The San Francisco Chronicle Goes Pulitzer-Fishing
Katherine Mangu-Ward | November 1, 2006, 5:07pm
"First in a series" can be the scariest words in the English language, as a seasoned (and embittered) journalist once told me. And he was right. Especially when the email address that corresponds with the series is "shameofthecity@sfchronicle.com."
But lo and behold, the
San Francisco Chronicle's
three-
part series on homelessness is actually quite informative and balanced. And it raises an interesting question for libertarians: When legit use of existing government programs makes homelessness a hugely expensive problem for local goverments, is an aggressive campaign to get them onto various welfare rolls and into low cost, subsidized housing a good idea if it's cheaper overall? And what if the homeless people costing the state tons of money say they don't want help? How hard should the government try to convince them that they do, especially if sucessfully doing so will reduce the overall financial burden on taxpayers?
The first story asks the utterly fair question: How much does homelessness cost? It tells the story--and does the accounting--on the "redemption" of one tough case, Georgia Mitchell:
It is expensive redemption -- Mitchell's home and medical care cost
taxpayers about $21,000 a year. But her case shows how that can be far cheaper
than allowing homeless people to deteriorate on the street, becoming public
nuisances and financial burdens.
In her last two years on the street, the public spent nearly $100,000
annually on Georgia Mitchell's emergency care and support.
The article also deals with the question of what to do with people who just don't want help:
The rejection of help is a key reason there are so many homeless people on
the nation's streets. But state and federal laws allow addicted or mentally ill
homeless people to refuse the very services that could assist them. Ever since
the 1960s patients' rights movement, they have had the same prerogative as
housed citizens to refuse any service unless they pose a danger to themselves
or others -- which is hard to prove.
The only way [Officer] Peachy could force Mitchell into drug rehabilitation was to
arrest her and hope she was sentenced to rehab -- which courts usually do.
But she could leave rehab any time after starting it.
The mayor's program is tough, and interesting:
Newsom has expanded the leasing of residential hotel rooms in large part
with $14 million a year in savings from his controversial Care Not Cash
program. Begun in May 2004, Care Not Cash slashed welfare checks to the
homeless to $59 a month, from $410 a month....
Another administration initiative has been Homeward Bound, which since
February 2005 has sent 1,445 people back to where they came from at a cost of
$204,889 in bus tickets and money for food. In a speech on Thursday, Newsom
said the number of those who climbed aboard the buses had grown to 1,656.
The third story concedes that, while there's some antecdotal
evidence that things are looking up, the city really has no idea where the $108 million spent on homeless projects is going because there is little accountability or
central data gathering.
Basically, you've got the highlights now--consider this a sort of "we read Pulitzer candidates so you don't have to" service. But if you insist on reading for yourself, the three parts are
here,
here, and
here.
MUTT | November 1, 2006, 7:03pm | #
" There are only a certain number of ways to deal with the scarcity of land on Oahu. You allocate by market or you allocate by fiat. You take the consequences either way. "
Only if your diety is cash. if your 'libertarian" ideal is: he who has the gold, rules"- well, thats how you pose it. If community & history have no value, well then, gold is the determinate. Depends on your perspective....unless you believe "god" backs gold, or whatever. If not, then the determinate becomes negotiable. Yes? No?
I happen to think history & community has value. You cant wiegh it on a scale, that dosnt mean it dosnt exist. To me, those who know the "cost of everything & the value of nothing" rule the roost. Im of the sort that thinks this is a pretty sorry assed situation. But thats just me, clearly.
What to do? I dunno. I just see the day to day gettin run into the ground by the "price of everything" people, who profit, handsomly.
Cash, gold profit -the end all & be all? well, then, everything is just great.
So now we come to three different sectors of LA (& most everywhere else) homeless. First off- the bulldozing of single occupancy hotels in the 70's on, as well noted above, meant a lots of marginal people were turned out so a few marginal people (to me) could profit. They made a buck,and in cities all across the country folks were on the street. Yay, makin a buck. Yay, "market". Now, we demonize those marginal people who cant cough up a grand a month for a one room. Then theres the actual crazies, turned out in wholesale lots during that swine Carters riegn.
Now you coulds say the junkies and the alkies have a choice. The crazies dont. We let the crazies forage in the street. You puff YOUR chest out, Ill pass.
The druggies: the problem aint the drugs, its the cost. Legalize it, & use 1% of the savings for places to get clean. Let them OD. Swap DeSoto hubcaps full of crack for ligations & vasectomies. Offer up beds to detox. Having grown up around junkies, Ill tell ya- most want out, after a while. The alkies? well, Im sure we can figure out something- not "reform" them mind, but give them a roof, a place to dry out- with another 1% of the drug war savings. I know: "Give". the horror.
But I get the impression more than a few here like to "punish" such, so I dont figger on much support.
Winecommonsewer: christ, that stuff gives me heartburn.....whats yr secret??
Paul | November 1, 2006, 7:41pm | #
The Honolulu Advertiser actually DID come out with the take the bulk of Oahu homelessness was skyrocketing rents. But remember- its an island. Seattle isnt.
Nor is anyplace else in the country. Soooo you're saying that Homelessness in Hawaii and only Hawaii is based on lack of affordable housing, but everywhere else...blank out.
Rents havent skyrocketed in Seattle??? If you cant pay your rent you are: A) Forgiven, B)get a NEW Apartment, C)end up outside.
Rents
have skyrocketed in Seattle and have been doing so for well over a decade. In your original message you imply a simple dichotomy of expensive housing: pay rent/become homeless.
What most people do, MUTT is they choose B, or several other options not listed, which may apply to their individual circumstance.
Some people might d) get help from wealthier family members. e) Be forced to seek better employment. f) Seek additional employment, part time etc. including but not limited to overtime at current employment to cover gaps of affordability. g) Make reductions in existing expenses.
What I've always found interested is that 'advocates' for the homeless are often times the most ignorant as to the causes and circumstances contributing to homelessness, which often contribute to further homelessness at worst, and at least do nothing to alleviate the problem.
The complexities of homelessness require a multifaceted approach- often times tailoring that approach to each individual.
Factors that often add to the difficulty when trying to get help to the homeless. Note, some or all of these exist simultaneously in each individual:
Drug addiction/polysubstance abuse
Mental illness.
Antisocial behavior.
Poor childhood experiences leading to:
Horrendous life choices including:
Poor choice in partners leading to abuse
Multiple (and continued) pregnancies with no ability to care for additional family members.
Reduced cognitive ability- caused by:
Drug addiction/polysubstance abuse
Mental illness
Injury
Then there are the myriad unexplainable issues where individuals have... and I know this is hard to get your mind around... choose to live on the streets. It's a lifestyle that they have outright chosen.
Writing it off as an 'affordable housing' problem is exactly the attitude that simply puts blinders on and merely expands municipal budgets without actually addressing the problems.
thoreau | November 1, 2006, 10:32pm | #
I want to know more about the $100k/year that was spent when somebody was on the street, and the $21k/year that is spent now that the person is in a program. The first number sounds like a bit of creative accounting, but I admit that I haven't RTFA. The second number is more plausible, although I wonder if some costs were neglected there with more creative accounting.
Also, having volunteered in a private shelter, I can tell you that there are a few different kinds of homeless people:
1) The sad, genuinely screwed-up cases who have mental health and/or substance abuse problems. What they need is beyond the capabilities of the shelter where I volunteered. How best to deliver it? That's a hard question.
2) Some people who are genuinely down on their luck, and willing to work hard to get their lives back on track. They are truly a pleasure to work with.
3) People who are some mix of lazy, clueless, eccentric (in the bad way), and, well, demanding of others (in many cases). Many of them are not, strictly speaking, homeless, since before living in a shelter they were living in some sort of complicated situation that would take forever to explain and still make no sense. Sometimes they left that situation because of genuine safety concerns, other times because somebody got fed up with them, sometimes they left because they thought the shelter was a better place to get it together (and, to be honest, a good caseworker might be better than a dysfunctional relative), and sometimes, well, who knows?
This category is a mixed bag. Some can be helped, others not so much. Some are actually quite nice and it's just sad that they're so clueless. Some are impossible to deal with personality-wise, but they have enough survival instinct that they'll do the minimum and get by. Really, these cases can't be neatly categorized.
One problem is that there isn't a hard and fast line between categories. There are people who are mostly in category 3 yet also in another category, so they do deserve sympathy and help (don't interpret "deserve" as a call for public sector solutions). So you try your best. Also, while category 3 isn't always a very sympathetic bunch, some of them can do a decent job of passing for category 1, which means that assistance for category 1 inevitably creates some perverse incentives that exacerbate problems in category 3.
There are no easy solutions here.
