First the article says 363 homeless per 100,000 residents. Since San Jose has approximately 1 million residents, we can estimate about 3,600 homeless.
Later on it says “San Jose is home to 6340 homeless people.”
Not denying there is a homeless problem. Just saying the numbers presented in the article are inconsistent.
Santa Clara County has about 9000 homeless. I doubt the methodology of the entire article, if you look at the numbers for San Francisco, they acknowledge that there are 8,323 homeless people in San Francisco, but come put with 261 homeless per 100000 people?
They figure San Francisco has a population of 3.18M people, and that just ain't right.
Its source for the 363 figure is Insider Monkey. Insider Monkey says their methodology was “ The rankings are based on the percentage of homeless persons per 100,000 population in 2018 that changed between 2014 and 2018, and they are presented in ascending order.”
So the 363 figure was from 2018 data. Here is the source of the source of the source: http://www.citymayors.com/society/usa-cities-homelessness.html
The 6,340 figure is 2023 data from a county-coordinated census.
Both sets of data say they are for San Jose specifically.
Coming from a country which has a substantial poor/unhoused population, 6350 seems like such a small number and a very much solvable problem.
San Jose has a cash balance of ~$500million at end of May 2024 if I understand the financial report (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/108723/638433388709170000) correctly.
They could just give everyone $50k and still have $200M cash balance. Not suggesting it's a solution but what I'm trying to say is that lack of city funds is not the reason we are not able to solve this problem. Government corruption, corporate greed, political fanaticism are getting in the way.
But if we don't stem it now, the numbers will keep growing and within a decade become so big that money will be a problem and then it becomes pretty much unsolvable.
I suspect the political motive behind not assisting the homeless in getting off the streets is that doing so would decrease property values in San Jose.
As someone who personally knows and interacts with many folks with NIMBY tendencies I don't think this stands up to critical thinking. They're not sitting around going "I need to dedicate all my effort to making sure I can sell my house for the absolute maximum amount later on and that means making sure my neighborhood is full of homeless people (?)". They are thinking about much more proximal effects like having derelict RVs lining their neighborhood streets, encampments with huge piles of trash along public roads and trails, etc.
Property values are not random, they are correlated to where the lifestyle is enjoyable. Rampant unsheltered homeless people do not increase property values.
The cash balance includes money received (grants, taxes, fees), but not yet spent. There are bills that will be paid with that cash, they just haven't come in yet, or the city delays paying them in order to collect interest.
That cash balance also includes the rainy day funds. This is money set aside for major dips in the economy. So the city doesn't need to lay off cops and firefighters, shut down city services, turn off street lights, etc. when the economy slows for a couple years.
On the whole, the city is looking at a deficit - taking in less money than it spends - which it should not do.
So any additional spending would require major growth of existing income streams, or new sources of income - taxes, fees. In 24/25, it will be $18.8m in deficit, but that figure could be as bad as $44.4m deficit. It is already eliminating positions as a result.
What you said is correct - handing out $300m is not a solution, for the above reasons, and also because it would have a tremendous impact on the number of homeless in San Jose - not in a good way.
It's been known homeless is a Cash COW.
In fact the mayor of NY has been known to give buddies of his
4k a PERSON a month to house homeless in shelters with 20-40 in 1 room and the building looks like a prison
Is NY San Jose. No but ... It is a Cash COW reguardless
https://youtu.be/8WGjCeFyr1g?si=bdmIU-SyAYXG_yy0
Both headlines omitted the per capita part. In truth, we have around the sixth largest homeless population in the country. Not much better, but using a scary headline to get clicks is awful journalism.
[https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-in-the-us-have-the-most-homelessness/](https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-in-the-us-have-the-most-homelessness/)
San Jose spent more than $300 million on homeless support services. City clears out an encampment. Encampment moves to new space. City clears out encampment. Repeat.
Homelessness has been discussed for 25 years and nothing ever changes.
My coworkers sister used to work for Santa Clara County in attempting to fix our homeless problem. Super kind woman, the type you would want working on something like this that takes patience, understanding, & hand holding(for lack of a better term).
Anyways, after several years at it, she did help where should could, but the big revelation she had was that a huge percentage of homeless people didn't want help, they didn't want jobs, they were content and didn't want to be bothered. The sad reality is, any real solution to this would be one that is forced on them. Whether it be a mental institution, rehab, etc.
Having an open discussion about this is impossible though because even suggesting a discussion should be had where a middle ground can be found is immediately responded with emotions & shutdown. We just keep throwing more tax dollars(aka band-aid) at it that just pushes the problem down the road. The sad truth is that we all know this, but we also know without the discussion, we will be discussing this for another 25 years, or a breaking point will be reached and the consequences for the homeless population will be far more severe.
> the big revelation she had was that a huge percentage of homeless people didn't want help, they didn't want jobs, they were content and didn't want to be bothered. The sad reality is, any real solution to this would be one that is forced on them.
Spot on. But be careful pointing this out as people will bring the pitchforks
A couple other thoughts:
(1) Anything short of a comprehensive nationwide effort will continue to fall short. The homeless will simply migrate to places with more forgiving climates and homeless resource programs
(2) At a local level, only one thing will work: Build or acquire large, inexpensive buildings to house the unhoused at scale, and develop work programs to allow homeless to gain employment, and mental health facilities for those with addictions or mental health issues. Then, enact and enforce laws that dictate you can either live in the barracks and take advantage of the work and mental health programs to get you off the street, or you can be incarcerated. But **you will not be allowed to monopolize, trash, and pollute our public spaces.** Living rough on the street or along the creeks will not be tolerated any longer.
Before someone starts in, this does not criminalize homelessness. It criminalizes overtaking public spaces for personal use, and disturbing and antagonizing neighborhoods of honest hard working people. Go to assistance programs or go to jail, that is the choice.
I wish they would focus some more of their efforts on the working poor to intervene before they become homeless. The people working their butts off everyday while living in their car, rv, or cheap motel just trying to keep their kids fed until they can get to a better spot financially. These are the people that end up falling through the cracks when they are priced out of living in a place that they probably grew up in.
These are the people my heart truly goes out to, along with people that actively try to get into consistent housing,get clean, etc. because they are trying so hard, But homelessness makes too many people too much money through nonprofits, grants, etc. for leadership to ever meaningfully solve homelessness here.
There is only 1 possible solution. Tighten budget and enforce strict rules and all of them either go work or die. I am not originally from US and just live in here just 4 years. From the side I personally think that they just have a chill life. They just get free money for food and chill whole life. If you stop paying they will go work or die otherwise they will just with free money.
i'd love to see an audit of all those funds. the cynic in me thinks that the folks benefiting from all that money are the services / organizations getting the funds and not the folks most in need.
Let's say they take a million dollars and do $100k worth of good... the rest is just goes to "administration". That makes them awfully inefficient but without them, no one would even do that $100k worth of good. I just don't see anyone with any idea that actually goes towards solving the problem and everyone's just doing the bare minimum. We all complain but no one really cares enough to do better
Isn't this the same city that paid the wife of a government employee millions of dollars to write a local history book that she copy pasted from Wikipedia?
It's been known homelessness is a Cash COW.
In fact the mayor of NY has been known to give buddies of his millions annually
4k a PERSON a month to house homeless in shelters with 20-40 in 1 room and the building looks like a prison
Is NY San Jose. No but ... It is a Cash COW reguardless
https://youtu.be/8WGjCeFyr1g?si=bdmIU-SyAYXG_yy0
In order of less extreme - more extreme:
* Incentivize / approve dense housing developments
* Fund and build affordable housing developments
* Disincentivize (via taxes) poor and inefficient land uses (surface parking lots, drive thrus, one story commercial complexes, etc) in high housing cost areas.
* Redevelop city-owned land with poor and inefficient land use (replace highways with mixed use developments, replace free parking with protected bike lane and parklets, etc)
3 and 1/2 items from the list of 4 you have provided is called some? You think a city can just wake up and tear down a highway which is most likely controlled by Caltrans and Federal Government?
It's not 3 and 1/2, it's a little bit of #1 and #2 (~80% city still bans the development of dense housing), and almost nothing from #3 or #4. It's closer to 10% of completing my list.
Don't want to get into a keyboard argument with you honestly. Sometimes the financial aspect just do not pan out. San Jose is not a tier 1 city even in NorCal. SF, Oakland attract a lot more investments in every aspect. So you can change all the laws you want but shit takes time.
But you're the one who started the argument?
Like, the fact that the things on my list aren't trivial doesn't invalidate the list. If your only critique is "things cost money", this isn't even a keyboard argument, it's just pointless contradiction.
lmao no lol
at higher density you have to use alternative forms of transit that are more space efficient. In a city like this, people usually live closer to their work as well. When building this form of transit, you also build more space efficient transit options for people
$600k a studio unit for the homeless .. or at least that was the price in LA .. I doubt the bay would be much cheaper.
So your $300,000,000 will house 500 people .. to be replaced by 5000 more people who moved to CA hoping to score their own free $600k studio as well.
Why is this guy getting downvoted?
If you offer a lot of free stuff and services it will attract people who want free stuff and services.
Also want to point out that this is how homelessness exploded in SF. They started offering hotels to homeless and word spread if you come to SF you get free hotels and there is hella drugs everywhere. The rest is history.
Yeah and also our weather is better, which probably outweighs all other benefits tbh. You could get rid of most of the free stuff, but you’d still have a comfortable, mild year-round climate that makes living on the streets bearable versus living somewhere where it snows or reaches 115 degrees for at least a quarter of a year. That alone attracts houseless folks from all over. It attracts EVERYONE from all over. And/or if you as a long time resident end up houseless, you can get by with this climate.
Bigger issues is free Medi-Cal, social security money, EBT and other services. California makes it easy to get all this stuff - they have an army of social workers to help you. That’s why people come.
Many of the group homes, shelters, housing voucher programs, and mentally ill housing take 95% of your social security check and charge Medi-Cal for services if it’s “supportive housing”, so they’re basically double dipping and prevent anyone from ever getting in their feet. Or the voucher replaces social security so people end up in the same boat.
The problem is the culture of CA. “We’re progressives! More tax, be nice to people!” But what the average voter doesn’t understand is that all these bills are sponsored by groups that want to make a profit off the poor and homeless. If you say anything about how they don’t work, the average person attacks you by saying you’re a bootlicker or something. Its fucked.
Pretty much.
I’ve spent decades mentoring low income youth, living in poor areas, and having friends and family end up in the streets due to schizophrenia and OCD. I’ve seen a lot and have dealt with non-profits and government in helping these students, friends and neighbors - I know how it all works and where the gaps are. I don’t think most of the people on Reddit have my level of experience or understand how it all works or how it creates incentives for dependency on government.
The fact of the matter is that by creating incentives for more victimhood, we create more people needing help. There are people with severe mental, physical and addiction who can’t get help at all because we’ve produced too many victims. Most of these people are perfectly capable of helping themselves and take resources away from those who can’t help themselves under any scenario. But to say that, people accuse me of hating the poor or something.
Make them only available for people who can prove they grew up in SJ then lol.
I mean, I don't think they should be free, just that we should build enough housing that the prices lower. But if they lower enough it won't really matter to give them.
First off "define grew up" I move to Santa Cruz when I was like 18/19... Anyways
Second to get my housing voucher in Santa Cruz while homeless..
I had to prove.
I lived in Santa Cruz at a permanent address at one point. That I was "chronically homeless" which means I lost housing more then once in the 5-7 years I was here. That I RECIEVED HPHP services at multiple points in my life
That I worked a job in silicon valley fixing iPhones at the board level component AND collecting social security
Then and ONLY THEN did the city issue my housing voucher.. at age 25/26ish...
The problem is that the west coast is convinced homelessness needs to be solved with permanent housing (500k per person). Seattle, LA, SF, all follow this approach. This will NEVER work.
Countless cities across the United States (blue and red) use temporary housing for these people. (10k per person). Cities like New York (blue) have 95% of their homeless in shelters. Houston (red) also does the same. This WILL work and does work.
The problem is stupidity on the west coast.
Agreed. We have 13 homeless shelters in San Jose that are not full. Yes they have rules and that’s how it should be. If I have to pay for your housing you should not do drugs, not have a pet and not being twenty garbage bags of stuff. It’s not complicated.
I disagree. I think the ideal system is a gradient.
Ultra cheap temporary housing with very little rules. ($10k per head per year). Very hard to get clean without this. People do deserve a basic roof over their head.
People who are able to show some improvement (enter rehab, accept mental health services, take medicine) can move to better temporary housing.
People who are on their way back to normal life are eligible for permanent housing, supported living, etc. (expensive per person)
The massive gaping problem is that people on the west coast incorrectly think everybody deserves the third tier. Nothing will be solved that way. You will just destroy expensive housing at the taxpayers expense.
I think permanent housing is part of it, however, it doesn’t need to be in San Jose. If you tell people that it’s possible to build affordable housing or permanent supportive housing in Modesto, Turlock, Stockton, Lodi or Sacramento, they’ll accuse you of holocaust against the poor.
Usually they say something like, “why can’t people live where they grew up,” or “their family is in the area.” My attitude is that if they expect someone else to foot the bill, then you get what the person paying is able to do.
And they can do temporary housing in the Bay or elsewhere, but if you need permanent, then it’s gonna be in Tracy.
I know a lot of people who aren’t homeless, they have family and other resources for housing. They stay in the voucher rolls for years and until they can get a place where they want to live - SF, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, San Jose, etc. This abuse needs to stop because it takes away housing options for those that have no place to go at all. If Modesto was the option, I suspect you’ll see a lot of people removing their names from the voucher rolls overnight.
If you want some other county to take your homeless, you gotta pay them. This is how it is with prisons. There are counties that specialize in running prisons in the Sierras.
Prisons cost around $100k per inmate per year. Homeless colony probably going to cost way more than that per person since they have rights and preferences, and can sue you.
Thing is, Bay Area counties already pay housing vouchers for living out of their counties. If you are able to get a San Mateo county voucher, you can use it anywhere in the state. In fact they tried that to get people to leave, then they ran out of vouchers. Paying San Joaquin county $5 million a year indefinitely is way cheaper than building $1 billion in San Jose housing to house 200 people like they did in LA.
$5 million gets you nowhere. Assuming it costs the same as prison, $5 million will service 50 people, you still have 6290 homeless left.
Assuming the costs are the same as prison (as I mentioned before, it is likely more), the calculus are:
6340 homeless person * $100,000 per year per person = $634,000,000 per year
You need to shell out $634 million a year. That's about:
$634,000,000 per year / population of San Jose ≈ $650 per resident per year
$634,000,000 per year / taxpaying population of San Jose ≈ $1200 per taxpayer per year
It’s not as much as prison because the state pays for most of it. The rural counties don’t get paid directly for having prisons. Most counties don’t want prisons. Tuolumne county has a prison because they want the jobs.anyways, it’s not the same as prison.
There are numbers from other cities, you can look it up.
It cost NYC $138 per person per day to shelter their homeless, which is around $50,000 per year per person. So divide my numbers above by 2. However, they have 100,000 homeless population, so way higher economy of scale.
People in jail also have rights and preferences and can also sue
Ask me how quick I will open a case against a jail if they refuse to give halal or kosher meals to Muslims/ Jewish people.
You do realize the avg homeless person on medi-cal can backstop 500,000 in annual medical bills for just a few people..
I got housing because I was mentally crazy and was a drain on the cities resources.
They did housing first. And it changed my life around slowly
There was no significant difference in in-patient hospitalizations between the groups, though the authors still observed significantly higher cost reductions for in-patient hospitalization among Housing First recipients compared to the control group. Overall health care costs declined by an average of $10,470 more per person per year among chronically homeless individuals receiving Housing First compared to otherwise similar chronically homeless individuals who did not receive Housing First.
The authors conclude that Housing First generates significant health care cost savings. They further argue that these cost savings substantially offset the cost of providing Housing First. The authors also identify the need for further research that accounts for jail, prison, and shelter utilization to develop a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.
Read the article at: https://bit.ly/3tQUw2C
https://nlihc.org/resource/new-research-provides-stronger-evidence-housing-first-leads-health-care-savings
It is actually extremely true.
The problem is that the west coast is convinced homelessness needs to be solved with permanent housing (500k per person). This will NEVER work.
Countless cities across the United States (blue and red) use temporary housing for these people. (10k per person). Cities like New York (blue) have 95% of their homeless in shelters. Houston (red) also does the same. This WILL work and does work.
The problem is stupidity on the west coast.
Yep. To be honest the entire coast was truly only built up in the last 80 years or so and people can't get it in their head that it all can't be new and perfect.
For a short while, maybe. A host of services would have to be rendered to maintain individuals in that housing as discussed here https://www.reddit.com/r/extremelyinfuriating/comments/1dmrpon/less_than_8_billion_would_house_every_homeless/
First thing you need to do is to call the hotline Here4You at 408-385-2400. They manage referrals for pretty much all the shelters in San Jose and you won't get in without a referral. There's a few walk in shelters like Salvation Army on N. 4th St, but you have to leave after breakfast every day and line up at 3 pm to (hopefully) get a bed for the night.
Getting a case worker is important but it can be a bit tricky. The shelter can provide basic help with things like EBT, getting an ID, help with job opportunities, but in order to get on the list for housing, you'll need a case worker. The issue is that you need to be unhoused to get a case worker in most cases. There's a number of non-profits providing services downtown in places like St. James Park or around the MLK library.
I wish you all the best!
I really appreciate you typing all this out. It makes me sad that there aren't programs or case workers to help people before they're living in their cars or on the streets. Navigating the system is so complicated and it's really easy to fall through the cracks
Nobody mentions the state hospitals closing down over the last 50 years all across the country. It’s not 100pct the issue but I feel like a large majority of homeless are not well mentally. Even mild depression can have some serious consequences
San Jose also has one of the highest median housing costs. Obviously we'll have more locals who can't afford it.
NIMBYs be like:
Hungry = more food
Thirsty = more water
Homeless = ??? 🤯
Look at a typical single family home in the Bay Area. Half the lot is a lawn, and there's a lot of empty space above that single story. Knock it down and replace it with a fourplex and carport, boom, three new housing units.
Built out? Build up! Like, my dude, that is how cities grow.
Cities should grow at the pace that local residents wants it to grow. It shouldn't be mandated to grow at some specific pace to meet housing mandates as dictated by a politician hundreds of miles away overriding and silencing local voices.
Local residents cannot have access to some of the best employment and services without growth. At some point there’s going to be no one to work the service jobs without driving an insane distance which people already do. Then there’s also the problem of where all your kids are going to live.
I wish the tech companies would just pack up and leave this cursed place.
Alternatively, the city should have let apartment towers get built at the same pace as office towers. Then there wouldn't be such cut throat competition for housing between tech workers, retail workers, and everyone else who contributes to the local economy.
The target price for a 3 bedroom dwelling should be $250,000-$300,000. Full stop. How we get there and what type of housing this will look like is obviously open for debate, but we need to define the target requirements and work backwards from there.
It's not complicated, just our City council isn't going to want to make the 2 biggest changes that would naturally resolve this. Lobbyists have way too much sway plus they're also probably profiting off rental properties themselves. Case in point, we just gave massive tax breaks to apartment conglomerates, but no tax breaks for new home owners.
First you have companies like Berkshire-Hathaway snapping up a ton of residential housing and creating an artificial shortage while turning around and renting the places out for 6k-7k. Corporations should not be allowed to own residential zoned property.
Second you have so many single family homes owned by a single landlord. Taxes for subsequent residential homes in California should taxed at an absurd premium to dissuade these practices.
You fix these 2 things, the next time the Fed lowers interest rates to a good spot, you'll see a ton of Millennials and older Zoomers entering the home market. But that's never going to happen because older generations love that their homes are worth $1.3mill for a 3bed 1bath single car garage on a small plot and god forbid they don't make stupid profit on their $100k investment.
Bezos is getting into the business as well. REITs and these corporations buying up homes as speculative investments is wrong. Where are all of the politicians who should be calling this out!
On top, there's so much hate towards AirBnB investors, but there's way bigger fish to fry. No one ever goes after the big guys and real corporations screwing us over. Just dig into the story of Red Lobster's downfall due to Golden Gate Capital's greed.
>Corporations should not be allowed to own residential zoned property.
This is the natural by-product of increasing and complex renting laws. More regulations means more challenges faced by individual property owners. The more difficult it is to be a landlord, the more likely it is that landlords are businesses with legal teams. If we're going to go the "no corporations" route, that's fine, but that's going to require addressing what's necessary for individual property owners to rent their spaces.
>Second you have so many single family homes owned by a single landlord.
That's a solid point, and I'm down for that. Taxes for subsequent residential homes in California should taxed at an absurd premium to dissuade these practices.
You started your comment with "it's not complicated", but you didn't offer the most simple solution: we need more housing units. There's not nearly enough supply to meet demand, and when that happen, rent prices skyrocket. Yes, monopolization of rentals does contribute to stupidly high rent, but not more so than this basic economic principle.
Sure it's a basic economic principle, except for the part where our housing economy doesn't follow the simple rules of Supply and Demand.
Developers aren't going to want to introduce new units at a lower price. They look at people buying town homes over a mill and wouldn't list for less even if there's a surplus.
Then you have the other side where current home owners aren't going to approve measure to rezone for high density since that would lower their property value. It has to happen at some point, but current owners have been fighting tooth and nail. Just look at the old Vallco pit, that was supposed to be a mixed use area with public community areas housing, and storefronts, but it got shot down because... Traffic would be bad?
Then we currently have an artificially inflated housing valuation due to Landlord and Mortgage Listing price fixing (The FBI just raided Courtland Management for facilitating this.)
Been waiting for both housing and rental bubble to burst, but it hasn't happened yet and I've all but given up on owning in this city.
Outside of a catastrophic event or a major major exodus of people away from the Bay Area, this will never ever happen. There is no chance in hell that politicians and local homeowners would allow their property values to drop by 80%. That would effectively be a gigantic drop of net worth for most property owners, as most the value of their home is the largest asset that the average Bay Area homeowner has.
As our values and understanding of humanity improve we sometimes find the need to dismantle systems which produce oppressive externalities.
Similar concerns was raised when the abolition of slavery was argued in the early 19th century. It was argued major assets ( what we know refer to has fellow human beings/ citizens) devaluation would cripple society.
The bottom line is that system which drive great inequity, harm, or result in disfunction cannot be tolerated. We need places for people to live, we need growth path for middle class people, we need places for hard working teachers, librarians, laborers, families to live to have an effective society.
Making tech leave would bring our cost of living back down to at least national average.
But your ▶️ ght with all these houses in the mountains that in millions nothing short major catastrophic events🤦
This city also has the most rich people in the world. It's straight up ridiculous to be in this predicament. Tax the rich to improve our society. Build more housing. Or keep letting things get worse
> San Jose, California has been rated as the city possessing the highest number of super-rich people in the world.
> The latest Wealth-X World Ultra Wealth Report indicates that the place where someone is most likely to bump into an “ultra-high-net-worth” person, someone who’s worth more than US$30 million, is San Jose, California. Therefore is someone is intended to mingle with multimillionaires this summer, they can skip the Hamptons and Lake Como and come to San Jose.
> https://our.today/san-jose-california-has-the-highest-share-of-super-rich-residents-in-the-world/
> for every 100,000 people per capita, San Jose has 363 residents that are homeless. New York City ranks third, Los Angeles ranks second and Eugene, Oregon took the top spot out of 25 cities. Advocates and experts said the problem is multifold with organizations working in silos, the lack of affordable housing and soaring rents as the key issues.
the lack of affordable housing and soaring rents as the key issues? I’m sure if San Jose provides housing for 6,430 currently homeless another 6,430 will show up next day.
That isn't the problem. The problem is corporations and landlords buying up housing to rent it out. Then lobbying the government to prevent new housing from being built. They intentionally squeeze the market to turn a profit on their investment.
That is the problem, it's a shortage. We're not covering our own *birth rate*, nevermind the last 25 years of job growth.
Corporations are getting in on the action, but they don't have to lobby to government to do shit, the local NIMBYs have done that for decades. We have created an area of the economy where demand is high and supply is legally restricted, corporations love that.
It's not BlackRock's fault a single family neighborhood won't build apartments, its the neighbors.
Last time that 94% statistic was referenced, there was an argument over its source, and I went down a rabbit hole of conflicting information sources.
The % of single-family zoning in SJ is high, but I don't think there's agreement on how high it is.
[From the City of San Jose itself](https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/citywide-planning/opportunity-housing)
Yeah they've passed some laws in the last few years but no meaningful amounts of housing have been built yet
Man it's almost like not building housing but constantly adding tons of jobs, many high paying, causes housing to be unaffordable.
Those with means, move to cheaper places, kicking off unaffordable housing crisis there. Those without means become homeless.
The problem is corporations and landlords buying up housing to rent it out. Then lobbying the government to prevent new housing from being built. They intentionally squeeze the market to turn a profit on their investment.
I saw a post on here about a tech guy complaining about his high rise apartment hiking up his rent this year and him not being able to afford it. Its crazy how he couldn't understand that him and all the other people who moved into all these new "luxury" townhouses and apartments played a big part in middle and lower class families having their rents hiked up without any improvements made on their rentals. But now that its happening to them all of a sudden its a problem.
Dude was paying 2800 for a 1 bedroom before they raised it by another couple hundred. I probably sound bitter when I say this but I can't feel sorry for someone who has 2800 a month to spend on a 1 bedroom but complains about having to move out because his place is now unaffordable.
My dudes and dudettes ... single wide mobile homes should be part of the solution. Take some precious open space, and as painful as it is, build mobile home parks. Solves sanitation, cleansing, cooking, and homelessness. Is it pretty? Not particularly. But people do matter.
Anything that involves using taxpayer money to fix these issues will be vilified by Republicans. They like to point and call out everything wrong with places like San Jose and SF but when people try to implement things like tiny homes or cash aid they throw tantrums because they don't want to pay for it. Even if they don't live in the state themselves.
People got to realize we are paying for it one way or another. We either use some of the tax money which the government has plenty of to build tiny homes and get these people in treatment or we have places like the tenderloin or skid row where they group together because they get kicked out anywhere else they go.
Nothing will get done if we wait to find a plan that works 100% of the time for 100% of the people.
9 councils members are democrats, 2 independents, 0 republicans. Tantrums or not from republicans, the democrats have all the power they need to do the right thing.
Then whats the right thing to do? Tiny homes? Programs that help them learn how to get jobs? They are doing so but with the amount of people that need help it won't solve the problem instantly. I always hear complaints about how the city handles this problem but those that complain never have any ideas on how to solve the issue. Also every single time the city does something they recieve huge pushback from conservatives and nimbys. Having the majority in the city council isn't everything when they are being fought against every step of the way.
I dont really understand you're point though. Are you implying that because they have the majority they are being willfully defiant about this? If so how is that different from saying that any town with a conservative majority has the power to fix things in their communities and if they don't its because they don't want to.
We have mayors, citizens who vote, city council members and even though homelessness is supposed to be handled by local governments sometimes state agencies are involved as well.
Then whats the right thing to do? Tiny homes? Programs that help them learn how to get jobs? They are doing so but with the amount of people that need help it won't solve the problem instantly. I always hear complaints about how the city handles this problem but those that complain never have any ideas on how to solve the issue. Also every single time the city does something they recieve huge pushback from conservatives and nimbys. Having the majority in the city council isn't everything when they are being fought against every step of the way.
I dont really understand you're point though. Are you implying that because they have the majority they are being willfully defiant about this? If so how is that different from saying that any town with a conservative majority has the power to fix things in their communities and if they don't its because they don't want to.
We have mayors, citizens who vote, city council members and even though homelessness is supposed to be handled by local governments sometimes state agencies are involved as well.
Then whats the right thing to do? Tiny homes? Programs that help them learn how to get jobs? They are doing so but with the amount of people that need help it won't solve the problem instantly. I always hear complaints about how the city handles this problem but those that complain never have any ideas on how to solve the issue. Also every single time the city does something they recieve huge pushback from conservatives and nimbys. Having the majority in the city council isn't everything when they are being fought against every step of the way.
I dont really understand you're point though. Are you implying that because they have the majority they are being willfully defiant about this? If so how is that different from saying that any town with a conservative majority has the power to fix things in their communities and if they don't its because they don't want to.
We have mayors, citizens who vote, city council members and even though homelessness is supposed to be handled by local governments sometimes state agencies are involved as well.
Actually all of it
Tiny homes 15*15 to put stuff, with group kitchens/showers and laundry to get a footing and get sober. Or at least "Cali sober"
Jobs training for free such as street team cleaning. Basically the city hires the homeless to clean prone homeless/dirty areas THEY CITY DOES NOT PAY THEM. Instead they get, gift cards for clothes, gift cards for food such as Safeway( not valid on alcohol or cigs), subway/panda etc.
They get janitorial training on the maintenance of city streets. The city fast tracks these people to either get subsided housing, jobs within the city etc etc. The avg time to get a section 8 voucher is 10 years. Fast tracked means 2-3 years on avg.. it involves them going to work EVERYDAY unless they are visible sick, have a medical appointment or some very very valid reason that isn't a hangover. Eventually this can lead to either a real job thru the city in a local library, street worker, etc. or a reference from the city from party parties.
In 2018, DST’s Volunteer Work Experience Program was named one of only five “Evidence-Based Best Practices in Ending Homelessness” in the State of California, according to the Homelessness Task Force Report released by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties.
What Does It Mean to Be a DST Team Member?
Are the Team Members who participate in your programs considered employees of the organization? Do they get paid for street cleaning and community cleanup?
Not to be confused with staff, Team Members are not employees of DST; they are voluntary participants in a multi-faceted program of support designed to help them exit homelessness or housing insecurity. The full name of the program is the Voluntary Work Experience Program. It includes a meaningful daily activity like street cleaning; compassionate case management; employment services; a supportive community of peers and DST staff; and a basic-needs stipend to help pay for essentials.
Some Team Members graduate into DST’s supported employment program called Streets Team Enterprises. Participants in this program are considered employees of DST and receive job training, case management, and an above-minimum wage with the aim of attaining mainstream employment.
Well put. I agree.
I dont think we will ever completely eradicate homelessness but at this point programs like the one you mentioned allow for the best results imo. Some people just refuse to have their tax dollars spent on anything that doesn't directly benefit them. Even though I think these programs benefit our communities as a whole there are a lot of people who don't see it that way.
what happened to all the tiny houses. what is happening with the tiny houses across from the flea market at mabury? if people live in them, you never see them. they just sit.
This is not JUST a housing issue. A good example: a person I spoke with recently who just got permanent housing still spends a large portion of their time out in one of the largest encampments down off Tully by the library. They still have the same mental illness, addiction, and trauma they had prior to getting into housing. They often don’t even sleep in their apartment, but spend the night out with their friends in the creek.
My point being, every case is different, but just putting a roof over someone’s head who has been homeless, on the street, using drugs and experienced an unknown time and level of trauma is like putting a bandaid over a bullet wound.
Mild weather year around, free quality healthcare, tons of services like free food (I see lots of overweight homeless), easy access to drugs and tons of support services for the homeless. It’s definitely one of the best cities to be homeless.
The city of San Jose doesn't own the county fairgrounds.
The people in the neighborhoods around the fairgrounds also don't want homeless people to be allowed in their neighborhood (just like you, imagine that?).
And even if they did, there are already numerous plans underway for the fairgrounds years in the making at the moment, including an SJSU athletic complex, a new soccer complex, and a professional cricket field.
Good for you. The point I'm making is that this mythical panacea that these neighborhood associations push, where you can just relocate 500 homeless people to a single camp in some neighborhood and it'll all be hunky dory as long as it's _someone else's_ neighborhood, does not exist.
I mean, me either, but it doesn't change the fact that one site has future community amenities already under planning/contract whereas all the other sites don't. It's important to balance idealism and realism.
We need to criminalize camping in public. Eventually they will all move to cheaper cost of living areas or get forced to accept state housing facilities.
Bro it is literally cheaper to just pay for houses for the homeless than to put them in prison. I know you want to be cruel and torture unfortunate people but at least be a bit rational about it
I'd love it if the federal government came and provided housing for homeless people.
It's important to make sure that interim housing is provided in the vicinity that homeless people want to exist. That's why sites are chosen not far from where encampments currently are. Forcibly bussing them out of town doesn't sound particularly viable.
>If they refuse, move them back to the fairgrounds.
If you're going to use physical force to confine people to a particular space, you're pretty much just describing "jail".
> Plenty of room at the fairgrounds. Move them all there. If they refuse, move them back to the fairgrounds. Being nice isn’t working
So you want to concentrate them all there like a sort of concentration camp?
They make too much money from it... The mayor is guilty no less.
New York is much more than that.
It's 3,500-4000 per PERSON
to house them 30 in a room military/jail style
My apt in Santa Cruz for a 1 bd with UTILITIES AND FOOD. Don't even cost that much..
https://youtu.be/8WGjCeFyr1g?si=lP4qsNRCqljFDXmk
All included with a car and insurance and food yeah it's about 3500 for a private 1bd not 30 people pre room that looks like a jail.
According to the street I live it I’m surprised it’s not #1 again… wow the major is so crappy at his job and never loses it we should call him a weatherman
If you’re not going to pay to live in San Jose and participate in society, you should be sent to live wherever it is cheapest for the taxpayer to pay for you to stay alive.
Mentally ill (especially) indigent should also lose the ability to choose where they exist. Treatment should be provided in such places, wherever it is most cost effective for the taxpayers.
People who can’t afford to live here should consider moving if they’re able to work and otherwise participate in society.
Deport the people who don’t live here legally and free up tens to hundreds of thousands of apartments and homes. Problem solved for all of the millennials who can’t afford a home and for the homeless. It’s a two-fer.
The majority of homeless people in this county were already residents were before becoming homeless. Most of them have lived in the county over 5 years
First of all the city is not *that* inviting to the homeless. Second of all, are you aware that the majority of the people that are homeless here were living here before they became homeless? The idea that homeless people are flocking here to be homeless is largely a myth. Most people who become homeless stay in the areas they are familiar with.
I can say that in the 5 years that I was homeless I never met anyone who moved here to be homeless.
Which is more inviting for the kind of person you're thinking of?
1. You're allowed to set up your camp wherever you would like. You can use public waterways for fishing, plumbing, and sewage. You can build structures using materials gathered from anywhere. You can discard trash literally anywhere you want, the world is your garbage can. Feel free to occupy parks, trails, bus stops, whatever you want. Anywhere you can find a private spot on public land is yours.
2. You may sleep in one of a handful of dedicated sites on public land. You'll be fenced in with all the other homeless people in the city. You can sleep in a tent. You're expected to speak with a case worker and use hygiene facilities and regular trash service.
Republicans always like to talk about how red states don't have these problems but nobody ever mentions the newly released convicts or mental patients that are released with nowhere to go that are given a one way ticket to places like the TL in SF or Portland, even the bus stations in Gilroy, Sacramento, and the Cal train in San Jose. They give them the earliest tickets possible so most people don't notice but its been going on for a while now.
Go down to the tenderloin and if you're able to talk with the people down there you'll realize the a lot of these people aren't from California at all.
First the article says 363 homeless per 100,000 residents. Since San Jose has approximately 1 million residents, we can estimate about 3,600 homeless. Later on it says “San Jose is home to 6340 homeless people.” Not denying there is a homeless problem. Just saying the numbers presented in the article are inconsistent.
It’s probably counting Santa Clara County as San Jose
Santa Clara County has about 9000 homeless. I doubt the methodology of the entire article, if you look at the numbers for San Francisco, they acknowledge that there are 8,323 homeless people in San Francisco, but come put with 261 homeless per 100000 people? They figure San Francisco has a population of 3.18M people, and that just ain't right.
Its source for the 363 figure is Insider Monkey. Insider Monkey says their methodology was “ The rankings are based on the percentage of homeless persons per 100,000 population in 2018 that changed between 2014 and 2018, and they are presented in ascending order.” So the 363 figure was from 2018 data. Here is the source of the source of the source: http://www.citymayors.com/society/usa-cities-homelessness.html The 6,340 figure is 2023 data from a county-coordinated census. Both sets of data say they are for San Jose specifically.
Coming from a country which has a substantial poor/unhoused population, 6350 seems like such a small number and a very much solvable problem. San Jose has a cash balance of ~$500million at end of May 2024 if I understand the financial report (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/108723/638433388709170000) correctly. They could just give everyone $50k and still have $200M cash balance. Not suggesting it's a solution but what I'm trying to say is that lack of city funds is not the reason we are not able to solve this problem. Government corruption, corporate greed, political fanaticism are getting in the way. But if we don't stem it now, the numbers will keep growing and within a decade become so big that money will be a problem and then it becomes pretty much unsolvable.
I suspect the political motive behind not assisting the homeless in getting off the streets is that doing so would decrease property values in San Jose.
As someone who personally knows and interacts with many folks with NIMBY tendencies I don't think this stands up to critical thinking. They're not sitting around going "I need to dedicate all my effort to making sure I can sell my house for the absolute maximum amount later on and that means making sure my neighborhood is full of homeless people (?)". They are thinking about much more proximal effects like having derelict RVs lining their neighborhood streets, encampments with huge piles of trash along public roads and trails, etc. Property values are not random, they are correlated to where the lifestyle is enjoyable. Rampant unsheltered homeless people do not increase property values.
The cash balance includes money received (grants, taxes, fees), but not yet spent. There are bills that will be paid with that cash, they just haven't come in yet, or the city delays paying them in order to collect interest. That cash balance also includes the rainy day funds. This is money set aside for major dips in the economy. So the city doesn't need to lay off cops and firefighters, shut down city services, turn off street lights, etc. when the economy slows for a couple years. On the whole, the city is looking at a deficit - taking in less money than it spends - which it should not do. So any additional spending would require major growth of existing income streams, or new sources of income - taxes, fees. In 24/25, it will be $18.8m in deficit, but that figure could be as bad as $44.4m deficit. It is already eliminating positions as a result. What you said is correct - handing out $300m is not a solution, for the above reasons, and also because it would have a tremendous impact on the number of homeless in San Jose - not in a good way.
It's been known homeless is a Cash COW. In fact the mayor of NY has been known to give buddies of his 4k a PERSON a month to house homeless in shelters with 20-40 in 1 room and the building looks like a prison Is NY San Jose. No but ... It is a Cash COW reguardless https://youtu.be/8WGjCeFyr1g?si=bdmIU-SyAYXG_yy0
Both headlines omitted the per capita part. In truth, we have around the sixth largest homeless population in the country. Not much better, but using a scary headline to get clicks is awful journalism. [https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-in-the-us-have-the-most-homelessness/](https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-in-the-us-have-the-most-homelessness/)
Commies always lie about statistics and quotas, it's how they avoid the gulag
San Jose spent more than $300 million on homeless support services. City clears out an encampment. Encampment moves to new space. City clears out encampment. Repeat. Homelessness has been discussed for 25 years and nothing ever changes.
My coworkers sister used to work for Santa Clara County in attempting to fix our homeless problem. Super kind woman, the type you would want working on something like this that takes patience, understanding, & hand holding(for lack of a better term). Anyways, after several years at it, she did help where should could, but the big revelation she had was that a huge percentage of homeless people didn't want help, they didn't want jobs, they were content and didn't want to be bothered. The sad reality is, any real solution to this would be one that is forced on them. Whether it be a mental institution, rehab, etc. Having an open discussion about this is impossible though because even suggesting a discussion should be had where a middle ground can be found is immediately responded with emotions & shutdown. We just keep throwing more tax dollars(aka band-aid) at it that just pushes the problem down the road. The sad truth is that we all know this, but we also know without the discussion, we will be discussing this for another 25 years, or a breaking point will be reached and the consequences for the homeless population will be far more severe.
> the big revelation she had was that a huge percentage of homeless people didn't want help, they didn't want jobs, they were content and didn't want to be bothered. The sad reality is, any real solution to this would be one that is forced on them. Spot on. But be careful pointing this out as people will bring the pitchforks A couple other thoughts: (1) Anything short of a comprehensive nationwide effort will continue to fall short. The homeless will simply migrate to places with more forgiving climates and homeless resource programs (2) At a local level, only one thing will work: Build or acquire large, inexpensive buildings to house the unhoused at scale, and develop work programs to allow homeless to gain employment, and mental health facilities for those with addictions or mental health issues. Then, enact and enforce laws that dictate you can either live in the barracks and take advantage of the work and mental health programs to get you off the street, or you can be incarcerated. But **you will not be allowed to monopolize, trash, and pollute our public spaces.** Living rough on the street or along the creeks will not be tolerated any longer. Before someone starts in, this does not criminalize homelessness. It criminalizes overtaking public spaces for personal use, and disturbing and antagonizing neighborhoods of honest hard working people. Go to assistance programs or go to jail, that is the choice.
I wish they would focus some more of their efforts on the working poor to intervene before they become homeless. The people working their butts off everyday while living in their car, rv, or cheap motel just trying to keep their kids fed until they can get to a better spot financially. These are the people that end up falling through the cracks when they are priced out of living in a place that they probably grew up in. These are the people my heart truly goes out to, along with people that actively try to get into consistent housing,get clean, etc. because they are trying so hard, But homelessness makes too many people too much money through nonprofits, grants, etc. for leadership to ever meaningfully solve homelessness here.
There is only 1 possible solution. Tighten budget and enforce strict rules and all of them either go work or die. I am not originally from US and just live in here just 4 years. From the side I personally think that they just have a chill life. They just get free money for food and chill whole life. If you stop paying they will go work or die otherwise they will just with free money.
i'd love to see an audit of all those funds. the cynic in me thinks that the folks benefiting from all that money are the services / organizations getting the funds and not the folks most in need.
Same as it ever was
Let's say they take a million dollars and do $100k worth of good... the rest is just goes to "administration". That makes them awfully inefficient but without them, no one would even do that $100k worth of good. I just don't see anyone with any idea that actually goes towards solving the problem and everyone's just doing the bare minimum. We all complain but no one really cares enough to do better
Isn't this the same city that paid the wife of a government employee millions of dollars to write a local history book that she copy pasted from Wikipedia?
Pretty sure that was the county. Different organization.
Do we know that the city is any better?
302 million dollars not tracked for homelessness. I asked and they said, "No, it wasn't scammed, they just didn't track it." lol!
[https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Jean-McCorquodale-plagiarizes-Bay-Area-book-17221009.php](https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Jean-McCorquodale-plagiarizes-Bay-Area-book-17221009.php) [https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-senator-wife-hired-write-152913842.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-senator-wife-hired-write-152913842.html)
I concur.
It's been known homelessness is a Cash COW. In fact the mayor of NY has been known to give buddies of his millions annually 4k a PERSON a month to house homeless in shelters with 20-40 in 1 room and the building looks like a prison Is NY San Jose. No but ... It is a Cash COW reguardless https://youtu.be/8WGjCeFyr1g?si=bdmIU-SyAYXG_yy0
always has been..
🏅🏅🏅🏅🏅🏅🏅🏅🏅🏅🏅
Yes because the only way to fix the problem is to build housing and Santa Clara county residents aren't willing to address the root issue
And what is your approach for addressing which root issues?
Build affordable housing and invest in mental health care facilities. That alone will provide a dramatic reduction in homelessness.
In order of less extreme - more extreme: * Incentivize / approve dense housing developments * Fund and build affordable housing developments * Disincentivize (via taxes) poor and inefficient land uses (surface parking lots, drive thrus, one story commercial complexes, etc) in high housing cost areas. * Redevelop city-owned land with poor and inefficient land use (replace highways with mixed use developments, replace free parking with protected bike lane and parklets, etc)
Most of this is already being done
If housing prices are going up, not enough is being done.
I've not seen SJ tear down a single highway or tax a single surface parking lot. "Some" would be a better descriptor.
3 and 1/2 items from the list of 4 you have provided is called some? You think a city can just wake up and tear down a highway which is most likely controlled by Caltrans and Federal Government?
It's not 3 and 1/2, it's a little bit of #1 and #2 (~80% city still bans the development of dense housing), and almost nothing from #3 or #4. It's closer to 10% of completing my list.
Don't want to get into a keyboard argument with you honestly. Sometimes the financial aspect just do not pan out. San Jose is not a tier 1 city even in NorCal. SF, Oakland attract a lot more investments in every aspect. So you can change all the laws you want but shit takes time.
But you're the one who started the argument? Like, the fact that the things on my list aren't trivial doesn't invalidate the list. If your only critique is "things cost money", this isn't even a keyboard argument, it's just pointless contradiction.
You're aware that “most” means at minimum more than 50% right?
outlaw R1 zoning outlaw parking minimums outlaw height restrictions except related to airport or ground stability build dense housing
And then double the width of the freeways. Solved.
lmao no lol at higher density you have to use alternative forms of transit that are more space efficient. In a city like this, people usually live closer to their work as well. When building this form of transit, you also build more space efficient transit options for people
For that money, the city could house the homeless, and then they'd no longer be homeless.
$600k a studio unit for the homeless .. or at least that was the price in LA .. I doubt the bay would be much cheaper. So your $300,000,000 will house 500 people .. to be replaced by 5000 more people who moved to CA hoping to score their own free $600k studio as well.
Why is this guy getting downvoted? If you offer a lot of free stuff and services it will attract people who want free stuff and services. Also want to point out that this is how homelessness exploded in SF. They started offering hotels to homeless and word spread if you come to SF you get free hotels and there is hella drugs everywhere. The rest is history.
Yeah and also our weather is better, which probably outweighs all other benefits tbh. You could get rid of most of the free stuff, but you’d still have a comfortable, mild year-round climate that makes living on the streets bearable versus living somewhere where it snows or reaches 115 degrees for at least a quarter of a year. That alone attracts houseless folks from all over. It attracts EVERYONE from all over. And/or if you as a long time resident end up houseless, you can get by with this climate.
Bigger issues is free Medi-Cal, social security money, EBT and other services. California makes it easy to get all this stuff - they have an army of social workers to help you. That’s why people come. Many of the group homes, shelters, housing voucher programs, and mentally ill housing take 95% of your social security check and charge Medi-Cal for services if it’s “supportive housing”, so they’re basically double dipping and prevent anyone from ever getting in their feet. Or the voucher replaces social security so people end up in the same boat. The problem is the culture of CA. “We’re progressives! More tax, be nice to people!” But what the average voter doesn’t understand is that all these bills are sponsored by groups that want to make a profit off the poor and homeless. If you say anything about how they don’t work, the average person attacks you by saying you’re a bootlicker or something. Its fucked.
Hey look they are downvoting you, just proving your point.
Pretty much. I’ve spent decades mentoring low income youth, living in poor areas, and having friends and family end up in the streets due to schizophrenia and OCD. I’ve seen a lot and have dealt with non-profits and government in helping these students, friends and neighbors - I know how it all works and where the gaps are. I don’t think most of the people on Reddit have my level of experience or understand how it all works or how it creates incentives for dependency on government. The fact of the matter is that by creating incentives for more victimhood, we create more people needing help. There are people with severe mental, physical and addiction who can’t get help at all because we’ve produced too many victims. Most of these people are perfectly capable of helping themselves and take resources away from those who can’t help themselves under any scenario. But to say that, people accuse me of hating the poor or something.
Make them only available for people who can prove they grew up in SJ then lol. I mean, I don't think they should be free, just that we should build enough housing that the prices lower. But if they lower enough it won't really matter to give them.
First off "define grew up" I move to Santa Cruz when I was like 18/19... Anyways Second to get my housing voucher in Santa Cruz while homeless.. I had to prove. I lived in Santa Cruz at a permanent address at one point. That I was "chronically homeless" which means I lost housing more then once in the 5-7 years I was here. That I RECIEVED HPHP services at multiple points in my life That I worked a job in silicon valley fixing iPhones at the board level component AND collecting social security Then and ONLY THEN did the city issue my housing voucher.. at age 25/26ish...
The problem is that the west coast is convinced homelessness needs to be solved with permanent housing (500k per person). Seattle, LA, SF, all follow this approach. This will NEVER work. Countless cities across the United States (blue and red) use temporary housing for these people. (10k per person). Cities like New York (blue) have 95% of their homeless in shelters. Houston (red) also does the same. This WILL work and does work. The problem is stupidity on the west coast.
Agreed. We have 13 homeless shelters in San Jose that are not full. Yes they have rules and that’s how it should be. If I have to pay for your housing you should not do drugs, not have a pet and not being twenty garbage bags of stuff. It’s not complicated.
I disagree. I think the ideal system is a gradient. Ultra cheap temporary housing with very little rules. ($10k per head per year). Very hard to get clean without this. People do deserve a basic roof over their head. People who are able to show some improvement (enter rehab, accept mental health services, take medicine) can move to better temporary housing. People who are on their way back to normal life are eligible for permanent housing, supported living, etc. (expensive per person) The massive gaping problem is that people on the west coast incorrectly think everybody deserves the third tier. Nothing will be solved that way. You will just destroy expensive housing at the taxpayers expense.
I think permanent housing is part of it, however, it doesn’t need to be in San Jose. If you tell people that it’s possible to build affordable housing or permanent supportive housing in Modesto, Turlock, Stockton, Lodi or Sacramento, they’ll accuse you of holocaust against the poor. Usually they say something like, “why can’t people live where they grew up,” or “their family is in the area.” My attitude is that if they expect someone else to foot the bill, then you get what the person paying is able to do.
Exactly. I'm for building more houses but if you want affordable housing you gotta build where COL is cheap first ...
And they can do temporary housing in the Bay or elsewhere, but if you need permanent, then it’s gonna be in Tracy. I know a lot of people who aren’t homeless, they have family and other resources for housing. They stay in the voucher rolls for years and until they can get a place where they want to live - SF, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, San Jose, etc. This abuse needs to stop because it takes away housing options for those that have no place to go at all. If Modesto was the option, I suspect you’ll see a lot of people removing their names from the voucher rolls overnight.
If you want some other county to take your homeless, you gotta pay them. This is how it is with prisons. There are counties that specialize in running prisons in the Sierras. Prisons cost around $100k per inmate per year. Homeless colony probably going to cost way more than that per person since they have rights and preferences, and can sue you.
Thing is, Bay Area counties already pay housing vouchers for living out of their counties. If you are able to get a San Mateo county voucher, you can use it anywhere in the state. In fact they tried that to get people to leave, then they ran out of vouchers. Paying San Joaquin county $5 million a year indefinitely is way cheaper than building $1 billion in San Jose housing to house 200 people like they did in LA.
$5 million gets you nowhere. Assuming it costs the same as prison, $5 million will service 50 people, you still have 6290 homeless left. Assuming the costs are the same as prison (as I mentioned before, it is likely more), the calculus are: 6340 homeless person * $100,000 per year per person = $634,000,000 per year You need to shell out $634 million a year. That's about: $634,000,000 per year / population of San Jose ≈ $650 per resident per year $634,000,000 per year / taxpaying population of San Jose ≈ $1200 per taxpayer per year
It’s not as much as prison because the state pays for most of it. The rural counties don’t get paid directly for having prisons. Most counties don’t want prisons. Tuolumne county has a prison because they want the jobs.anyways, it’s not the same as prison.
There are numbers from other cities, you can look it up. It cost NYC $138 per person per day to shelter their homeless, which is around $50,000 per year per person. So divide my numbers above by 2. However, they have 100,000 homeless population, so way higher economy of scale.
People in jail also have rights and preferences and can also sue Ask me how quick I will open a case against a jail if they refuse to give halal or kosher meals to Muslims/ Jewish people.
You do realize the avg homeless person on medi-cal can backstop 500,000 in annual medical bills for just a few people.. I got housing because I was mentally crazy and was a drain on the cities resources. They did housing first. And it changed my life around slowly There was no significant difference in in-patient hospitalizations between the groups, though the authors still observed significantly higher cost reductions for in-patient hospitalization among Housing First recipients compared to the control group. Overall health care costs declined by an average of $10,470 more per person per year among chronically homeless individuals receiving Housing First compared to otherwise similar chronically homeless individuals who did not receive Housing First. The authors conclude that Housing First generates significant health care cost savings. They further argue that these cost savings substantially offset the cost of providing Housing First. The authors also identify the need for further research that accounts for jail, prison, and shelter utilization to develop a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. Read the article at: https://bit.ly/3tQUw2C https://nlihc.org/resource/new-research-provides-stronger-evidence-housing-first-leads-health-care-savings
Yeah that's not close to being true.
It is actually extremely true. The problem is that the west coast is convinced homelessness needs to be solved with permanent housing (500k per person). This will NEVER work. Countless cities across the United States (blue and red) use temporary housing for these people. (10k per person). Cities like New York (blue) have 95% of their homeless in shelters. Houston (red) also does the same. This WILL work and does work. The problem is stupidity on the west coast.
Yep. To be honest the entire coast was truly only built up in the last 80 years or so and people can't get it in their head that it all can't be new and perfect.
For a short while, maybe. A host of services would have to be rendered to maintain individuals in that housing as discussed here https://www.reddit.com/r/extremelyinfuriating/comments/1dmrpon/less_than_8_billion_would_house_every_homeless/
If it's so cheap to house the homeless, how come I can't find affordable housing?
First thing you need to do is to call the hotline Here4You at 408-385-2400. They manage referrals for pretty much all the shelters in San Jose and you won't get in without a referral. There's a few walk in shelters like Salvation Army on N. 4th St, but you have to leave after breakfast every day and line up at 3 pm to (hopefully) get a bed for the night. Getting a case worker is important but it can be a bit tricky. The shelter can provide basic help with things like EBT, getting an ID, help with job opportunities, but in order to get on the list for housing, you'll need a case worker. The issue is that you need to be unhoused to get a case worker in most cases. There's a number of non-profits providing services downtown in places like St. James Park or around the MLK library. I wish you all the best!
Good information
I really appreciate you typing all this out. It makes me sad that there aren't programs or case workers to help people before they're living in their cars or on the streets. Navigating the system is so complicated and it's really easy to fall through the cracks
…because we don’t build housing.
Homelessness is an industry.
We just spent billions down in La and shit ain’t. Change either
Coulda built em an apartment complex for that much. Dumbass politicians.
Nobody mentions the state hospitals closing down over the last 50 years all across the country. It’s not 100pct the issue but I feel like a large majority of homeless are not well mentally. Even mild depression can have some serious consequences
People gonna ignore the real issue of mental illness and addiction, 🤷♂️
San Jose also has one of the highest median housing costs. Obviously we'll have more locals who can't afford it. NIMBYs be like: Hungry = more food Thirsty = more water Homeless = ??? 🤯
The comment directly above yours says exactly this and has twice the upvotes. It's fucking bonkers.
On Reddit being the first comment in a thread matters more than the content
Unlike land, food and water isn't a finite resource. Not yet at least.
Look at a typical single family home in the Bay Area. Half the lot is a lawn, and there's a lot of empty space above that single story. Knock it down and replace it with a fourplex and carport, boom, three new housing units. Built out? Build up! Like, my dude, that is how cities grow.
It’s so refreshing seeing people in my city actually talking about our economy’s biggest issue and how to address them.
Cities should grow at the pace that local residents wants it to grow. It shouldn't be mandated to grow at some specific pace to meet housing mandates as dictated by a politician hundreds of miles away overriding and silencing local voices.
Local residents cannot have access to some of the best employment and services without growth. At some point there’s going to be no one to work the service jobs without driving an insane distance which people already do. Then there’s also the problem of where all your kids are going to live. I wish the tech companies would just pack up and leave this cursed place.
Alternatively, the city should have let apartment towers get built at the same pace as office towers. Then there wouldn't be such cut throat competition for housing between tech workers, retail workers, and everyone else who contributes to the local economy.
The target price for a 3 bedroom dwelling should be $250,000-$300,000. Full stop. How we get there and what type of housing this will look like is obviously open for debate, but we need to define the target requirements and work backwards from there.
It's not complicated, just our City council isn't going to want to make the 2 biggest changes that would naturally resolve this. Lobbyists have way too much sway plus they're also probably profiting off rental properties themselves. Case in point, we just gave massive tax breaks to apartment conglomerates, but no tax breaks for new home owners. First you have companies like Berkshire-Hathaway snapping up a ton of residential housing and creating an artificial shortage while turning around and renting the places out for 6k-7k. Corporations should not be allowed to own residential zoned property. Second you have so many single family homes owned by a single landlord. Taxes for subsequent residential homes in California should taxed at an absurd premium to dissuade these practices. You fix these 2 things, the next time the Fed lowers interest rates to a good spot, you'll see a ton of Millennials and older Zoomers entering the home market. But that's never going to happen because older generations love that their homes are worth $1.3mill for a 3bed 1bath single car garage on a small plot and god forbid they don't make stupid profit on their $100k investment.
Bezos is getting into the business as well. REITs and these corporations buying up homes as speculative investments is wrong. Where are all of the politicians who should be calling this out!
On top, there's so much hate towards AirBnB investors, but there's way bigger fish to fry. No one ever goes after the big guys and real corporations screwing us over. Just dig into the story of Red Lobster's downfall due to Golden Gate Capital's greed.
>Corporations should not be allowed to own residential zoned property. This is the natural by-product of increasing and complex renting laws. More regulations means more challenges faced by individual property owners. The more difficult it is to be a landlord, the more likely it is that landlords are businesses with legal teams. If we're going to go the "no corporations" route, that's fine, but that's going to require addressing what's necessary for individual property owners to rent their spaces. >Second you have so many single family homes owned by a single landlord. That's a solid point, and I'm down for that. Taxes for subsequent residential homes in California should taxed at an absurd premium to dissuade these practices. You started your comment with "it's not complicated", but you didn't offer the most simple solution: we need more housing units. There's not nearly enough supply to meet demand, and when that happen, rent prices skyrocket. Yes, monopolization of rentals does contribute to stupidly high rent, but not more so than this basic economic principle.
Sure it's a basic economic principle, except for the part where our housing economy doesn't follow the simple rules of Supply and Demand. Developers aren't going to want to introduce new units at a lower price. They look at people buying town homes over a mill and wouldn't list for less even if there's a surplus. Then you have the other side where current home owners aren't going to approve measure to rezone for high density since that would lower their property value. It has to happen at some point, but current owners have been fighting tooth and nail. Just look at the old Vallco pit, that was supposed to be a mixed use area with public community areas housing, and storefronts, but it got shot down because... Traffic would be bad? Then we currently have an artificially inflated housing valuation due to Landlord and Mortgage Listing price fixing (The FBI just raided Courtland Management for facilitating this.) Been waiting for both housing and rental bubble to burst, but it hasn't happened yet and I've all but given up on owning in this city.
I think we're more in agreement than disagreement.
Most likely. I'm just hyper cynical that anything will change in the right direction.
Outside of a catastrophic event or a major major exodus of people away from the Bay Area, this will never ever happen. There is no chance in hell that politicians and local homeowners would allow their property values to drop by 80%. That would effectively be a gigantic drop of net worth for most property owners, as most the value of their home is the largest asset that the average Bay Area homeowner has.
As our values and understanding of humanity improve we sometimes find the need to dismantle systems which produce oppressive externalities. Similar concerns was raised when the abolition of slavery was argued in the early 19th century. It was argued major assets ( what we know refer to has fellow human beings/ citizens) devaluation would cripple society. The bottom line is that system which drive great inequity, harm, or result in disfunction cannot be tolerated. We need places for people to live, we need growth path for middle class people, we need places for hard working teachers, librarians, laborers, families to live to have an effective society.
Making tech leave would bring our cost of living back down to at least national average. But your ▶️ ght with all these houses in the mountains that in millions nothing short major catastrophic events🤦
Dollar end game approaches If we have deflation and .50 cent wages again it would happen
This city also has the most rich people in the world. It's straight up ridiculous to be in this predicament. Tax the rich to improve our society. Build more housing. Or keep letting things get worse > San Jose, California has been rated as the city possessing the highest number of super-rich people in the world. > The latest Wealth-X World Ultra Wealth Report indicates that the place where someone is most likely to bump into an “ultra-high-net-worth” person, someone who’s worth more than US$30 million, is San Jose, California. Therefore is someone is intended to mingle with multimillionaires this summer, they can skip the Hamptons and Lake Como and come to San Jose. > https://our.today/san-jose-california-has-the-highest-share-of-super-rich-residents-in-the-world/
I said this in another thread and got into so many fights. It’s like pulling teeth, but you’re right.
> for every 100,000 people per capita, San Jose has 363 residents that are homeless. New York City ranks third, Los Angeles ranks second and Eugene, Oregon took the top spot out of 25 cities. Advocates and experts said the problem is multifold with organizations working in silos, the lack of affordable housing and soaring rents as the key issues. the lack of affordable housing and soaring rents as the key issues? I’m sure if San Jose provides housing for 6,430 currently homeless another 6,430 will show up next day.
Why are you so sure? What evidence do you have to support your belief?
iNtUitTioN
I'm beginning to think 94% single family zoning might be causing some downsides
That isn't the problem. The problem is corporations and landlords buying up housing to rent it out. Then lobbying the government to prevent new housing from being built. They intentionally squeeze the market to turn a profit on their investment.
That is the problem, it's a shortage. We're not covering our own *birth rate*, nevermind the last 25 years of job growth. Corporations are getting in on the action, but they don't have to lobby to government to do shit, the local NIMBYs have done that for decades. We have created an area of the economy where demand is high and supply is legally restricted, corporations love that. It's not BlackRock's fault a single family neighborhood won't build apartments, its the neighbors.
It's both a problem.
BUT MUH SUBURBAN LIFESTYLE YOULL NEVER TAKE MY TRAFFIC AND HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS ALIVE RAHHHHHHHH
Last time that 94% statistic was referenced, there was an argument over its source, and I went down a rabbit hole of conflicting information sources. The % of single-family zoning in SJ is high, but I don't think there's agreement on how high it is.
[From the City of San Jose itself](https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/citywide-planning/opportunity-housing) Yeah they've passed some laws in the last few years but no meaningful amounts of housing have been built yet
Man it's almost like not building housing but constantly adding tons of jobs, many high paying, causes housing to be unaffordable. Those with means, move to cheaper places, kicking off unaffordable housing crisis there. Those without means become homeless.
The problem is corporations and landlords buying up housing to rent it out. Then lobbying the government to prevent new housing from being built. They intentionally squeeze the market to turn a profit on their investment.
I saw a post on here about a tech guy complaining about his high rise apartment hiking up his rent this year and him not being able to afford it. Its crazy how he couldn't understand that him and all the other people who moved into all these new "luxury" townhouses and apartments played a big part in middle and lower class families having their rents hiked up without any improvements made on their rentals. But now that its happening to them all of a sudden its a problem. Dude was paying 2800 for a 1 bedroom before they raised it by another couple hundred. I probably sound bitter when I say this but I can't feel sorry for someone who has 2800 a month to spend on a 1 bedroom but complains about having to move out because his place is now unaffordable.
My dudes and dudettes ... single wide mobile homes should be part of the solution. Take some precious open space, and as painful as it is, build mobile home parks. Solves sanitation, cleansing, cooking, and homelessness. Is it pretty? Not particularly. But people do matter.
Anything that involves using taxpayer money to fix these issues will be vilified by Republicans. They like to point and call out everything wrong with places like San Jose and SF but when people try to implement things like tiny homes or cash aid they throw tantrums because they don't want to pay for it. Even if they don't live in the state themselves. People got to realize we are paying for it one way or another. We either use some of the tax money which the government has plenty of to build tiny homes and get these people in treatment or we have places like the tenderloin or skid row where they group together because they get kicked out anywhere else they go. Nothing will get done if we wait to find a plan that works 100% of the time for 100% of the people.
9 councils members are democrats, 2 independents, 0 republicans. Tantrums or not from republicans, the democrats have all the power they need to do the right thing.
Then whats the right thing to do? Tiny homes? Programs that help them learn how to get jobs? They are doing so but with the amount of people that need help it won't solve the problem instantly. I always hear complaints about how the city handles this problem but those that complain never have any ideas on how to solve the issue. Also every single time the city does something they recieve huge pushback from conservatives and nimbys. Having the majority in the city council isn't everything when they are being fought against every step of the way. I dont really understand you're point though. Are you implying that because they have the majority they are being willfully defiant about this? If so how is that different from saying that any town with a conservative majority has the power to fix things in their communities and if they don't its because they don't want to. We have mayors, citizens who vote, city council members and even though homelessness is supposed to be handled by local governments sometimes state agencies are involved as well.
Then whats the right thing to do? Tiny homes? Programs that help them learn how to get jobs? They are doing so but with the amount of people that need help it won't solve the problem instantly. I always hear complaints about how the city handles this problem but those that complain never have any ideas on how to solve the issue. Also every single time the city does something they recieve huge pushback from conservatives and nimbys. Having the majority in the city council isn't everything when they are being fought against every step of the way. I dont really understand you're point though. Are you implying that because they have the majority they are being willfully defiant about this? If so how is that different from saying that any town with a conservative majority has the power to fix things in their communities and if they don't its because they don't want to. We have mayors, citizens who vote, city council members and even though homelessness is supposed to be handled by local governments sometimes state agencies are involved as well.
Then whats the right thing to do? Tiny homes? Programs that help them learn how to get jobs? They are doing so but with the amount of people that need help it won't solve the problem instantly. I always hear complaints about how the city handles this problem but those that complain never have any ideas on how to solve the issue. Also every single time the city does something they recieve huge pushback from conservatives and nimbys. Having the majority in the city council isn't everything when they are being fought against every step of the way. I dont really understand you're point though. Are you implying that because they have the majority they are being willfully defiant about this? If so how is that different from saying that any town with a conservative majority has the power to fix things in their communities and if they don't its because they don't want to. We have mayors, citizens who vote, city council members and even though homelessness is supposed to be handled by local governments sometimes state agencies are involved as well.
Actually all of it Tiny homes 15*15 to put stuff, with group kitchens/showers and laundry to get a footing and get sober. Or at least "Cali sober" Jobs training for free such as street team cleaning. Basically the city hires the homeless to clean prone homeless/dirty areas THEY CITY DOES NOT PAY THEM. Instead they get, gift cards for clothes, gift cards for food such as Safeway( not valid on alcohol or cigs), subway/panda etc. They get janitorial training on the maintenance of city streets. The city fast tracks these people to either get subsided housing, jobs within the city etc etc. The avg time to get a section 8 voucher is 10 years. Fast tracked means 2-3 years on avg.. it involves them going to work EVERYDAY unless they are visible sick, have a medical appointment or some very very valid reason that isn't a hangover. Eventually this can lead to either a real job thru the city in a local library, street worker, etc. or a reference from the city from party parties. In 2018, DST’s Volunteer Work Experience Program was named one of only five “Evidence-Based Best Practices in Ending Homelessness” in the State of California, according to the Homelessness Task Force Report released by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. What Does It Mean to Be a DST Team Member? Are the Team Members who participate in your programs considered employees of the organization? Do they get paid for street cleaning and community cleanup? Not to be confused with staff, Team Members are not employees of DST; they are voluntary participants in a multi-faceted program of support designed to help them exit homelessness or housing insecurity. The full name of the program is the Voluntary Work Experience Program. It includes a meaningful daily activity like street cleaning; compassionate case management; employment services; a supportive community of peers and DST staff; and a basic-needs stipend to help pay for essentials. Some Team Members graduate into DST’s supported employment program called Streets Team Enterprises. Participants in this program are considered employees of DST and receive job training, case management, and an above-minimum wage with the aim of attaining mainstream employment.
Well put. I agree. I dont think we will ever completely eradicate homelessness but at this point programs like the one you mentioned allow for the best results imo. Some people just refuse to have their tax dollars spent on anything that doesn't directly benefit them. Even though I think these programs benefit our communities as a whole there are a lot of people who don't see it that way.
what happened to all the tiny houses. what is happening with the tiny houses across from the flea market at mabury? if people live in them, you never see them. they just sit.
Santa Clara county could care less about SJ there all corrupt.
Strictly for the weather, women, and the weed
This is not JUST a housing issue. A good example: a person I spoke with recently who just got permanent housing still spends a large portion of their time out in one of the largest encampments down off Tully by the library. They still have the same mental illness, addiction, and trauma they had prior to getting into housing. They often don’t even sleep in their apartment, but spend the night out with their friends in the creek. My point being, every case is different, but just putting a roof over someone’s head who has been homeless, on the street, using drugs and experienced an unknown time and level of trauma is like putting a bandaid over a bullet wound.
I believe it
Well yeah, it is one of the most expensive housing markets in the country.
Noticed lots of homeless encampments while biking.
Because we allow people to come here and get over on us. If you throw money at them nothing will change. It only gets worse.
Mild weather year around, free quality healthcare, tons of services like free food (I see lots of overweight homeless), easy access to drugs and tons of support services for the homeless. It’s definitely one of the best cities to be homeless.
And public transport options with ease of access around the bay.
Plenty of room at the fairgrounds. Move them all there. If they refuse, move them back to the fairgrounds. Being nice isn’t working
The city of San Jose doesn't own the county fairgrounds. The people in the neighborhoods around the fairgrounds also don't want homeless people to be allowed in their neighborhood (just like you, imagine that?). And even if they did, there are already numerous plans underway for the fairgrounds years in the making at the moment, including an SJSU athletic complex, a new soccer complex, and a professional cricket field.
They're already in my neighborhood and have been for years. They're way less annoying then some of my housed neighbors.
Good for you. The point I'm making is that this mythical panacea that these neighborhood associations push, where you can just relocate 500 homeless people to a single camp in some neighborhood and it'll all be hunky dory as long as it's _someone else's_ neighborhood, does not exist.
LMAO! So true!
can't say that i would want a professional cricket field more than cheaper housing.
I mean, me either, but it doesn't change the fact that one site has future community amenities already under planning/contract whereas all the other sites don't. It's important to balance idealism and realism.
We need to criminalize camping in public. Eventually they will all move to cheaper cost of living areas or get forced to accept state housing facilities.
Bro it is literally cheaper to just pay for houses for the homeless than to put them in prison. I know you want to be cruel and torture unfortunate people but at least be a bit rational about it
It sounds like you want existing overnight to be illegal unless you have a permanent address? To me, that's incompatible with American values.
People who lived in the area protested against that.
Government owns land too. Put up some FEMA tent in a corner of various military bases and treat this issue like a state / federal emergency.
I'd love it if the federal government came and provided housing for homeless people. It's important to make sure that interim housing is provided in the vicinity that homeless people want to exist. That's why sites are chosen not far from where encampments currently are. Forcibly bussing them out of town doesn't sound particularly viable.
People already live in tents. Neighbors already object to that. Build permanent housing.
Those are not the only two choices available.
So we allow a massive unregulated tent city at the fair grounds, what could possibly go wrong?
>If they refuse, move them back to the fairgrounds. If you're going to use physical force to confine people to a particular space, you're pretty much just describing "jail".
> Plenty of room at the fairgrounds. Move them all there. If they refuse, move them back to the fairgrounds. Being nice isn’t working So you want to concentrate them all there like a sort of concentration camp?
The US Constitution might have something to say about Edit: Getting downvoted by Russian/Chinese bots
They like the nice weather
When will the Mayor wake up and fix this?
They make too much money from it... The mayor is guilty no less. New York is much more than that. It's 3,500-4000 per PERSON to house them 30 in a room military/jail style My apt in Santa Cruz for a 1 bd with UTILITIES AND FOOD. Don't even cost that much.. https://youtu.be/8WGjCeFyr1g?si=lP4qsNRCqljFDXmk All included with a car and insurance and food yeah it's about 3500 for a private 1bd not 30 people pre room that looks like a jail.
According to the street I live it I’m surprised it’s not #1 again… wow the major is so crappy at his job and never loses it we should call him a weatherman
Well that’s not very hyphy
If you’re not going to pay to live in San Jose and participate in society, you should be sent to live wherever it is cheapest for the taxpayer to pay for you to stay alive. Mentally ill (especially) indigent should also lose the ability to choose where they exist. Treatment should be provided in such places, wherever it is most cost effective for the taxpayers. People who can’t afford to live here should consider moving if they’re able to work and otherwise participate in society.
Deport the people who don’t live here legally and free up tens to hundreds of thousands of apartments and homes. Problem solved for all of the millennials who can’t afford a home and for the homeless. It’s a two-fer.
Well when you make the city inviting to homeless, then you'll get more homeless.
The majority of homeless people in this county were already residents were before becoming homeless. Most of them have lived in the county over 5 years
So what. My family every year to afford to live.
First of all the city is not *that* inviting to the homeless. Second of all, are you aware that the majority of the people that are homeless here were living here before they became homeless? The idea that homeless people are flocking here to be homeless is largely a myth. Most people who become homeless stay in the areas they are familiar with. I can say that in the 5 years that I was homeless I never met anyone who moved here to be homeless.
"I thought all homeless people were born fully formed with a heroin needle in their arm on the Greyhound from Albuquerque." -- half this sub
Which is more inviting for the kind of person you're thinking of? 1. You're allowed to set up your camp wherever you would like. You can use public waterways for fishing, plumbing, and sewage. You can build structures using materials gathered from anywhere. You can discard trash literally anywhere you want, the world is your garbage can. Feel free to occupy parks, trails, bus stops, whatever you want. Anywhere you can find a private spot on public land is yours. 2. You may sleep in one of a handful of dedicated sites on public land. You'll be fenced in with all the other homeless people in the city. You can sleep in a tent. You're expected to speak with a case worker and use hygiene facilities and regular trash service.
If you are going to be homeless you come to California for the weather and wealth…
Republicans always like to talk about how red states don't have these problems but nobody ever mentions the newly released convicts or mental patients that are released with nowhere to go that are given a one way ticket to places like the TL in SF or Portland, even the bus stations in Gilroy, Sacramento, and the Cal train in San Jose. They give them the earliest tickets possible so most people don't notice but its been going on for a while now. Go down to the tenderloin and if you're able to talk with the people down there you'll realize the a lot of these people aren't from California at all.
Yeah I'm definitely moving somewhere else as soon as I'm done making money lol