Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

I think this is an excellent data point. The article quotes an economic cost of $20,000 vs $100,000 for giving them a home vs having someone homeless. Is there a writeup somewhere on the methodology for doing that calculation? San Francisco claims to have 7,500 homeless people so that would be $750M vs $150M. I'm pretty sure the city supervisors would go for a half billion annual reduction in their expenses.

View on HN

Homeless people are very "epensive" for their society, because of the effects of that homelessness. They aren't as productive as they could be, they require a lot more medical attention, they tend to vandalize more, or even steal. I'm not saying they are bad people, it's just the situation nudges or forces them to "cost" more.

Society also can't really choose not to pay the cost. If they break stuff, it may have to be replaced. If they commit a crime, they have to be housed in prison (which is expensive). And if they require urgent medical attention, doctors won't refuse not to help them even if they can't recuperate the cost...

In San Francisco the situation is a bit different. Housing is more expensive, so 20K won't be enough, and homelessness in SF is a bit more of an economically issue, rather than a mainly psychological one.

And even if SF could save money, they would have a hard time creating such a program, for various political reasons. Also it would mean investing tons of money up front, without the cost reductions being easily visible afterwards.

It's also important to note that SF is already a destination for homeless people from other cities in the US. In some cases that's by choice; in others it's because the local authorities send them there simply to get rid of them (several noteworthy stories have come up just within the past few years). So it's quite likely that such a system would serve primarily to foist the cost of homelessness in other cities onto the citizens of SF, where, ironically, it's most expensive to address. If I were a citizen of SF, this would be my primary objection to such a plan. It's not clear how to prevent this kind of abuse in a fair manner.

This aspect was not mentioned in the article. Perhaps Medicine Hat is viewed as a less desirable place to live than, say, Vancouver, and therefore this hasn't been an issue. It's also possible that the Canadian legal system is more effective at preventing this kind of inter-provincial abuse.

Homeless people prefer to go to bigger cities and frequent areas where they can beg for money or scavenge trash. So yes, small communities tend to not have many of them.

The trick with San Francisco, if the city chose to try it, would be to find housing in commuting distance which is cheaper. Such housing wouldn't necessarily need to be in San Francisco, especially if these people don't have work or other ties there...

Getting homeless people to accept housing that's any useful distance from where they panhandle or scavenge trash ranges from incredibly difficult to functionally impossible.

Which is to say that no, the homeless aren't likely to accept free housing in Walnut Creek. Not if their living patterns center on Van Ness.

I'm not saying San Francisco should try that. But if they were to try it, they should coordinate their services. I also think the idea behind this housing is that the previously homeless people are encouraged to find new ways of living, and have it easier to stop drinking and get a job. Or start on medication, get treatment for PTSD etc.

It's a good idea. The intentions are laudable.

The basic problem is that you're asking people who are extremely risk-averse to take what they will see as huge risks with lifestyle change.

> In some cases that's by choice; in others it's because the local authorities send them there simply to get rid of them (several noteworthy stories have come up just within the past few years).

By way of example, Las Vegas had a standing policy of "discharging" mental patients by giving them one-way bus tickets to California cities:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/nevada-patient-bus...

I think that's comparing apples to oranges. The $20,000 cost is merely the cost to provide housing. The $100,000 cost is the cost to provide court systems, mental health care, and physical health care.

The problem is that the cost of housing is orthogonal to those issues. People who are in homes certainly commit crimes and go through the criminal justice system. They certainly need health care. That $100k figure may go down, perhaps even tremendously, but I suspect the real financial cost comparison isn't anywhere near so great. Otherwise, everyone would already be doing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com