Monday, November 28, 2022

California homeless math

From WSJ 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom ....recently put a temporary freeze on $1 billion of state grants for city and county homelessness programs....the measures would have reduced homelessness statewide by 2% between 2020 and 2024

[California has] more than 116,000 residents sleeping on the street on any given night.

California has dedicated some $15 billion toward the issue since the start of the pandemic.

$15 billion / 116,000 =  $129,310.34

2% x 116,000 = 2,320. $1 billion / 2,320 = $431,034.48

30 comments:

  1. Just another example of California dreaming!

    ReplyDelete
  2. According to the article, the 15 billion is only state funds. Doesn't even count funds from counties or cities. So, that $129k per capita is even higher

    ReplyDelete
  3. Give away money, and they will come.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The root of the problem seems to be a mischaracterization of what it means to be homeless, and its causes. In broad terms, the homeless are comprised by those with some combination of mental illness, drug addiction, and alcoholism. The other group is those who find themselves in poverty and homeless as a result of what can be described as bad-luck. This group are in and out homelessness as they are able to get back to work, they want to work, they don't want to be poor.

    Buying houses for the first group is useless. Those in the unlucky group, need housing for a short period of time until they are back on their feet.

    Despite claims of knowledge regarding the first group, no one actually knows why people become addicted to drugs or alcohol.
    .
    We can at least partially blame Tomas Szasz for claiming that the mentally ill are not ill, but merely labeled at being mentally ill. His book, "The Manufacture of Madness" gave the political class and excuse to stop institutionalization the psychotic and other mentally ill, and to destroy most of the institutions that those people could be protected and treated.

    The claims of the psychologist, sociologists, and psychiatrists that they know something about these things are wildly overstated.

    We need to stop believing that these people know the truth, and start seeking it in its fullness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Better homeless in LA than sleepless in Seattle. Can I just take the cash, please?

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is the smart path for cities to truly deal with homelessness?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Encampments in disused industrial areas. Housing in trailers/tiny houses. Communal kitchens. Substance abuse & mental health services provided on site. Sleeping rough elsewhere in the city not tolerated. Pan handling not tolerated. Nothing of the sort will ever happen.

      Delete
  7. Are there any credible studies into root causes of homelessness/vagrancy? How many of the 116,000 are drug addicts, mentally ill, illegal aliens, lazy/down on their luck, etc. Does any of the funding address remedying the core problems or just geared to making them more comfortable in their misery?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Democrats SKIM rescue money....but make sure the inner cities never get better. That is why they push crime, drugs, failed education, etc

    ReplyDelete
  9. I assume this is backed by Owners of real estate and low end hotels and apartments? 20% will be kicked back directly to democrats providing drugs, illegal invaders, crime, etc to MAKE people homeless?

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is no math in California politics. Unless the state is possibly facing a deficit. In that case, some math may be used (but as a temporary measure only).

    ReplyDelete
  11. William Easterly's White Man's Burden documents and explains how aid is usually counter productive. See https://bit.ly/3OIRyTV

    "The most melancholy of human reflections, perhaps, is that on the whole, it is a question whether the benevolence of mankind does more good or harm."
    ~ Walter Bagehot

    Redistribution is better understood as a signaling and power game among the those in charge of distributing aid then as a policy evolved due to its efficiency. Like recycling.

    ReplyDelete
  12. $129,310 ÷ 2.5 yrs. = $51,724 per homeless unit per year. $51,724 ÷ 5% per year = $ 1,034,480 capital value per homeless unit. $1,034,480 × 116,000 homeless units = $119,999,680,000 capital value. Ergo, $120 billion capital value. $431,034.48, compared to $1,034,480 looks like it might be good value if it addresses the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There's a lot of mobile homeless people. Expect a migration.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A slightly deeper dive would attempt to follow the money: How much of that $15 billion went to administrators’ salaries, perks and offices and how much was spent to actually help the homeless?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The interesting analysis would be how much of the budget actually flows to the 116K vs how much supports the (IMO) "welfare jobs" in the gov't.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Normally I would note that $431,034 is enough to buy each of them their own house... but in California that might not be enough for a down payment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Curious how much of the six billions dollars wound up in the pockets of government officials or their families.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most government money spent ends up in wealthy hands. Medicare doesn't go to the poor or elderly, it goes to doctors and healthcare provider companies. Usually, doctors are on the wealthier side of the table, and corporations are disproportionately owned by people with wealth.

      Taxing the rich cannot redistribute wealth to a greater extent than government spending.

      Delete
  18. Half million would seem to pay the rent - even in California but if the 99% is greasing palms - maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'd like to know how that money was and is expected to be spent. I don't live in California anymore but visit every year and have only seen more homelessness and "worse" homelessness, if that makes sense. That's about 15 years of average rent per person.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes, hard lefty socialism is wastrelism -- reducing homelessness by one person for four years at a cost of over $400,000 is palpably silly. But such programs buy the votes of social workers and, airheaded do-gooders and grifters and unions just like the crazy train, zero carbon and the green new deal, tyrannical pointless lockdowns and so forth forever and everywhere .
    What’s not to like about the program as an exemplar of virtue signaling wastrelism; one only wonders why the governor cut it back?

    PBS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "one only wonders why the governor cut it back"

      I expect only because the state is now staring at possible budget deficit.

      Delete
  21. With $129,310.34 per homeless, each one could afford a descent comfortable apartment for 3 years and still have good amount of cash in hand. Was this six billion dollar project transparent and auditable? Biden's new IRS hires should begin with this project.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wow, from $129k to $430k in two years. Now that's runaway inflation.
    Of course, new housing has been costing above $600k in LA. I hope folks are sharing.
    And none of this addresses the real problems of mental illness and addiction.

    ReplyDelete
  23. $129K is a lot of nights at a good hotel

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hmmm, $1 billion would reduce homelessness 2% ??? So $1/2 billion per 1% reduction in homelessness?? Already $15 billion has been spent since the pandemic began. So we should expect that homelessness has already been reduced by 30%. But is that what the data shows??? Somehow I highly doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. San Francisco budgeted $1.1 billion for 2021-22, coming to $57k per homeless person for just one year (http://bit.ly/3ucK5D5). Just handing out the money lump-sum to the homeless might have a higher success rate - at least some of them might be able to pull themselves out of their predicament. It would be interested therefore to see a breakdown of how these huge sums get spent -- it seems highly likely they just fuel a cottage industry of vested interests that depend on the problem not getting solved. Some greater transparency would be useful.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Is this money really meant to go to solving homeless problem? Could this be money laundering of some sort?

    ReplyDelete
  27. The point is to create jobs. Solving problems leaves people without work to do.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome. Keep it short, polite, and on topic.

Thanks to a few abusers I am now moderating comments. I welcome thoughtful disagreement. I will block comments with insulting or abusive language. I'm also blocking totally inane comments. Try to make some sense. I am much more likely to allow critical comments if you have the honesty and courage to use your real name.