California Today: Democrats Fault Governor on Homelessness Crisis

The premise is delusional. Walk around Civic Center in San Francisco, those orange caps under your feet aren't a symptom of poverty or high rents.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-homelessness-impact-on-o... and read the comments as well

Here in San Diego we have a homeless crisis. A large percentage of these people are mentally ill and incapable of independent living. I know because my office is in the East Village of San Diego and I see these people all the time. People think it is an urban legend that states are bussing their mentally ill people to California. It's real. Nevada was recently sued for doing so. https://thinkprogress.org/nevada-gets-sued-for-dumping-homeless-patients... Many of the other homeless are addicts, which has been mentioned elsewhere in these comments.

In San Francisco's case the blame lies solely on the late mayor Ed Lee. He was a staunch progressive looking out for the average middle class and poor person, that was before he became mayor. Afterwards he shifted 180 degrees and threw his supoort to the tech industry, real estate developers and landlords. I suspect lots of cash exchanged hands, it is only my opinion but what other reason can be given for such a back-stabbing shift in policy and philosophy? Now San Fran is unhihabitable for the poor and middle class. Protections for renters are practically non-existent. This our country in a nutshell; past , present and future. Corruptablity of politicans no matter what political banner they fly under.

Re: Jerry Brown and poverty and the housing crisis. There must be a news blackout across the country on news form California. Brown is lauded for guiding California through the fiscal crisis of several years ago, but what has been ignored is that he did it on the backs of the poor, elderly and children, with savage cuts to education, health care and programs for the elderly. There were other options, such as an extraction tax - California with all of its resources is the only state which doesn't have such a tax. Still, the man is considered a progressive icon for some reason. Anyone familiar with the state's housing crisis knows that it is not something we can build our way out of. Developers rule the political process in Sacramento, LA and San Francisco (they even passed a law, which Brown supported, making new rent control laws illegal). The politicians decree with much fanfare that a few affordable units should be included in new construction - the result is about as effective as applying a band-aid to severed limb. Brown has done next to nothing regarding the housing crisis. The provisions for affordable units in that (again, much lauded) "package of bills" expire after a few years and are then sold or rented at market rates.

Easy everybody... Jerry Brown will raise taxes in a New York second if everyone chimes in about the homeless!

The housing crisis is partially a result of a conflict of interest between local zoning boards and renters. Expensive houses generate tax revenue; inexpensive houses generate expenses. Zoning boards are driven by the fiscal needs of the local government; they choose income over expenses every chance they get. Until we commit to building enough housing so that excess supply holds down prices, we will have surplus people (aka homeless people). There is no substitute for enough.

The increase in homelessness is due to many factors: 1) The increase in population. Since the 1980’s in the Sacramento Valley where I live. And as far as I can read. There has been an increase in immigration. 20.000 Romanians. 60.000 Russian/Ukranians. 2.000 Afghans. Mexicans increase from 1990 to 2014-- 115,000. And other immigration from other US States and other countries. 2) The housing new construction has not kept up with the increase in population. Which translates an increase in demand and no increase in supply = raise in rental costs. See next post for continuation.

It's rich of Garcetti to complain that Brown is at fault in the homeless crisis, when it's Garcetti who opposes every single attempt to build more housing in Los Angeles, including Sen. Weiner's recent bill which would have added tens of thousands of new units throughout the state. You cannot address homelessness without building more housing. Period.

Starting in 2014 in Sac the rental prices have gone up almost double in 1-2 years due to the S F contagion. Landlords can raise the raise as much as they wish as long as they give 2 months notice My rental unit went up 70% in 2 ½ years. I know of 4 seniors that had to move in with relatives. You also see seniors roaming the streets at night looking for a place to sleep. I have asked my friends in Germany and Spain about the rental increases. In Germany it is illegal this practice. In Spain the rents can be raised the percentage of the Cost of Living increase. In these societies there is civic cohesion - no way comparable to the US. I volunteer in soup kitchens. Through my work I see that minimum wagers homeless who go to shelters at night. I have friends who are rental owers (small rental owners). I know how much their rental income was in 2008 or about. Now it is almost double due to rental increases in the area. Their costs have NOT GONE UP – their income has double!!!!!!!! I also have happened to read a book on rental investments- I will not ever forget that the author was explaining how smart it is to invest in property by saying that – PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS NEED A PLACE TO SLEEP. In Spain-18th C. After the spoils of the colonies started to dwindle – the wealth owners turned to land speculation – the main investment at the time. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF!!!!! We will see where it leads!!!

I've been a Democrat all my voting life. In the last ten years I find that many in the Democratic Party go out of their way to criticize party members. Many believed the lies from the GOP and Russia and started putting down Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, etc. and look who won the Presidency. The GOP members generally support their party members. This is called strength. Jerry Brown has been a terrific Governor - the homeless problem is a huge problem. I believe he has done his best, I'm not sure there is an answer to the homeless situation.

To the New York Times editor – My heartfelt thanks for publishing this series on homelessness. I live in the Sacramento Valley. And I have lived here for over 35 years. The rental prices were relatively stable for quite a number of years. In the 1990’s my rent did not go up in 4 years, for example. And if there was a raise it was in the tenor of 10%. In the last 2, however, due to the San Francisco effect---workers from San Francisco commuting to Sacramento because they cannot afford to rent in San Francisco—to clarify in the Tenderloin – which is a homeless-drug affected area-for those readers who do not know – a rental room can be $1500 monthly; apartments average $2000+ for one room; and $3,000 up the newer apts). Next post continues

I think parts of the media are intent on encouraging strife within the Democratic Party, rendering it even more dysfunctional than it already is, because the Trump Presidency is certainly selling WAY more newspapers and commercial time than a Hillary Clinton administration would have done. Let's face it, what makes for better stories and the sense that simply covering the White House is hard-hitting journalism: a well-run, peaceful country or a nation sliding into apocalypse? As a former newspaper reporter, I know the answer to that question.

Homelessness if often a decision on the part of the individual to spend their money on drugs and have a low cost of living. There's not much politicians can do about that. However, if there were several free treatment centers (free from the utter corruption of the for-profit sector), then maybe the culture could change where the homeless felt cared for, and are perhaps more included to participate in recovery programs.

LA Mayor Garcetti talked voters into approving more money for the homeless and voters thought he would actually do something with the money. So what's he doing besides asking for more funds from the state? With our warm weather we get lots of drug addicts, mentally ill and others that other states don't want to take care of. I'd be interested in how many LA homeless are actually from other states. And the majority I see are are white, not immigrants.

I think a big part of the problem is simply that Southern Cal is the best location to live if you are homeless. Where else can you live in a tent year round without freezing, broiling or getting blown away by hurricanes? You don't even have to worry about the roof falling on your head during an earthquake if you don't have a roof.

I am certain homelessness is due to a number of socio-economic issues which exist in virtually every state in the union. That said, if the concentration of homeless along the West Coast is in excess of what it is elsewhere I strongly suspect it has more to do with mild weather than illegal immigration.

Be aware that in California, "affordable housing" means taxpayer-subsidized housing for the poor that is. It does not mean housing affordable by most Californians. There's no push by politicians for that. And I do take issue with tew, below, on this. It's not because of laws that hold back the housing industry's great desire to build such housing. It's because they make more money building housing only for millionaires (simply do the math on what income is needed to buy the housing currently produced), and local government, looking for some great tax windfall from attracting the rich, go along. They certainly don't make them do anything different! I'm with you on poverty, though, tew. Years ago, people could move to California with a reasonable assurance of finding a job that paid something. This hasn't been true for decades, but people do keep coming, from other states and other countries. California officials fully support them in their right to steal bread and live under bridges.

I think Mr. Westrup's comments on housing supply are well-taken, as the housing crisis is a major source of homelessness, which has gone up in my city (Sacramento) as rents of gone up by double digit percentages. But the work toward needed long-term solutions like improved housing supply needs to be paired also with needed short-term solutions like basic community services that cities are struggling to take on. In Sacramento, there are major public health and sanitation issues with homelessness. As people have been forced to camp along the American River with no access to restrooms or trash cans, garbage and human waste accumulates along the river. Testing of the water shows very high amounts of e.coli. Camp toilets with a place to dispose of waste or porta-potties plus trash cans with regular trash pickup in places homeless people are would go a long way! One gentleman in my community started taking trashbags and cleaning up the river himself. While out there, he met homeless people who wanted to help! He and volunteers (both those with homes and without) have been working to clean up the trash. People forced to camp don't want to live with waste either! But they need a place to dispose of it. It does not solve the homelessness issue, but does mitigate some serious problems for the community.

The homeless issue is an issue much bigger than Brown and California, it is an issue for the country. It just may be that capitalism does not work anymore and something needs to be done to redistribute wealth and create jobs that allow people to earn a living wage. Many homeless people have lost jobs then lost their homes or rentals, many have gotten sick and lost everything because there medical bills forced them to sell their homes. Our whole system is in need of repair or we will continue to slide into a third world country.

I find it amazing at how clueless California's Democrats are about the homeless problem. Homelessness is a direct consequence of too much population growth. And Jerry Brown is the one who championed making California a sanctuary state, essentially inviting yet more illegal immigrants to come into the state. A pair of illegal immigrants arrive and within five years or so they have four or five children who are automatically US citizens. At this stage the immigration service may try to send one of the original pair back. There will sometimes be a NY Times story about how America's terrible immigration laws are breaking up families. One of the children with a devastating disease, like cancer. But nobody asks: Doesn't it make more sense to improve Mexico so that nobody wants to leave? Parts of Mexico are breathtakingly beautiful. The climate is pleasant? Some Americans want to retire there. Since 1986, when the last Immigration Reform Bill was signed, the US population has grown by 85 million, an increase of 35%. Such population growth is not sustainable in the long run. The homeless population grows. The welfare safety net is beginning to break. Many go without health care because they have no health care or inadequate health care. We need: 1. An end to illegal immigration. 2. A one-child policy to limit family size in the US. 3. Requirements that Mexico provide family planning for its citizens as a condition for trade. Or the number of homeless will grow.

The homelessness problem predates Jerry Brown by decades. The shortage and out-of-control prices of housing started before the Bush recession and never let up. Dealing with these two interrelated issues will require uncomfortable compromises from all sides: rich communities that keep the middle class out using restrictive zoning, NIMBYs preventing the development of affordable housing and increased density, developers resisting calls to integrate below-market-rate units in new developments, everyone calling for the restoration of postponed salary raises, COLAs, infrastructure repairs, etc. There's no way a sentimental speech can deal with the issue. If that's all Garcetti's got to offer, he's not as serious a leader as I'd hoped - and not as serious as California needs. His speech was very disappointing.

Homelessness is a local issue. Jerry Brown didn't create Atherton, Hillsdale or Los Altos but the fact that these wealthy enclaves fail to do their share of creating affordable housing impacts everyone who is trying to survive $4000 per month rents in places like SF. As much as Libby Schaaf, Jerry's girl in Oakland, has stood up for immigrant rights, she's done nothing to address the homeless issue at her front step. No one should expect people like Brown or Schaaf to do anything that doesn't benefit their developer constituencies.

This is where I think politics for both parties breaks down. No experts. No researchers asked to study why this issue exists. No data/facts to discuss against. No deep contemplation about solutions and secondary effects. What you end up with is ineffective, expensive remedies with unintended consequences.

I appreciate the Democrats taking responsibility for the homeless crisis in California. Yet as a California resident, I'd just like to point out that homelessness is also a huge problem in Republican-dominated areas like Orange County. The only difference is, Republican officials are closing up encampments and kicking the homeless out of their neighborhoods, so naturally they end up in Democratic areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco, where the politicians actually try to help them.

There is only one way to fix homelessness, and it is a two-pronged approach. For the dysfunctional people, get them into treatment. For the working poor (the homeless that you usually don't see), make housing cheaper. There needs to be cheaper alternatives for housing, and that can only happen if you build enough of it. Subsidies and rent control are band aid solutions at best. As long as the nation prospers due to increasing housing prices, homelessness will increase with them. It's a fixed relationship; they are both sides of the same coin.

Foreign investment, unfettered immigration, and work visas have compounded affordability

I recently read that San Francisco pays more for homeless benefits then it does on the entire police force, by a wide margin. Having seen SF's homeless situation grown exponentially, I no longer believe in more services. And that's a local problem. -- mayor, not governor. SF is squandering its wealth by catering to homelessness. Enough is enough.

If you allow local jurisdictions power to deny building applications for low cost housing, for example but not limited to mother-in law-apartments or small apartment buildings in single family areas, then the natural tendency of existing owners prevails. They will almost always want to keep out new housing development near them. Result housing shortages. Allow illegal immigrants to move in from neighboring poor countries to the south, who see even lousy jobs as a life saver, and you get additional upward demand pressure on rents. Further result, downward pressure on wages for low-skilled work. Result, homelessness as folks at the bottom of the economic system are unable to find homes they can afford. The solutions are enforce laws restricting employment to citizens and legal immigrants and restrict local zoning powers so that more lower cost housing can be built. Fail to implement both and the problem remains unsolved.

California is run by power-hungry extreme left, who have long lost their common sense, who have long turned the blind eye toward truth, facts, fairness and justice, who have long projected themselves as moral standard, everyone else who dared to disagree with them are their assault target. Decent elected officials are the last fort line to prevent them from running the state like the failed country Venezuela.

Poverty and homelessness in this California town are a very complicated mashup of drugs, alcohol, mental illness, and housing shortages mixed with high rents. You have to address all of this when you demand services for "poverty". Homeless people here are mostly white and most have come from somewhere else. Immigrants gather in front of the lumber yard looking for work. White homeless men sleep on the doorsteps of the post office or any sidewalk they choose. White homeless women stand at intersections with begging signs. You never see immigrant women or children begging. "Importation of existing poverty"meaning immigrants, is not evident here on the streets.

The homeless crisis CANNOT be viewed as a city issue. It is not possible to solve this massive crisis, which continues to grow worse, and is effecting California much more dramatically than any other state, on a city by city basis. The New York TImes previously reported that a full 25% of all the nation's homeless, about 120,000 people, are located in California. The standard approach to the growing homeless problem has been too idealistic. Cities say, "the solution to homelessness is housing." While this sounds nice, it's not doable to provide permanent, affordable housing for all the people now homeless in California, let alone more to come. Government has taken the wrong approach to the crisis by focusing on permanent housing. Cities, states and the federal government need to partner and focus first on SHELTER, and 2nd on permanent housing. When people have no shelter, and are living in tents and cardboard boxes on the sidewalk, then shelter is what is most urgently needed. Many more homeless shelters need to be built, and they need to be built in areas where there is available land to build them and the costs to build are lower than would be the case in West Coast cities where housing is so expensive. State and federal governments need to help fund large homeless shelters so we can humanely house those suffering on the streets. Some shelters should accept pets, have storage. Some should be available for those with substance abuse or mental illness.

I live in California, and the prices for regular housing are unreal. A house that would go for $350,000 in Buffalo goes for $900,000 in Livermore. Along with other state residents, I also wish the CA politicians would take the steps along with housing contractors and local zoning districts to build more reasonably priced housing to increase the housing supply in order to relieve the crisis of under-supply and over-demand for housing. Even if the state population also puts a pressure on its infrastructure of roads, water demand, pollution, the politicians need to first focus on the housing undersupply.

The cities and the states do have an important role in solving the homeless crises, but the greatest burden must be shouldered by the federal government. We need a national response or what will happen is the city with the most generous support will end up attracting homeless. California does not need to take care of any more poor people moving from Oklahoma. The nation needs a response that will allow people to stay close to home.

How in the world do Democrats own homelessness Gavin? They haven't come from Reagan's policy of letting mentally ill lose in the streets? They haven't come from bizarre "trickle down economics" that leave so many people out of jobs and work? And as taxes are supposedly lowered there is no money for infrastructure or social networks like public housing, medicaid, medicare? Who did any of that? Democrats? And yes California has 1/4 of the country's homeless which is more about the weather than anything else. Seriously Gavin?

I'm from San Francisco, homeless has been a crisis for a long time and I've personally seen the mass increase over a period of just 15 years. I believe California needs to step up on a federal level. Living in New England has confirmed what I've always known, California weather is enjoyed by everyone, including homeless, silly ! Cali is a magnet for folks who have to live on the streets, the weather is safer for these folks. Here in New England, where life and death from weather is real, there isn't a homeless issue like in San Francisco for example. Washington needs to step up and subsidize states, cities, where homeless flock to for safety.

I propose a new term to describe the little "encampments", pop up tent communities on sidewalks & shantytowns in Los Angeles as Garcettivilles. Mr. Garcetti has his fingerprints all over the Homeless crisis in Los Angeles. He was the President of the City Council and then the Mayor.

Most people living on the street appear to be mentally ill and/or substance abusers who resist treatment. A recent clean up of the Santa Ana river bed area took many days. Mountains of trash and hundreds of used hypodermic needles were hauled away. Building more housing will only make our state more of a magnet than it is already.

Under Brown's watch, Sacramento has taken some important steps, if small, steps to alleviate the "housing crisis" in California. For example, they passed bills that severely restrict a municipality's ability to prevent property owners from wisely and safely using a separate structure (on, say, an 8,000 sq.ft. lot in the City of Los Angeles) as another dwelling. Garcetti does happy talk, gets preemptive praise from Michelle Obama on homelessness and asks for more money, but don't do the unglamorous work needed to unleash new supply. When Garcetti asks for "more state assistance" he is saying "raise taxes again so I don't have to do the hard work of governing". Regarding high levels of poverty, the partisanship-caused cognitive dissonance is deafening. You can't pass laws that make housing unaffordable and labor hard to hire while cheerleading maximum illegal immigration into the state by very poor people with limited skills. Poverty in California is largely due to unwise legislation and importation of existing poverty from beyond U.S. borders. (This is not an "anti-immigration" position. It is not "anti-Mexican". It is just a statement of very important facts that, if ignored, lead to even worse policy.) Trump is a convenient side show to deflect attention away from California's self-inflicted pain.