Homelessness and, "Location, location, location..."

[DGS49]

I have recently read a small pile of articles and opinion pieces about the problem of homelessness in places like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston.

Local progressives feel an "obligation" to provide for the homeless, not only out of compassion, but because they are deleterious to the mood and atmosphere of the City.

Of course, it is God-awfully expensive to find housing in the cities named above. For a typical person who is homeless (and Wants to be self-sufficient), they would need a quick infusion of at least a thousand dollars (first month's rent plus security and utility deposits), and an income of at least a couple thousand a month to have any chance of finding "affordable" housing in those locales. So, for example, $10/hr times 4-1/3 weeks a month provides a gross income of about $1,700/month, which probably won't cut it.

But there are literally thousands of locations around the country where small apartments and efficiencies are available for a fraction of that cost, work is available, though not lucrative, but where it would be POSSIBLE to live with a full-time, minimum wage job. Maybe not in the most desirable locations, but somewhere near employment.

Most homeless people have lived in various places during their adult lives, and have, in effect, chosen to live in these high-cost cities. So SOCIETY (the Taxpayer) owes them premium support to remain there?

Of course, this question ignores the large presence of substance abusers and those who are mentally incompetent, for whom it is not simply a case of finding a job and an apartment, but rather finding a whole support network PLUS those two essentials.

But I wonder if the kindest thing that San Franciscans could do for their homeless people is to give them a bus ticket to someplace else, where they could be self-sustaining. There are millions of people who would gladly live in San Francisco, but THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT, so they live elsewhere. Why does the Taxpayer have to provide for those who do not work, yet still want to call S.F. their home?

 

[waltky]

Wealthy San Francisco tech investors want homeless gone...

San Francisco homeless: New plan to clear tents off streets
Fri, 21 Oct 2016 - Wealthy San Francisco tech investors are bankrolling a law to ban the city's homeless from pitching tents - will it work?

Tent camps have become one of the most prominent and controversial symbols of San Francisco's problem with homelessness. The camps have sprung up along streets and under overpasses, swelling in some cases to 30 or 40 tents. They have divided opinion in a city which has seen an influx of well-paid tech workers in recent years but struggled to house its poorer citizens. Now a new ballot measure, backed financially by tech investors and to be voted on by residents next month, is proposing to introduce laws against the tent camps.

A homeless man sleeps in front of his tent along Van Ness Avenue in downtown San Francisco, California​

Proposition Q would give the city the right to tear down camps and remove residents' belongings. Police would have to give 24 hours notice and find a shelter for anyone they turf out. Supporters say the measure prioritises housing over dangerous camp environments. Opponents say it is yet another move to criminalise the homeless. Here's what you need to know about Prop Q.

How would it work on the street?

In theory, a police officer or other city worker would offer someone sleeping in a tent a room in a shelter for the night, or a paid bus ticket out of the city to a family member or friend, under the city's existing "Homeward Bound" programme. If the homeless person refused, they would be given 24 hours notice to dismantle their tent and vacate the site. If they failed to comply, the city would remove the tent and store the owner's possessions for up to 90 days.

Who's supporting it, and why?

Prop Q was drawn up and sponsored by Mark Farrell, a San Francisco city supervisor. Mr Farrell told the BBC that the camps had become "the symbol of the city's homeless problem" and were "some of the most dangerous places you can imagine". "From documented rapes, to fires, to tonnes and tonnes of waste - these camps are a significant strain on our public safety resources," he said. Mr Farrell and Prop Q's other advocates say no one will be moved on from a camp unless there is a guaranteed bed for them that night.

He said that allowing the camps to remain and providing water or other assistance would encourage homeless people to come to the city. "If word got out... we would see a massive influx of tent camps in the city," he said. Mr Farrell said he "completely rejected" the accusation that the law would criminalise the homeless. "This is about rejecting dangerous living environments and prioritising shelter and housing," he said.

So who's opposing it, and why?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The cost of housing in London is causing all sorts of issues. People who do low paid ,but important, work are finding it difficult to find adequate housing.
The market and their governments have failed them.