Howard X. There is no "solution" to the homeless problem unless we want to initiate total socialism. That's just a politicians advertising campaign.

For a percentage of the homeless out there it's a lifestyle choice. It's also the reason that many of our shelters are never full. You can't save those that aren't looking to be saved.

In the meantime, it would be nice to put those who contribute to the system ahead of those that don't. I'm looking forward to that for the first district as we've suffered from far too much of the opposite.

who said anything about "solving" homelessness?

the majority of long-term homeless population are mentally disabled and/or have substance abuse history.

driving a SUV in this economy is a lifestyle choice. homelessness is not.

howard x, somebody posed that question but it might not have been you. sorry about that.

pat, you can spin my comment as much as you would like to serve your own needs but the comment still stands. your comment is generic and typical at best.

From lbresident through everybody else who has posted (so far)---thank you. I truly have benefitted from this discussion, and appreciate you taking your time to participate.

What’s up Dave?

Passionate debate on the need/value/cost of homeless services indeed. 70 blog responses and counting!!!!

The back and forth isn’t surprising, but it occurs to me there is a true lack of understanding of where funding for these programs actually comes from. One blogger, for example, believes city resources shouldn’t be devoted to people who don’t carry their weight as taxpayers. Furthering this logic, he/she explains that a lack of city funding for the homeless would thereby create an absence of programs and thus the local homeless population would migrate elsewhere. This, somehow, would be better for our community.

What he/she does not understand is that elimination of those services would have a truly negative impact on the local economy and hence city funds.

The lion’s share of funding for local programs for the homeless population comes from beyond the municipal level and is simply channeled through the city as a vehicle……an administrator. The city coordinates the application of grants from government agencies (such as HUD) and cooperates with various private organizations in the delivery of services. There are often fees the city charges these agencies simply to act as the administrator. Most of those aforementioned private organizations also raise money on their own (a huge percentage from sources outside the municipal boundaries), to enhance the delivery of said services. The actual price paid by the city, therefore, (or “taxpayers”) is a few percent of the total amount spent for delivery.

To that end, the delivery of homeless services CONTRIBUTES to the local economy with funds from outside the city at a minimal fiscal impact to local taxpayers. Think of all the jobs created, and then think how those workers spend their salaries…..all on the local economy. Not to mention the taxes they are then contributing to the city.

Let’s now compare that to a retired, wealthy new resident of Long Beach…..they have little/no income, pay little/no taxes, but their use of municipal services increases the tax burden on “taxpayers” living in the community.

In sum, it’s abundantly clear total economic impact is not being addressed/analyzed when people throw around the term “taxpayer”.

If one does not like to see a homeless person because it is, well, unsightly, then that is an opinion they are certainly entitled to. They could even argue there are negative economic impacts to having homelessness (although having similar situations in high-end cities like Santa Monica, San Francisco, NYC, etc. makes this a shaky debate). But it is rough to listen to an entire debate predicated on truly bad information.

I would love to see the District cover/educate more about the comprehensive economic impact of various components of the city budget, and moreover how the city spends its money. Your readers want to be involved in it – they care, they engage, they act. It would be a wonderful ongoing piece, and educational for those who’d like to weigh the true cost/benefit analysis of service delivery. This becomes even more significant as we begin to deal with a gaping deficit.

Anyway, hope all’s well at the DW.

Josh,

I'm not sure I understand your "retired, wealthy new resident" example. It looks to me like they a "tax generator" to the City not a "tax user". They pay property taxes, have a high disposible income which translates into Sales Taxes, etc.

hey thanks for chiming in, i suspected as much about the source of the funding.

who pays for the administrator and coordination of funds?

A good question. I volunteer with a local nonprofit that provides free childcare for homeless families in Long Beach. (I hope we can all agree children should not be blamed for being homeless, and deserve the opportunity to break out of the cycle.) Having homeless children in daycare also gives parents the ability to go out and get jobs....back on their feet. This addresses your concern of homeless families increasing the cost of municipal services for others.

Our annual funding is roughly $1 million/year. We privately raise around half, and apply for government and foundation grants for the rest. Our HUD grant is coordinated through the city; the administrative expense of that effort is passed on to HUD (there are several agencies that coordinate through the city in this very capacity). We do not receive any direct funding from the city, although we do use a space in the city's multiservice center.

We have a full time staff of around 20, all of whom contribute to the local economy with their salaries. We also buy tremendous goods/services from local companies to operate our childcare facilities.

My biased opinion is that it's a wonderful service for our city, and there are many more also doing great work. To bring in $1,000,000 at a cost essentially of zero is not bad government, it's smart government. There are a lot of people doing a lot of great things out there....in our community. We should all try to learn more about them before we cast judgement.

Having said that I do indeed respect your opinion and openness to engage in debate.

Finally I'd like to note that MOST homeless families are not the substance abusers, mentally ill loiterers they are portrayed (and perpetuated) by Hollywood. Most are people who worked hard in their communities, paid taxes, contributed in their neighborhoods, and fell on hard times. And the overwhelming vast majority would change their situation with opportunity....

we just have different ideas on what is good for the city.

I would point out fed/state dollars are tax payer dollars too. Gov't isn't supposed to be a charity in my opinion.

Ultimately I would argue that the benefit of worker salaries,etc. contributing to the economy is not a good trade off for the quality of life problems we go through as a result of increased homeless populations concetrated in our city. And remember 500k of those salaries if funded by the state/fed are only possible because money was confiscated in the form of higher taxes from someone else. No actual value was created. the gov't can't create value.

by the way it's not just homeless issues that create the problem. There are many wasteful programs including this dumb idea of a housing trust fund. Hopefully we'll kill that too during this budgeting process.

josh, i respect your opinion too even if we disagree. just want to make that clear.

Josh, I respect your organization and agree that economic situations are the overriding cause of homelessness, however I think you're undervaluing mental illness/addiction as a cause.

Drugs and therapy are the panacea for mental illness/addiction recovery. They cost money, which forces people to either a) seek assistance or b) not get treatment. The funding for treatment is woefully lacking, meaning there's a lot more we can do. Because of our lack of universal health care, even the lack of benefits for hourly jobs (which are the majority of workers you are referring to as contributing citizens who fell on hard times... its easy to fall on hard times when somewhere only hires you for $8.50 an hour, 30 hours a week with a shifting schedule and no benefits) it is despicable that one medical problem can lead to "hard times." A medical problem as in a broken leg causing the medical bills and loss of hours at work leading to bills being unpaid leading to eviction. Add to the economically disenfranchised population the population of mentally ill and addicts who can not hold a job despite their desire to, and you can start seeing that, as you pointed out Josh, the homeless population is not the stereotype portrayed but a diverse community unto itself.

I've met plenty of young adults who get thrown out of foster care at 18 without any live skills who end up on the street. Many of them stay in the system, in part, because of the trauma they witnessed and/or were subjected to as children. No one wants to adopt the messed up kid, right? Health care is not just pills and therapy, its also social services such as Children Today.

If one were to follow Maslow's heirarchy of needs, you'd find that no one is "healthy" without security. Sadly it's easy for others to judge the "otherness" of the homeless population from a healthy position.

Homelessness isn't a problem. It's a symptom of the greater problem of our culture of narcissism.

I don't have bad information.

There is ideology. My view is gov't shouldn't be involved in charity.

There is duty. The gov't duty is to provide adequate infrastructure and public safety. LB does neither and therefore shouldn't spend 1 cent on social services.

There is subjective. I believe a large homeless population hurts quality of life in a number of ways. And yes, I think Santa Monica suffers from their homeless population.

Finally, to argue that homeless services somehow helps the economy is absolutely ridiculous. You probably argue increased illegal immigration helps the economy too. Whether money comes from outside the city or not (and we agree some comes from the city) when you offer the welcome mat to people who want social services, guess what, they show up. And that increases the strain on the existing programs. then gov't says we need to raise taxes to pay for the basic needs. Hello measure I. it is a horrible trade off. I'll put the wealthy new resident up against the homeless person any day. if the person truly is wealthy they contribute a ton in sales tax. And since they are "new" as you put it, they are likely paying a high amount of property tax unless they moved here after age 55 and had lived in their previous residence since before the real estate boom.

Dave,

It will be interesting to see what type of councilmember Robert becomes. However, with so much of his support coming from city hall insiders, I wouldn't expect a deviation from the norm.

Juan

Congratulations Robert. We've been waiting for you to change this place around for the better.

lbresident: Interesting prioritization.

Is it your assertion that one resident member of the electorate should receive a different level of concern or consideration from a Councilmember, simply because one may or may not own his home? Are renters not still resident members of the electorate? The same property taxes are being paid regardless of who is paying them, yes? In fact, if we use the payment of property taxes as a criteria priority (and I don’t necessarily think we should), shouldn’t the person who actually funds that tax payment (the renter) receive greater concern and consideration than should the person who simply transfers that funding (the owner) from the renter to the government? As mentioned, the taxes are paid either way, but the owner may not reside in the city whereas the renter does.

Also, I find it more than interesting that you list some groups that you feel should not be “part of the discussion”. Are unions not simply a lawfully recognized collection of employees (public and private) who have a clear stake in public policy decisions? If so, should they not receive consideration? Are not the homeless residents, residents nonetheless and, as such, should they not also enjoy concern and consideration from our elected officials?

Our society is comprised of many facets, many entities, many cultures and sub-cultures, many stakeholders with many needs and desires that are at once complimentary and competing.

If our government is to be truly representative, should it not offer due concern and consideration to all who live and work here lawfully?
You state: “Homeowners have made a significant financial investment and commitment to the community and deserve to have their interests prioritized over people who have not”. Do you then likewise feel that a non-resident business owner should “have their interests prioritized over”, say, resident renters, simply because the business owner may have made a more “significant financial investment and commitment in the community” than the renter may have?

You state: “Interest will always compete. Some will always be given priority. I'm hoping those who have given so much to the community will be rewarded once in awhile.” Do you feel a homeowner who is not involved in the community to any degree beyond purchasing a home and paying property taxes gives more to the community than a renter who does not own his home but contributes greatly to the community in other ways?

That is not my assertion.

Which assertion is not yours?

At the end of the day, all I'm saying is the city's responsibility is to provide the core services of infrastructure and public safety. The city does not currently do this. Until they do, they should not be spending money on other services.

I have a lot of other political perspectives (some of which I've touched on) but it's just noise with the majority of the district readers so I'll just leave it at the above point.

Fair enough, lbr and, for the record, a lot of what you say makes perfect sense to me. But words mean things, so when you make imprecise statements, people will necessarily call you on them.

Thanks for the clarification!

"Stop offering homeless services and the homeless will move on."

your words.

I guess we disagree on what benefits are. Homeless services in my mind is charity. The gov't shouldn't be telling people how much charity to give and who to give it to.

if for example, a church took over providing homeless services from the govt would your problem with it be eliminated? is it the govt spending on the homeless you have a problem with or the very presence of homeless people that bothers you?

private groups can do whatever they want (within the law of course). I would prefer to not have an overconcentration of churches providing homeless services right near my house.

I do not believe gov't should provide social services. That is what charity is for. Yes I believe everyone should be charitable. Yes, I am.