3 ms·

I'll concede that it does indeed sound like "shipping the poor away". Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF) which I agree

I'll concede that it does indeed sound like "shipping the poor away". Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF) which I agree is indeed problematic, and is not what I'm advocating for. I do want to treat more than just the symptoms, but I don't think handwaving for socioeconomic restructures is a realistic way get anything done. I'm advocating for a way to make the ~30K/person go farther by not being in one of the most expensive areas of the country. Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main reason they are homeless. Our current system is not well suited at helping people with mental disorders. Perhaps I'm ill-informed and I don't pretend to have the answer, but evidenced by the fact that homelessness is a growing problem despite throwing more and more money at it. I do think we need to try another approach.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF) which I agree is indeed problematic No, even local relocation (like forcing people into shelters for services) has been problematic historically. > Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main reason they are homeless. Yes, a minority do, and institutionalization (which, generally, might as well be outside of SF) may help a fraction of that minority. Forced dislocation would also probably aggravate mental health problems for some others in (and out) of that that minority. > Our current system is not well suited at helping people with mental disorders. Sure, but “ship people elsewhere”, even if the responsibility doesn't shift, isn't a solution to that.
- ProfessorLayton 9y ago
  A cursory google search reveals that 1 in 4 of those in homeless shelters have a severe mental disorder. Nearly 1 in 2 have severe mental disorders and substance abuse problems. These numbers do not paint a small minority that could benefit from institutionalization or other forms or long-term care, and our current system is poorly setup to handle these issues.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > A cursory google search reveals that 1 in 4 of those in homeless shelters have a severe mental disorder. The number I'm familiar with is 35%, but either is a minority. > These numbers do not paint a small minority Which is probably why I never qualified “minority” with “small”.
    - ProfessorLayton 9y ago
      I got my numbers from here: https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers > ...may help a fraction of that minority. > Which is probably why I never qualified “minority” with “small”. I believe we're now arguing about semantics, so lets agree to disagree.
prawn 9y ago
I'm with you in thinking that at least a trial of something similar would be worth it, given the amounts being spent. e.g., create a community/farm in a regional area with easy tasks for those who didn't want to idle, and various drug and mental-health support services. Give people a chance to trial it and then return if they didn't like it. Allow them to trial it in groups so they weren't leaving behind friends. Completely optional but hopefully a better life for those who tried and liked it. If their peers were there and the weather wasn't problematic, surely something could be superior to a life on the streets. If other states were shipping people in to take advantage of it, pool resources.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF) which I agree is indeed problematic No, even local relocation (like forcing people into shelters for services) has been problematic historically. > Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main reason they are homeless. Yes, a minority do, and institutionalization (which, generally, might as well be outside of SF) may help a fraction of that minority. Forced dislocation would also probably aggravate mental health problems for some others in (and out) of that that minority. > Our current system is not well suited at helping people with mental disorders. Sure, but “ship people elsewhere”, even if the responsibility doesn't shift, isn't a solution to that.

ProfessorLayton 9y ago
A cursory google search reveals that 1 in 4 of those in homeless shelters have a severe mental disorder. Nearly 1 in 2 have severe mental disorders and substance abuse problems. These numbers do not paint a small minority that could benefit from institutionalization or other forms or long-term care, and our current system is poorly setup to handle these issues.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > A cursory google search reveals that 1 in 4 of those in homeless shelters have a severe mental disorder. The number I'm familiar with is 35%, but either is a minority. > These numbers do not paint a small minority Which is probably why I never qualified “minority” with “small”.
  - ProfessorLayton 9y ago
    I got my numbers from here: https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers > ...may help a fraction of that minority. > Which is probably why I never qualified “minority” with “small”. I believe we're now arguing about semantics, so lets agree to disagree.

prawn 9y ago

I'm with you in thinking that at least a trial of something similar would be worth it, given the amounts being spent. e.g., create a community/farm in a regional area with easy tasks for those who didn't want to idle, and various drug and mental-health support services. Give people a chance to trial it and then return if they didn't like it. Allow them to trial it in groups so they weren't leaving behind friends. Completely optional but hopefully a better life for those who tried and liked it. If their peers were there and the weather wasn't problematic, surely something could be superior to a life on the streets. If other states were shipping people in to take advantage of it, pool resources.