6 ms·

I don't disagree, but I will point out that many homeless people want to be homeless, if being housed means submitting to questions and forms. Autonomy is a pow

I don't disagree, but I will point out that many homeless people want to be homeless, if being housed means submitting to questions and forms. Autonomy is a powerfully strong motivator.

DoreenMichele 9y ago
The vast majority of homeless do not want to be homeless. If we provide enough affordable housing -- at market conditions, with no more forms and the like than other rentals -- you will be left with a much smaller number of quirky hobo-by-choice types. Shrinking the problem is very worthwhile.
- TheCoreh 9y ago
  Don't rentals require a credit score, a stable source of income, and usually a guarantor?
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Yes. But I am trying to make the distinction that most poverty relief programs are much more invasive and bureaucratic than most market based solutions. I am thinking of low cost rentals where they require you to live there and won't rent it to well off people looking for a weekend getaway that is cheaper than a motel. But other than that, I don't want a lot of extra requirements tacked on.
    - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
      I think you're very misguided about "market based solutions". The homeless don't have money, therefore they have limited/no exposure in the "market". I don't know if you've been present before about why companies don't form around low income or homeless segment - there's no market in them. No money = no RoI. You cater to people who have money. You're describing something that price discriminates and doesnt at the same time. > I am thinking of low cost rentals where they require you to live there Forced to be there X amount of time. This is a reduction of freedom, which sounds like reinstating the bureaucratic nightmare you talk of. > and won't rent it to well off people looking for a weekend getaway that is cheaper than a motel. Means-testing. The homeless aren't going to have the paperwork to show lack of means. Remember, these people probably have no ID or anything. The census allows them to highlight landmarks where they "frequent", along with voting homeless allowed similar. > But other than that, I don't want a lot of extra requirements tacked on. And what you stated is already too much. What needs done: if you're homeless, you get a small room. It's yours. It won't be much. We can at least afford that as a population.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        The homeless are not some other population. They are people who currently lack housing. With enough affordable housing, some people would never land on the street to start with. They would move to an SRO temporarily, get their act together and return eventually to more conventional housing. I am not talking about a homeless service. I am talking about policies that shrink the problem in part by preventing homelessness to begin with. I will add not all homeless are completely penniless, and I have formally studied the subject.
        crankylinuxuser 9y ago
        > The homeless are not some other population. They are people who currently lack housing. True, however not having housing then brings on a host of other problems. Basic sanitation and food are just 2 of those big issues - and the food issue is why the fire happened in this place. > With enough affordable housing, some people would never land on the street to start with. They would move to an SRO temporarily, get their act together and return eventually to more conventional housing. Or, they would do like what we see happen in China and Japan - where the prices keep going up and up and up, and those people never leave the SROs. That's also a market eventuality, and a noted fact in those areas. This idea that SRO's are some "gift" to homeless and that they'll clean right up is a farce. > I am not talking about a homeless service. I am talking about policies that shrink the problem in part by preventing homelessness to begin with. I have a completely curveball outfield suggestion: We the government/people build SROs. If you're homeless, you can have 1. End of discussion. Because shoving this on "The Market" is how in part why they became homeless. So yeah, splatter more "market". It's about as true as trickle-down theory (aka: getting pissed on by above). > I will add not all homeless are completely penniless, and I have formally studied the subject. Yeah, so did I. I was homeless. You researched it for a single sociology class. When I was homeless, we met lots of students from the local university. The homeless epidemic has gotten nowhere but worse. But hey, there's some papers published reaffirming time and again the same things.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Not all of them. In smaller towns you can rent an apartment or even business space on a handshake.
  - jpindar 9y ago
    Normal apartments usually do. But there are also businesses that rent rooms or studios by the week, without a lease. Much like a hotel (and some of them also function as hotels), they can simply refuse to rent to a problem tenant next week so they don't need any of that.
- kurthr 9y ago
  If 20-25% of homeless suffer extreme mental illness (as claimed by the National Coalition for the Homeless) , then I'm not sure that the vast majority simply lack for affordable housing. That's true for families, the elderly, and those living out of vehicles... but many of those living in encampments (e.g. >> 25%) are doing so because they do not want to be in any shelter or no shelter would have them (drug use, prostitution, violence, etc). I agree shrinking the problem is useful, but many of the homeless wouldn't want to live near other homeless, when they have the choice. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pdf http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pd...
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Let's go with your theory and assume the worst. That still leaves 75% of them who would like a "normal" life and just can't manage to arrange it.
    - kurthr 9y ago
      Well, actually worst would be that as many as 25% of those living in encampments are extremely mentally ill and unable to even find or stay in low cost housing. Another 25% might be involved in illegal behavior that wouldn't be allowed in and SRO (prostitution, drugs, violence, bike theft). Another 25% might be opposed the the idea of living with constraints of an SRO (when you can go in/out, how much room you have, who you have to live with). Then it's only the 25% (families, elderly, kids, disabled, sick, poor) living in an encampment because they don't have a vehicle that would move into low cost housing. That's an improvement, but it's nothing like a solution.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        I have had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy. I did an internship in a homeless shelter. Later, I spent time on the street myself, including six months in downtown San Diego attending homeless services. I consider myself to be more knowledgeable than average on the subject. You would need to provide a lot of data to substantiate this claim to have me take it seriously. I don't believe that is remotely realistic.
- arebop 9y ago
  You can rent an apartment in Urbana, IL for $350/month where the minimum wage is $8.25. The HUD rule of thumb is that a person on that income would not be "cost-burdened" by a rent of up to $458/month. So although housing affordability is a real problem on the west coast, it doesn't really explain homelessness. The homeless on the west coast are people who either have deeper problems than affordability (such as profound disability/drug addiction), or who simply prefer to be homeless in LA than housed in a less fashionable part of the country.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    > who simply prefer to be homeless in LA than housed in a less fashionable part of the country. I don't believe this is true. Many homeless people may make their way to the west coast because they'd be homeless either way and services (and weather) are better in LA (often with "help" from their local government, since a bus ticket is much cheaper than actual support). But ideological freegans who actually choose to leave decent homes and jobs are a microscopic fraction.
  - s0rce 9y ago
    Also, it costs money to move across the country. It would be interesting to know if there are charities that help with relocation and getting people back on their feet with minimum wage jobs and housing in lower cost of living areas.
    - koolba 9y ago
      Sometimes cities will fund it themselves. A one way bus ticket out of town is way cheaper than providing housing.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        There is some truth to this, but it is much, much more common to stick you in the back seat of a police car or sheriff's vehicle and drive you to the edge of their jurisdiction and drop you by the side of the road. In some cases, it is done nicely and helpfully because you are traveling on foot, it saves you a bunch of walking and you don't die in their jurisdiction. Other times, it is asshole behavior for pan handling (I never panhandled, I just know it happens). When I was in downtown San Diego, word on the street was that there was an organization that would help with travel to get back home. But when I have searched online, I haven't located such info. I have idly wondered if we could create an organization for donating travel points of various sorts to help homeless people get train tickets or other travel expenses covered.
zouhair 9y ago
Can you back up this outlandish claim?
- Spooky23 9y ago
  It’s not outlandish. The government shifted from institutional commitment to voluntary community based care for the mentally ill and chronically addicted in the early 1980s. For a variety of reasons, just providing apartments doesn’t work. Most homeless people require substantial and ongoing assistance to get and remain independent. Our social welfare system is a patchwork that varies from state to state and counties within a state. Until that changes, you’ll see no progress, as people will migrate to get better benefits and services, which makes delivery of those services impossible.
  - mncharity 9y ago
    > people will migrate to get better benefits and services, which makes delivery of those services impossible A couple of decades ago, a large town in New Hampshire obtained federal funds to build low-cost housing. But the housing brought in people who used more local services. Services whose cost was only partially defrayed by the state and federal governments. So the town then bought up low-cost housing, and tore it down.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      About 10-15% of the US population is below the Federal poverty line in any given year, but only 2% are chronically poor. This is typically defined as below the Federal poverty line at least 5 years out of 10. My thinking is we need enough low cost housing for 2% of the population. This would help keep the chronically poor -- those with intractable personal problems -- off the street. I am currently thinking a lot about how to address the issue effectively. I am not for growing homeless services or similar programs. My latest project is aimed at making flexible earned income a viable option, for both homeless people and people with the kinds of barriers to employment that can lead to homelessness: http://independentdigitalworkers.blogspot.com http://independentdigitalworkers.blogspot.com It isn't charity. It is part of how I got myself off the street.
thesagan 9y ago
It's a valid point but housing is more and more out of reach of folks. As a nation we need to open up housing opportunities. We've really regressed.
noonespecial 9y ago
Perhaps, (go with me here) perhaps we don't strictly need questions, forms, drug tests, credit checks, background checks, arrest warrant checks, and belonging searches to give someone the simple dignity of a little room to spend a night in.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

I don't disagree, but I will point out that many homeless people want to be homeless, if being housed means submitting to questions and forms. Autonomy is a powerfully strong motivator.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

The vast majority of homeless do not want to be homeless. If we provide enough affordable housing -- at market conditions, with no more forms and the like than other rentals -- you will be left with a much smaller number of quirky hobo-by-choice types. Shrinking the problem is very worthwhile.

TheCoreh 9y ago
Don't rentals require a credit score, a stable source of income, and usually a guarantor?
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Yes. But I am trying to make the distinction that most poverty relief programs are much more invasive and bureaucratic than most market based solutions. I am thinking of low cost rentals where they require you to live there and won't rent it to well off people looking for a weekend getaway that is cheaper than a motel. But other than that, I don't want a lot of extra requirements tacked on.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    I think you're very misguided about "market based solutions". The homeless don't have money, therefore they have limited/no exposure in the "market". I don't know if you've been present before about why companies don't form around low income or homeless segment - there's no market in them. No money = no RoI. You cater to people who have money. You're describing something that price discriminates and doesnt at the same time. > I am thinking of low cost rentals where they require you to live there Forced to be there X amount of time. This is a reduction of freedom, which sounds like reinstating the bureaucratic nightmare you talk of. > and won't rent it to well off people looking for a weekend getaway that is cheaper than a motel. Means-testing. The homeless aren't going to have the paperwork to show lack of means. Remember, these people probably have no ID or anything. The census allows them to highlight landmarks where they "frequent", along with voting homeless allowed similar. > But other than that, I don't want a lot of extra requirements tacked on. And what you stated is already too much. What needs done: if you're homeless, you get a small room. It's yours. It won't be much. We can at least afford that as a population.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      The homeless are not some other population. They are people who currently lack housing. With enough affordable housing, some people would never land on the street to start with. They would move to an SRO temporarily, get their act together and return eventually to more conventional housing. I am not talking about a homeless service. I am talking about policies that shrink the problem in part by preventing homelessness to begin with. I will add not all homeless are completely penniless, and I have formally studied the subject.
      - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
        > The homeless are not some other population. They are people who currently lack housing. True, however not having housing then brings on a host of other problems. Basic sanitation and food are just 2 of those big issues - and the food issue is why the fire happened in this place. > With enough affordable housing, some people would never land on the street to start with. They would move to an SRO temporarily, get their act together and return eventually to more conventional housing. Or, they would do like what we see happen in China and Japan - where the prices keep going up and up and up, and those people never leave the SROs. That's also a market eventuality, and a noted fact in those areas. This idea that SRO's are some "gift" to homeless and that they'll clean right up is a farce. > I am not talking about a homeless service. I am talking about policies that shrink the problem in part by preventing homelessness to begin with. I have a completely curveball outfield suggestion: We the government/people build SROs. If you're homeless, you can have 1. End of discussion. Because shoving this on "The Market" is how in part why they became homeless. So yeah, splatter more "market". It's about as true as trickle-down theory (aka: getting pissed on by above). > I will add not all homeless are completely penniless, and I have formally studied the subject. Yeah, so did I. I was homeless. You researched it for a single sociology class. When I was homeless, we met lots of students from the local university. The homeless epidemic has gotten nowhere but worse. But hey, there's some papers published reaffirming time and again the same things.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Not all of them. In smaller towns you can rent an apartment or even business space on a handshake.
- jpindar 9y ago
  Normal apartments usually do. But there are also businesses that rent rooms or studios by the week, without a lease. Much like a hotel (and some of them also function as hotels), they can simply refuse to rent to a problem tenant next week so they don't need any of that.
kurthr 9y ago
If 20-25% of homeless suffer extreme mental illness (as claimed by the National Coalition for the Homeless) , then I'm not sure that the vast majority simply lack for affordable housing. That's true for families, the elderly, and those living out of vehicles... but many of those living in encampments (e.g. >> 25%) are doing so because they do not want to be in any shelter or no shelter would have them (drug use, prostitution, violence, etc). I agree shrinking the problem is useful, but many of the homeless wouldn't want to live near other homeless, when they have the choice. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pdf http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pd...
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Let's go with your theory and assume the worst. That still leaves 75% of them who would like a "normal" life and just can't manage to arrange it.
  - kurthr 9y ago
    Well, actually worst would be that as many as 25% of those living in encampments are extremely mentally ill and unable to even find or stay in low cost housing. Another 25% might be involved in illegal behavior that wouldn't be allowed in and SRO (prostitution, drugs, violence, bike theft). Another 25% might be opposed the the idea of living with constraints of an SRO (when you can go in/out, how much room you have, who you have to live with). Then it's only the 25% (families, elderly, kids, disabled, sick, poor) living in an encampment because they don't have a vehicle that would move into low cost housing. That's an improvement, but it's nothing like a solution.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      I have had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy. I did an internship in a homeless shelter. Later, I spent time on the street myself, including six months in downtown San Diego attending homeless services. I consider myself to be more knowledgeable than average on the subject. You would need to provide a lot of data to substantiate this claim to have me take it seriously. I don't believe that is remotely realistic.
arebop 9y ago
You can rent an apartment in Urbana, IL for $350/month where the minimum wage is $8.25. The HUD rule of thumb is that a person on that income would not be "cost-burdened" by a rent of up to $458/month. So although housing affordability is a real problem on the west coast, it doesn't really explain homelessness. The homeless on the west coast are people who either have deeper problems than affordability (such as profound disability/drug addiction), or who simply prefer to be homeless in LA than housed in a less fashionable part of the country.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  > who simply prefer to be homeless in LA than housed in a less fashionable part of the country. I don't believe this is true. Many homeless people may make their way to the west coast because they'd be homeless either way and services (and weather) are better in LA (often with "help" from their local government, since a bus ticket is much cheaper than actual support). But ideological freegans who actually choose to leave decent homes and jobs are a microscopic fraction.
- s0rce 9y ago
  Also, it costs money to move across the country. It would be interesting to know if there are charities that help with relocation and getting people back on their feet with minimum wage jobs and housing in lower cost of living areas.
  - koolba 9y ago
    Sometimes cities will fund it themselves. A one way bus ticket out of town is way cheaper than providing housing.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      There is some truth to this, but it is much, much more common to stick you in the back seat of a police car or sheriff's vehicle and drive you to the edge of their jurisdiction and drop you by the side of the road. In some cases, it is done nicely and helpfully because you are traveling on foot, it saves you a bunch of walking and you don't die in their jurisdiction. Other times, it is asshole behavior for pan handling (I never panhandled, I just know it happens). When I was in downtown San Diego, word on the street was that there was an organization that would help with travel to get back home. But when I have searched online, I haven't located such info. I have idly wondered if we could create an organization for donating travel points of various sorts to help homeless people get train tickets or other travel expenses covered.

zouhair 9y ago

Can you back up this outlandish claim?

Spooky23 9y ago
It’s not outlandish. The government shifted from institutional commitment to voluntary community based care for the mentally ill and chronically addicted in the early 1980s. For a variety of reasons, just providing apartments doesn’t work. Most homeless people require substantial and ongoing assistance to get and remain independent. Our social welfare system is a patchwork that varies from state to state and counties within a state. Until that changes, you’ll see no progress, as people will migrate to get better benefits and services, which makes delivery of those services impossible.
- mncharity 9y ago
  > people will migrate to get better benefits and services, which makes delivery of those services impossible A couple of decades ago, a large town in New Hampshire obtained federal funds to build low-cost housing. But the housing brought in people who used more local services. Services whose cost was only partially defrayed by the state and federal governments. So the town then bought up low-cost housing, and tore it down.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    About 10-15% of the US population is below the Federal poverty line in any given year, but only 2% are chronically poor. This is typically defined as below the Federal poverty line at least 5 years out of 10. My thinking is we need enough low cost housing for 2% of the population. This would help keep the chronically poor -- those with intractable personal problems -- off the street. I am currently thinking a lot about how to address the issue effectively. I am not for growing homeless services or similar programs. My latest project is aimed at making flexible earned income a viable option, for both homeless people and people with the kinds of barriers to employment that can lead to homelessness: http://independentdigitalworkers.blogspot.com http://independentdigitalworkers.blogspot.com It isn't charity. It is part of how I got myself off the street.

thesagan 9y ago

It's a valid point but housing is more and more out of reach of folks. As a nation we need to open up housing opportunities. We've really regressed.

noonespecial 9y ago

Perhaps, (go with me here) perhaps we don't strictly need questions, forms, drug tests, credit checks, background checks, arrest warrant checks, and belonging searches to give someone the simple dignity of a little room to spend a night in.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]