Hacker News Reader

Assuming those statistics are trustworthy (which I don't necessarily, homeless people are notoriously undercounted by the census for instance and may be unevenly counted in different places), maybe more people become homeless in CA. I guess I'd want to know what % of the homeless population were recent transplants to CA vs what % of CA residents in general are recent transplants. Also, if they are homeless and recent transplants to CA, were they homeless before they moved to CA? Before assuming lots of homeless people are moving to CA more research required than that single number.

And then even if so... so what? I assume the point is doing something about people who have no homes, like reducing the number of people who have no homes. Perhaps we'd also want to know why they are moving to CA to begin with. Perhaps we'd say CA should get federal funding to deal with it's disproportional homeless problem, and then figure out the best use of that funding. I dunno.

Like, is the point something other than blaming homeless people for being homeless, or punishing people for being homeless, or make people's lives harder when they are homeless -- cause, what does that do, what's the point of that you think?

   Californians are getting precisely the kind of world
   they've voted for. It's ugly, and it literally stinks.
   Yes, how to fix it is the question, but I'm not sure the
   people have had enough yet. The recall election of Newsom
   next month will be an indicator. If he's recalled, then a
   new day of hope begins.

This. Sums it up neatly. Popular wisdom says Newsom has large enough money bags to defeat the recall effort quite handily. I personally do not think Californians have had enough, despite everything we have seen over the last few years - with the wildfires, PG&E's planned blackouts, ever burgeoning taxes with jack all to show for it, school boards prioritizing campaigns to rename schools honoring racist historical figures over everything else, general wasteful expenditure & graft etc.

   ...the people turned on him, and even set fire to his front
   lawn in protest.

That's putting it a tad mildly, given what happened.

   July 2009 - Then-mayor Gavin Newsom and wife Jennifer
   Siebel Newsom had only just moved into a new home in the
   Upper Haight when their front stoop was promptly defecated
   upon.[1]

[1]

A Brief History Of Poop On The Streets Of San Francisco

https://sfist.com/2019/05/01/a-brief-history-of-poop-on-the-...

Can you please explain how criminalizing homelessness, for example by enforcing sit/lie ordinances, would help homeless people find homes? Likewise, getting people into mental health services is not likely to get them a place to live. You seem to think that somehow “getting tough” on homeless people is going to make them straighten up and find a place to live, when in reality it will just cause them to move out of your view, so you don’t have to see them any longer.

Your response to

> Rather than asking "Who can we blame?" maybe we could start asking "How do we fix it?"

Is to (1) complain about a lack of constructive solutions, (2) blame Newsom and (3) not provide a constructive solution. "Hope" is free though. You can have mine, I wasn't using it.

I see your point, but I read GP a little different - the solution they mentioned is to stop voting for leadership that is perpetuating the problem with garbage policies. That combines the blame and solution in one statement, but is a constructive solution. You don't like the policies or realities of CA? Stop voting for people that implement and double down on the policies creating the realities. Not much of a dog in this fight, but if CA can solve the problem it would help a lot of other cities/states that look to CA for guidance.

"Stop voting for people" is kinda the problem with California. Since the US is a 2-party system, and California is leftish, California is effectively a single-party system. So the people get, more or less, what the party picks for them. On the other hand, "dismantle the 2-party system" is quite the yak-shave.

I basically agree with everything you've said here, but one nitpick:

>In the Bay Area, they at one time had "Sit/Lie" laws prohibiting loitering -- but the locals condemned them as cruel and inhumane. Instead, they advocate that it's ones right to camp in the public park.

The larger issue is that US courts have repeatedly struck down loitering laws, which makes their enforcement impossible. Cities now can't legally restrict people hanging out on their sidewalks, public spaces etc.

I do like how you can always tell who is criticizing from afar when they say "San Fran" rather than something that a local would actually say.

The solution is very simple, tax the land.