4 ms·

homelessness is tough. In our medium size city (Columbia, SC) we have roughly 1,400 homeless and no one (myself included) seems to know what to do. I feel like

homelessness is tough. In our medium size city (Columbia, SC) we have roughly 1,400 homeless and no one (myself included) seems to know what to do. I feel like affordable/free housing has been tried before, and you end up with "projects" with a drug problem. I wonder how they expect this will be different. Am I off here? Does it not seem naive to say: "they're homeless, so let's just give them an apartment and say our 'homeless' rate dropped"? As if that was the essential problem? What about the mental health and drug (etc) issues that created the environment for unsustainable work... I'm not saying it sounds like a bad solution, but it seems like a bandaid on a gaping wound.

erentz 10y ago
Well now they are not homeless. They have a home. So yes the homeless rate drops. Now that they have stability, the security of a warm home to come home to. A safe place to sleep. Maybe you'll have more luck addressing the other problems that affect them. I wish people wouldn't latch onto drug addiction as the first thing that must be solved, you're really picking the hardest problem to tackle first and trying to do it in the hardest possible environment to recover. Remember there are plenty of functioning drug addicts in the world wearing suits to their day jobs on Wall Street and the like.
Frondo 10y ago
Something this article didn't really get into that I've seen elsewhere: Utah also assigns a caseworker to these people, to help them work on their problems (drugs, drinking, whatever). It's a little more hands-on than just handing over some keys to an apartment; they seem to want this program to work, to have results that stick.
- swsieber 10y ago
  Part of me wonders how much of this program is influenced by Mormon culture. There's this thing known as ward council where they discuss people in the ward (congregation) who have unmet needs, and what can be done to help. Reading the article the similarity popped out to me right away. This program seems like an extension of that on a grander scale.
Chathamization 10y ago
> you end up with "projects" with a drug problem You could just put them in high quality apartments and give them a stipend. The current proposal for a "projects" style homeless shelter where I am would have each unit cost $4,500 per month, with 90% of the units not having a private bathroom (and most not having a full kitchen). For that price you could easily afford a high end apartment and give the people a large stipend. And if you spread the units out across the city so that each apartment building only had 1-2 homeless families, you'd avoid the problems of concentrating poverty.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Great, but then you'll notice that many other people also like to have a high quality apartment and a stipend. Eventually, you have to give it to a lot of people, and those who work on low salary and pay their rent for a not-so-high-quality apartment will not be happy and many of them will also acquire a status where they deserve a high quality apartment and a stipend.
  - jonlucc 10y ago
    If high quality is defined as having a private bathroom, I doubt you'll see a lot of people opting for it.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Then it's probably not "high quality" but more like "decent". However, I don't know about American cities specifically, but even over here in North European socialist utopias, free housing and a "stipend" does attract people in a way that makes low-wage workers unhappy (and even give up / reluctant to take up jobs).
foldr 10y ago
>What about the mental health and drug (etc) issues that created the environment for unsustainable work... We have to find a way to house people who have mental health problems and drug addictions. If you look in any rich neighborhood you'll find lots of people who meet this description living in relative comfort.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
michaelchisari 10y ago
> you end up with "projects" with a drug problem. That's why you don't house everyone together. This is something that America's War on Poverty got very wrong. You have to decentralize extreme poverty.
xenadu02 10y ago
The problem with your theories is that actual evidence says the programs work far better than anything else we've tried. (I don't intend that to be mean or glib). These programs typically assign a caseworker who gets to know the homeless people and forms a relationship with them. The early period involves a lot of hand-holding and helping the homeless figure out (or re-discover) how to live a productive adult life. Most people who end up homeless turn to drugs, prostitution, and have any existing mental problems hugely exacerbated AFTER they become homeless. In other cases it is some other underlying situation (abusive childhood, etc) that triggers drug use that leads to homelessness. There's also a strong selection effect: many people who become homeless quickly attempt to find employment and a new place to live. Those who don't get out of being homeless quickly become unemployable and thus are locked into the cycle. As a society we seem to be stuck in this Victorian-era meme that moral failure brings calamity upon people (aka the Just World fallacy). That applies to success the same as failure... being ambitious and smart is a necessary but not sufficient condition to become successful. If Mark Zuckerberg got hit by a drunk driver (through no fault of his own) and became a paraplegic while at Harvard he wouldn't be a billionaire today. If he hadn't gotten into Harvard would he have had the connections to get funding and start Facebook? A million things entirely outside his control had to go right for him to be successful. It was a combination of his character, circumstances, and pure luck. If you don't have all three you won't be successful. Similarly it doesn't take much weakness or bad luck to completely ruin someone's life.

erentz 10y ago

Well now they are not homeless. They have a home. So yes the homeless rate drops. Now that they have stability, the security of a warm home to come home to. A safe place to sleep. Maybe you'll have more luck addressing the other problems that affect them. I wish people wouldn't latch onto drug addiction as the first thing that must be solved, you're really picking the hardest problem to tackle first and trying to do it in the hardest possible environment to recover. Remember there are plenty of functioning drug addicts in the world wearing suits to their day jobs on Wall Street and the like.

Frondo 10y ago

Something this article didn't really get into that I've seen elsewhere: Utah also assigns a caseworker to these people, to help them work on their problems (drugs, drinking, whatever). It's a little more hands-on than just handing over some keys to an apartment; they seem to want this program to work, to have results that stick.

swsieber 10y ago
Part of me wonders how much of this program is influenced by Mormon culture. There's this thing known as ward council where they discuss people in the ward (congregation) who have unmet needs, and what can be done to help. Reading the article the similarity popped out to me right away. This program seems like an extension of that on a grander scale.

Chathamization 10y ago

> you end up with "projects" with a drug problem You could just put them in high quality apartments and give them a stipend. The current proposal for a "projects" style homeless shelter where I am would have each unit cost $4,500 per month, with 90% of the units not having a private bathroom (and most not having a full kitchen). For that price you could easily afford a high end apartment and give the people a large stipend. And if you spread the units out across the city so that each apartment building only had 1-2 homeless families, you'd avoid the problems of concentrating poverty.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ptaipale 10y ago
Great, but then you'll notice that many other people also like to have a high quality apartment and a stipend. Eventually, you have to give it to a lot of people, and those who work on low salary and pay their rent for a not-so-high-quality apartment will not be happy and many of them will also acquire a status where they deserve a high quality apartment and a stipend.
- jonlucc 10y ago
  If high quality is defined as having a private bathroom, I doubt you'll see a lot of people opting for it.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Then it's probably not "high quality" but more like "decent". However, I don't know about American cities specifically, but even over here in North European socialist utopias, free housing and a "stipend" does attract people in a way that makes low-wage workers unhappy (and even give up / reluctant to take up jobs).

foldr 10y ago

>What about the mental health and drug (etc) issues that created the environment for unsustainable work... We have to find a way to house people who have mental health problems and drug addictions. If you look in any rich neighborhood you'll find lots of people who meet this description living in relative comfort.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

michaelchisari 10y ago

> you end up with "projects" with a drug problem. That's why you don't house everyone together. This is something that America's War on Poverty got very wrong. You have to decentralize extreme poverty.

xenadu02 10y ago

The problem with your theories is that actual evidence says the programs work far better than anything else we've tried. (I don't intend that to be mean or glib). These programs typically assign a caseworker who gets to know the homeless people and forms a relationship with them. The early period involves a lot of hand-holding and helping the homeless figure out (or re-discover) how to live a productive adult life. Most people who end up homeless turn to drugs, prostitution, and have any existing mental problems hugely exacerbated AFTER they become homeless. In other cases it is some other underlying situation (abusive childhood, etc) that triggers drug use that leads to homelessness. There's also a strong selection effect: many people who become homeless quickly attempt to find employment and a new place to live. Those who don't get out of being homeless quickly become unemployable and thus are locked into the cycle. As a society we seem to be stuck in this Victorian-era meme that moral failure brings calamity upon people (aka the Just World fallacy). That applies to success the same as failure... being ambitious and smart is a necessary but not sufficient condition to become successful. If Mark Zuckerberg got hit by a drunk driver (through no fault of his own) and became a paraplegic while at Harvard he wouldn't be a billionaire today. If he hadn't gotten into Harvard would he have had the connections to get funding and start Facebook? A million things entirely outside his control had to go right for him to be successful. It was a combination of his character, circumstances, and pure luck. If you don't have all three you won't be successful. Similarly it doesn't take much weakness or bad luck to completely ruin someone's life.