Tax the billionaires, especially the opioid pushers, provide free basic housing for all, increase pedestrian space in downtown areas (take back the land stolen for cars) and forcibly take people home if they are polluting the streets.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.governing.com/housing/how-houston-cut-its-homeless-population-by-nearly-two-thirds

Houston cut its homeless population by 2/3rds and not by shipping people to other states. Key quote in regards to how DC does things: “The working relationship between the city and the county in addressing homelessness could not be better,” says Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. “Instead of a hundred NGOs competing with each other, we’ve kind of pulled them all together. They’re now operating under a single umbrella, The Way Home.”

Texas has the 5th highest homeless population in the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

So they're just supposed to absorb everybody? What a joke. This is a sanctuary city.

How are any of these "sanctuary city" comments relevant to homelessness? It's NOT relevant to homelessness.

"Sanctuary city" only means the city doesn't check immigration status or enforce immigration law - and it's not the city's job or jurisdiction to do that in the first place. Sanctuary city DOES NOT mean a promise of free housing and food and everything else, and never has.

I agree that DC needs to do a lot better with coordinating and making efficient and effective use of its resources.

DC also needs to get serious about the harder decisions that need to be made, for example if there is a homeless untreated schizophrenic drug addict threatening and harrassing people on the streets and causing problems for business, he needs to be given an ultimatum of either being committed for treatment, voluntarily or involuntarily, or taking himself and his bullshit elsewhere and DC not allowing it to continue.

That said, I don't think Houston suffers from some of the other contributors to homeless that DC does. For one, DC is the recipient of tons of homeless who get shipped here, mostly from red states who cynically want to make it political, where sheriffs will round up any homeless they find and put them on a bus with a one way ticket to DC to make it "DC's problem" because they blame "Joe Brandon" or "liberal politics" or whatever for homelessness, ignoring the fact that DC government has absolutely nothing to do with a homelessness problem 4 states away. It's unfair to DC taxpayers.

Additionally, and along a similar vein, DC is also a magnet for homeless crazies, the schizophrenic and paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists, like maybe they think they have the whole alien reptoid illuminati conspiracy all figured out and they are going to come here to expose it all, or whatever else.

For those reasons, DC has an excess burden of homeless and mentally ill that its neighboring communities don't. That's a burden that should be shared and not be for DC to shoulder alone.

Additionally, costs are much higher in DC than in many other parts of the country - real estate costs for housing the homeless are higher, not to mention DC has limited space to begin with; labor costs are higher, and so on - it makes more sense to try and house and treat the homeless in places where it's more fiscally affordable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

How is that relevant? You're confusing two very different topics. Most of the undocumented immigrants sent to NE by Abbott were from the border - not Houston. They were also not part of the homeless encampments. Houston is run by a D and has been for a very long time. Like most TX cities, Houston has a D mayor and city council. Abbott and the rest of the Rs in ATX don't have much to do with the city's homeless issue.

Plus, the above is just flat wrong. DC can deal with the homeless in the district without having to liaise with FFX Co. DC is just too inept to do it.

I'm not confusing anything. You confused two separate topics, which I explicitly said were separate topics in my post. The OP was about how Houston found success by liaising with the county, something that cannot happen in DC for geographic reasons. You are incorrect to say that homelessness can be solved without coordination with surrounding counties, most of which can be reached by Metro.

I'm from Texas, I don't need you to explain that Houston has a Democratic mayor, and basically your entire post was responding to . . . nothing in mine. But I'm glad you got it off your chest.

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

Lots of excuses in DC, but little action.

Maybe just give everyone a bus ticket to out of state after all. Most of the vagrants are not even from here. So tired of all the filth and the never-ending drain of our tax dollars.

Look to Houston. Not Texas. Houston is the only one here having success.

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

How is that relevant? You're confusing two very different topics. Most of the undocumented immigrants sent to NE by Abbott were from the border - not Houston. They were also not part of the homeless encampments. Houston is run by a D and has been for a very long time. Like most TX cities, Houston has a D mayor and city council. Abbott and the rest of the Rs in ATX don't have much to do with the city's homeless issue.

Plus, the above is just flat wrong. DC can deal with the homeless in the district without having to liaise with FFX Co. DC is just too inept to do it.

Houston also has a good starting point of a very low homeless population relative to total population and square mileage (the high spread of the city also means that affordable housing is, in general, less of a problem).

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

So they're just supposed to absorb everybody? What a joke. This is a sanctuary city.

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

Exactly right.

Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

Imho, acceptance of seeing it as an issue bad for both homeless and homeowners as well as businesses, tourists, city services, safety etc is the first step.

https://www.governing.com/housing/how-houston-cut-its-homeless-population-by-nearly-two-thirds

Houston cut its homeless population by 2/3rds and not by shipping people to other states. Key quote in regards to how DC does things: “The working relationship between the city and the county in addressing homelessness could not be better,” says Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. “Instead of a hundred NGOs competing with each other, we’ve kind of pulled them all together. They’re now operating under a single umbrella, The Way Home.”