they're not rich people, so they might go unnoticed, but in real life they're still paying our prices for us -- in other words, subsidizing us. The breaks that Amazon gets in taxes and postal fees? We're subsidizing that.

Then there are the employers who couldn't continue paying low wages if their employees couldn't access some kind of services that let them keep body and soul together on their low incomes. Who's the /real/ beneficiary of /those/ subsidies?

I wonder if anyone here can point to reliable data on the cost of establishing and maintaining the public spaces in which RVers camp for free or cheap. ("Reliable data," not "I don't see anyone spending money so there must not be any.") The roads they travel on. The food banks that Bob Wells enthusiastically recommends. The money that goes to panhandlers who are funding travel or drug use rather than survival needs.

Nobody here pays their own freight completely, and nobody gets where they're going by themselves. It's called civilization. I suspect you'd have to look hard to find anything any of us does that is truly not "subsidized" by someone.

 

[dhuff]

It's an unimportant distraction even if they did.

The bottom line is that it's in every city's interest to kick the homeless somewhere else. So long as it's left up to local jurisdictions with local funding, this will be the case.

(Note: I want to be very clear that I'm not suggesting that rruff themselves hold any particular viewpoint on the following...)

It's only in a "city's interests" depending on what they collectively value most - money or people. If money is the ultimate determination of "good," then yeah - you're right. But if people matter more, then it's a short-sighted (and I would argue an immoral) standpoint. It's a decision that we as a society have to make.

 

[islanderxx]

The true financial cost to build and maintain “affordable” housing and to have staff responsible for overseeing such programs is very high. The word “affordable” is simply not accurate. It is financially subsidized housing.

There is a little village for the homeless with tiny homes that house 50 people. The village is enclosed with an 8-foot wall with 3 security guards 24/7. The cost for security annually for 50 who were homeless is costing taxpayers $788.400 annually. The 3 security guards 24/7 is first-hand information. $788,400/50 = that's $15,768/person (security alone), which is not affordable housing. It's located at 401 Arroyo Seco Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90042.

 

[islanderxx]

(Note: I want to be very clear that I'm not suggesting that rruff themselves hold any particular viewpoint on the following...)

It's only in a "city's interests" depending on what they collectively value most - money or people. If money is the ultimate determination of "good," then yeah - you're right. But if people matter more, then it's a short-sighted (and I would argue an immoral) standpoint. It's a decision that we as a society have to make.

money or people is not a good comparison. How much should we spend per person, and how much should each city spend per program? In Los Angeles City, there are 42,000 unhoused people, and the budget is $2B, which means we will spend $47,641 per person. What amount of spending per capita will you say when it's not the money or people? To me, $47,641 per person annually is more than enough to help support the homeless program. I can think of 100 ways to spend that money in a more beneficial way; I'm not saying to neglect all the homeless. Is our discussion political? We are talking about how we might solve the homeless epidemic. If we give Bob Wells $1000,000,000,000 (yes, a billion), I bet he can reduce homelessness by 70,000 people and turn them into nomads, which will give them a more meaningful life like the rest of us.

 

[bullfrog !]

Just curious what is the cost to maintain a prisoner in jail for the average lifespan of a person? If the only solution to the problem is to criminalize homelessness and the problems it causes it think that is making a very poor financial decision. Government’s job is to make life better for everyone in my opinion. There are plenty of Bob Wells type people that would be glad to work for the government if Congress was willing and able to hire them and pay the bill.

 

[islanderxx]

Prisoners are not part of this discussion. Do you see mass murderers running around in our neighborhood? The Supreme Court has already decided that homelessness can't be criminalized in this country, Martin v. City of Boise. I grew up in a poor neighborhood, which makes my opinion somewhat skewed on homelessness. My neighbors are always trying to figure out how they can get more from the government without working. Most people have not been exposed to what I was exposed to as I was growing up. I don't trust that young healthy person collecting welfare who are stealing from real needed such are the mentally ill or elderly. We should support the really needy people with all our might. I would agree with you 100% if city officials allowed people like Bab Wells to bid on the funding for the task of reducing homelessness.

 

[islanderxx]

Prisoners are not part of this discussion. Do you see mass murderers running around in our neighborhood? The Supreme Court has already decided that homelessness can't be criminalized in this country, Martin v. City of Boise. I grew up in a poor neighborhood, which makes my opinion somewhat skewed on homelessness. My neighbors are always trying to figure out how they can get more from the government without working. Most people have not been exposed to what I was exposed to as I was growing up. I don't trust that young healthy person collecting welfare who are stealing from real needed such are the mentally ill or elderly. We should support the really needy people with all our might. I would agree with you 100% if city officials allowed people like Bab Wells to bid on the funding for the task of reducing homelessness.

OOps, Do you want see mass murderers running around in our neighborhood freely?

 

[bullfrog !]

Guess my point is the our government needs to work to solve these problems. Too long has it depended on private organizations and individuals without supporting prigrams that are proven to work.

 

[rruff]

It's only in a "city's interests" depending on what they collectively value most - money or people.

It would be easier if people lived their whole lives in a specific area... then that community would have responsibility for the people in it. But we are free to wander all over this vast country, and the majority of the chronically homeless in the US just happen to live on the CA coast. Good weather, good services, sympathy for the homeless, are important factors. In other words the people who actually pay to live in these communities are already paying to care for people they aren't responsible for. And it sounds like you are proposing that they spend a bunch more... give the homeless good accommodation in towns where a 1bd apartment is $3k+ per month, and pay for their food, counseling, rehab, whatever they need. And of course since there are no criminal charges, none of them actually have to comply with any rules or restrictions. Even if there was the will to spend that sort of money, what do you say to all the other people with jobs who'd love to live there, but don't because they can't afford it?

I've been proposing that there needs to be a concerted effort nationally, with federal funding....but....

The Supreme Court has already decided that homelessness can't be criminalized in this country, Martin v. City of Boise. I grew up in a poor neighborhood, which makes my opinion somewhat skewed on homelessness. My neighbors are always trying to figure out how they can get more from the government without working.

If you can't *force* someone who is illegally camping in public or private places, making a mess, being a nuisance, etc.... realistically, what can be done? Yes, provide help, but you also need to make the their current behavior unacceptable and illegal... not an option.

 

[user 22017]

A lot of things are "subsidized" in our system. Randomly off the top of my head with about 2 minutes thought: ranching, bank deposits, export support, small business support, national park visits, education, flood insurance.

The price of the food we eat is subsidized by people, often children, who carry out backbreaking and dangerous labor. Elder care and childcare are already unaffordable; imagine what they'd cost if the people who did the work were paid a living wage. These people making it possible for us to live comfortably on relatively little money -- sure, they're not the government, and they're not rich people, so they might go unnoticed, but in real life they're still paying our prices for us -- in other words, subsidizing us. The breaks that Amazon gets in taxes and postal fees? We're subsidizing that.

Then there are the employers who couldn't continue paying low wages if their employees couldn't access some kind of services that let them keep body and soul together on their low incomes. Who's the /real/ beneficiary of /those/ subsidies?

I wonder if anyone here can point to reliable data on the cost of establishing and maintaining the public spaces in which RVers camp for free or cheap. ("Reliable data," not "I don't see anyone spending money so there must not be any.") The roads they travel on. The food banks that Bob Wells enthusiastically recommends. The money that goes to panhandlers who are funding travel or drug use rather than survival needs.

Nobody here pays their own freight completely, and nobody gets where they're going by themselves. It's called civilization. I suspect you'd have to look hard to find anything any of us does that is truly not "subsidized" by someone.

Excellent points. Wish more ppl would remember this.

We also need to increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

 

[user 22017]

The Supreme Court has already decided that homelessness can't be criminalized in this country, Martin v. City of Boise. I grew up in a poor neighborhood, which makes my opinion somewhat skewed on homelessness. My neighbors are always trying to figure out how they can get more from the government without working. Most people have not been exposed to what I was exposed to as I was growing up.

I lived as you did, yet my views are quite opposite. I saw some of the same things, but where we differ is in our views on the causes and solutions.

 

[islanderxx]

It would be easier if people lived their whole lives in a specific area... then that community would have responsibility for the people in it. But we are free to wander all over this vast country, and the majority of the chronically homeless in the US just happen to live on the CA coast. Good weather, good services, sympathy for the homeless, are important factors. In other words the people who actually pay to live in these communities are already paying to care for people they aren't responsible for. And it sounds like you are proposing that they spend a bunch more... give the homeless good accommodation in towns where a 1bd apartment is $3k+ per month, and pay for their food, counseling, rehab, whatever they need. And of course since there are no criminal charges, none of them actually have to comply with any rules or restrictions. Even if there was the will to spend that sort of money, what do you say to all the other people with jobs who'd love to live there, but don't because they can't afford it?

I've been proposing that there needs to be a concerted effort nationally, with federal funding....but....



If you can't *force* someone who is illegally camping in public or private places, making a mess, being a nuisance, etc.... realistically, what can be done? Yes, provide help, but you also need to make the their current behavior unacceptable and illegal... not an option.

The court ruled that the Eighth Amendment forbids criminal charges against people for sleeping outdoors on public property if they have nowhere else to go. Wow, this discussion may lead us to challenge the 14-day rule imposed on us by BLM. The Supreme Court ruling only applies to people with nowhere else to go, and it could apply to several of my friends who don't have a home base. Carla, do you think the 14-day rule could challenge BML as unconstitutional by the homeless (no home base)? I think a homeless who is making a mess or being a nuisance can be arrested. But if they are only sleeping on the sidewalk, they are covered by the 14th Amendment. Will you let me know what you think about homeless nomads being exempted from the 14-day limit on BLM land?

 

[islanderxx]

I lived as you did, yet my views are quite opposite. I saw some of the same things, but where we differ is in our views on the causes and solutions.

I have not proposed a solution to the. issue of homelessness. We do differ in some of what may be causing the epidemic of homelessness.

 

[islanderxx]

Exactly!
None of us say high housing costs and low income are the ONLY reasons for homelessness. All this talk of average and medium income makes no sense to me. I doubt if many (any?) of the homeless we are talking about are in that income category. A survey done by University of Cal said the average Cal income of the homeless BEFORE they lost traditional shelter was $960 per month. When the SF AVERAGE apt rental is almost $3000, I think the best solution is to go somewhere else as quickly as possible.

Most of us that do move a lot would give that a big DUH! But other urban areas aren't a lot better. Cities do have services for the poor and homeless while most rural areas have comparatively few to none. There is also the issue of where there might be more jobs that could work for a currently homeless person. If you need or want some kind of help, where would you go?

Addicted to drugs? Sure, that's a problem! What is the solution? I never have been drug addicted, but I understand it difficult and usually needs some kind of help to get out of. I doubt if you'll find that in Podunk, Iowa.

Mental illness? Again... what is the solution that the individual and/or society could take? It's not like the US has mental hospitals willing to take in homeless ppl just for the asking. And if their illness makes them less likely to ask, what then?

Etc... Etc... Etc... for the whole list of things that cause homelessness.

If we at least addressed the affordable housing issue, that would take that off the table and we could then move on to the next problem. As far as islanderxx's posts... Nonsense.

What did I say that was nonsense? If you say nonsense, you need to follow it up as to what nonsense I said, or you are just name-calling. I don't want to call you an idiot because you can articulate what I said that is nonsense.

 

[rruff]

Will you let me know what you think about homeless nomads being exempted from the 14-day limit on BLM land?

I violated the 14 day rule constantly. I never once even saw a BLM Ranger in 13 solid years of it! Most of my violations were in the 90s though, when van life wasn't a thing. I also usually camped in spots where I wouldn't see another human. IMO, that is in keeping with the spirit of the law which was to keep people from being a nuisance and dominating popular spots. Homeless people who don't bother people or trash areas don't get hassled either.

We do differ in some of what may be causing the epidemic of homelessness.

I think the "epidemic" is mostly a byproduct of covid policies, along with permissive laws. Rates declined across the board through the 2000s until recently.

 

[user 22017]

I have not proposed a solution to the. issue of homelessness. We do differ in some of what may be causing the epidemic of homelessness.

Sorry. I thought you were headed in that direction when you brought up about people (who work on homelessness issues) making too much money. I thought you meant one solution was to pay them less so they would not be enticed to NOT do their jobs.

To quote you:

Your 8 points are good, but you forgot to mention the directors and administrators who run the homeless program. They are paid a 6 figure salary and up to $250k. They will do their best to keep their job by not solving the homeless problem. The more problems the homeless cause, the more secure their jobs will be. The higher the salary, the less incentive there is to solve the problem of homelessness.