Homeless in LA

[bucktalk]

From Reuters News Service regarding tropical storm Hillary:
"Officials said Los Angeles county's 75,000 homeless people were especially vulnerable, as were hillside canyons and areas recently denuded by wildfires."

75,000?!?!?

[Ryan]

From Reuters News Service regarding tropical storm Hillary:
"Officials said Los Angeles county's 75,000 homeless people were especially vulnerable, as were hillside canyons and areas recently denuded by wildfires."

75,000?!?!?

I would expect that. Los Angeles county It’s a almost 50000 square miles. and has 10 million people.

[Ryan]

Statistically only 1 in 133 people are experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles county. It may seem like a lot compared to the 1500 okc has but keep in mind it’s outdoor sleeping weather out there 300+ days a year there

[bucktalk]

I was thinking more about food and restroom facilities for that large number. I can't imagine.....

[Plutonic Panda]

I would expect that. Los Angeles county It’s a almost 50000 square miles. and has 10 million people.

This mentality right here is the problem. “I would expect that.” Of course you would.

[chssooner]

I would expect that. Los Angeles county It’s a almost 50000 square miles. and has 10 million people.

How many times does 1500 go into 75000. The answer: 50. LA doesn't have 50 times the population of OKC. Therefore, they have a higher proportion of homeless than OKC, and by a fairly large margin.

Sure, the weather might be great, but that isn't a good number at all.

[BoulderSooner]

it is almost like the more you spend on homeless "services" the more homeless you attract

[Plutonic Panda]

it is almost like the more you spend on homeless "services" the more homeless you attract

There’s more to it than that but LA has been very aggressively expanding funding to address homelessness and it’s worse than ever. I can tell you knowing what I know if I were homeless I’d definitely go to LA. If you really want to get help that’s one of your best bets.

[Ryan]

How many times does 1500 go into 75000. The answer: 50. LA doesn't have 50 times the population of OKC. Therefore, they have a higher proportion of homeless than OKC, and by a fairly large margin.

Sure, the weather might be great, but that isn't a good number at all.

1 homeless person is too much. OKC homeless population isn’t bad.
Our weather is brutal. And our services are virtually non existent. That keeps our population lower than most places our size. There’s no services here So they hang out at places that make them visible to panhandle and such. Try going to places with available services.

[Ryan]

Plutonic is right. Coastal California is your best bet if you’re homeless. The services are widely available so you don’t have to die in the street. The state has been aggressively trying to tackle the issue. If you want out of the cycle california is your best bet. Wry very different from okc. I was EMT in 2006. Dead people on south Walker are very common. Filthy camps. Handicap people with maggots, the state of Oklahoma has largely provided an example of what not to do. In the past.

[chssooner]

1 homeless person is too much. OKC homeless population isn’t bad.
Our weather is brutal. And our services are virtually non existent. That keeps our population lower than most places our size. There’s no services here So they hang out at places that make them visible to panhandle and such. Try going to places with available services.

Well, those services they provide keep creating more homeless, not just attracting homeless from other states.

Throwing money at the problem hasn't worked. Not sure what will, but just throwing money at it creates more homeless, by making other services and goods more expensive.

[Ryan]

Well, those services they provide keep creating more homeless, not just attracting homeless from other states.

Throwing money at the problem hasn't worked. Not sure what will, but just throwing money at it creates more homeless, by making other services and goods more expensive.

A bit of a reach. Providing job resources or access to medicine doesn’t make anyone homeless. That’s like saying that I create homelessness because I want more money from rental properties that I own because I want to trade in my 7 series every other year.

[Pete]

There is now a proven model that most people credit to the city of Houston and it has become somewhat of a blueprint that OKC is in the process of implementing.

Basically, it is to provide very low-barrier housing (don't need to be or stay sober, for example), have enough capacity for all those willing to make the move, couple that with tons of social programs, and then be less tolerant of those who simply don't want to be sheltered. Outreach teams are utilized to basically tell every person on the street, "There is a safe place for you to sleep and get a hot meal and we'll take you there. If you choose to not take advantage, you can't stay here." They also try to stop large-scale camps before they get too entrenched.

We'll soon see how this plays out in OKC but if we approach Houston's conversion rate, the difference will be significant.

[BoulderSooner]

There is now a proven model that most people credit to the city of Houston and it has become somewhat of a blueprint that OKC is in the process of implementing.

Basically, it is to provide very low-barrier housing (don't need to be or stay sober, for example), have enough capacity for all those willing to make the move, couple that with tons of social programs, and then be less tolerant of those who simply don't want to be sheltered. Outreach teams are utilized to basically tell every person on the street, "There is a safe place for you to sleep and get a hot meal and we'll take you there. If you choose to not take advantage, you can't stay here." They also try to stop large-scale camps before they get too entrenched.

We'll soon see how this plays out in OKC but if we approach Houston's conversion rate, the difference will be significant.

i am glad that OKC is on this path

[PoliSciGuy]

Well, those services they provide keep creating more homeless, not just attracting homeless from other states.

Hoooo boy is this one heck of a claim in need of evidence. Houston's model, that Pete alludes to, completely disproves this. How does providing low-barrier housing and services *create* homelessness?!

[chssooner]

Hoooo boy is this one heck of a claim in need of evidence. Houston's model, that Pete alludes to, completely disproves this. How does providing low-barrier housing and services *create* homelessness?!

I was talking about California. I know nothing about Houston's model, but it sounds different than California's model. California's plans always seem to involve throwing a ton of money at everything, then wondering why it went wrong.

[Pete]

I was talking about California. I know nothing about Houston's model, but it sounds different than California's model. California's plans always seem to involve throwing a ton of money at everything, then wondering why it went wrong.

To be fair, Cali has always had a significant homeless population long before it became stupidly expensive.

This is due to the incredible year-round weather (that aspect is not exaggerated) and a general tolerance that goes back decades.

I used to office in Santa Monica, which is one of the most expensive cities in the U.S. And even back in the 90s you'd see homeless asleep on the lawn of a multi-million $ home. Most people there just accept it and have a lot of compassion. Truthfully, it never bothered me much probably because it didn't seem to bother anyone else.

Things really started to ramp up in the 80s when there were huge cuts in public mental health facilities and programs. And now opioid addiction has thrown a ton of gasoline on the fire.

Later in my career there, I actually ran a nonprofit and one of our programs was homeless outreach that was funded by HUD. We had a van with a social worker and a nurse and would go talk to people, try to connect them with services, give them a bag of toiletries with our phone # so if they needed help later they could find us. There were actually a fair number of beds available but very few would go and if they were addicts (very common) they wouldn't be allowed to stay without engaging in a rehab program, so most people just went back to the street. You can't force them in any way.


Anyway, this is an issue I know a fair bit about. I really hope OKC's approach can start to make a dent in the number of people on the street.

[Rover]

I was talking about California. I know nothing about Houston's model, but it sounds different than California's model. California's plans always seem to involve throwing a ton of money at everything, then wondering why it went wrong.

There are a number of great plans in Cali that deal with homelessness. One that I personally was involved with was from Riverside, just east of LA. They housed homeless and helped them find jobs with local businesses. We were in Colton and hired quite a few in our plant. The city did the testing for sobriety and helped them with job skills. They then bussed them to our plant in the morning and collected them at the end of the shift. That insured they were always on time. The objective was always to get them back on their feet as quickly as possible by making it possible for them to have paying jobs that allowed them to move from publicly supported housing to apartments/homes they could afford themselves. For the most part, they were better workers, or at least as good as the general hires from the population. Their program was designed to enable them, not support them. It seemed to work very well.

It's a model that could probably work well here for many... not all.

[Shortsyeararound]

They keep tabs on the homeless like the census does. A few years back it was around 67,000 from the individuals that participated.

[BDP]

it is almost like the more you spend on homeless "services" the more homeless you attract

That doesn't really track, at least per capita.

Table 1: Per Capita Homeless Assistance Funding by State

Estimated rate of homelessness in the United States in 2022, by state

According to these stats, Connecticut spends more per capita on homeless assistance than any other state, but their relative rate of homelessness is lower than than most states, including Oklahoma and WAY lower that California. Maybe California should actually spend more? At least the binary option you provided would suggest that.

I'm no expert, but looking at it objectively, all indications are that it's a little more nuanced than "spend more on homeless 'services' and you'll just have more homeless".

That's obviously obvious, but it does take a little more time for some people to get to that realization.

But feel free to sift through that and find the curated example that backs into your thesis and would ignore every other real world variable involved, because I'm sure it's there. Mostly because it's broken down per capita by State.

[Rover]

Well, those services they provide keep creating more homeless, not just attracting homeless from other states.

Throwing money at the problem hasn't worked. Not sure what will, but just throwing money at it creates more homeless, by making other services and goods more expensive.

Spending money stupidly on outdated notions doesn’t work. Politicizing the homeless doesn’t help. Ignoring the homeless doesn’t work. Having characturized views of the homeless doesn’t help.

[Mountaingoat]

Spending money stupidly on outdated notions doesn’t work. Politicizing the homeless doesn’t help. Ignoring the homeless doesn’t work. Having characturized views of the homeless doesn’t help.

Nothing will help the homeless problem until they can be removed from the street and forced into whatever kind of therapy it is they need. Aiding and abetting their current lifestyle is helping no one.

[Rover]

Nothing will help the homeless problem until they can be removed from the street and forced into whatever kind of therapy it is they need. Aiding and abetting their current lifestyle is helping no one.

Way more nuanced and less harsh. The idea that you can just mandate and force things is what I was referring to as outdated and unworkable. Understanding, empathy and intelligence is needed, not brute force.

[Pete]

Way more nuanced and less harsh. The idea that you can just mandate and force things is what I was referring to as outdated and unworkable. Understanding, empathy and intelligence is needed, not brute force.

In a free society, you simply can't force anyone.

I've spent a lot of time in Switzerland and they basically drive around at night forcing the homeless into vans and then locking them into shelters. It's a beautiful, pristine, super clean place but it also has one of the highest incidences of drug use and suicide in the 'free' world. In other words, it looks good on the surface but they are simply wallpapering over huge societal problems and creating some very dire consequences.

[Anonymous.]

In my experience with transients in OKC - where the individuals are choosing to sleep is a pretty good indicator of what level of help is needed. Painting all services as an aid to encourage this life is very unfair.

If you walk through the CBD at night, you will see many people posted up with their gear along the Library exterior, the courthouse, in the Myriad Gardens. They are charging phones, using wifi, playing cards with each other, having conversations, making trades, and generally just hanging out or sleeping.

Then you have another transient "hot spot" where you may have bodies lying in the grass near the McDonalds and TacoBell at Western/Classen and the OKC Blvd. Some of these people are using drugs, sleeping without blanket/gear nearby, and are generally in appearance as having a much rougher time.

The first set of people can probably be helped with very basic services to get them back on their feet. The second set is a much more complicated plan.