7 ms·

The support clearly isn't that good, because places with actually good support don't have these problems.

by DanBC 7y ago

cpuguy83 7y ago
The support is great, as I understand it anyway, unless you are addicted to drugs. The places for the homeless to go to do not accept people with drugs, which seems reasonable but then you create this situation with lots of addicts on the streets not getting the help they really need.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Clearly the support is fucking terrible if you still have large homeless populations of mentally ill people defecating in the street and committing criminal offences.
  - cpuguy83 7y ago
    As I said above... the issue seems to be no place to go for people addicted to drugs.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      I don't understand how that equals "good support".
      - cpuguy83 7y ago
        We are saying essentially the same thing, just that what's there isn't all bad, just not good enough and ignores a group of people because we've decided that we don't like people who are on drugs.
chaostheory 7y ago
Which places? Unfortunately in the US we have decent homelessness support, but we have extremely poor or non-existent mental health support which is what this problem really is
- DanBC 7y ago
  I don't understand how people can say the support is good if it does not address mental illness nor substance misuse. That's not good support, it's hopelessly inadequate.
  - kamarg 7y ago
    If you are homeless but able to contribute to the economy if you weren't homeless the programs are very good. If even after getting off the streets, you still require additional help, the support available to you is significantly less good. Put another way, if it was likely you could get yourself out of the homeless situation there's plenty of support in place for you. If you require help, there's little that is in place. So, whether the support is good depends almost entirely on what type of homeless you are. It can be good for some while being abysmal for others.
  - chaostheory 7y ago
    Because being homeless does not mean that you are suffering from mental issues. It's also much harder to address the real problem of not addressing mental health, when you lump it all into the same category of homelessness. I know it first hand because I used to be homeless (but not "visible homeless") at one point.
    - sgift 7y ago
      > Because being homeless does not mean that you are suffering from mental issues. A relevant part of them do, or we wouldn't have this discussion. That all sounds like "we have good help systems for some homeless" at most, which then somehow gets generalized into "we have good help systems for homeless" when this obviously isn't the case for a part of them.
drspacemonkey 7y ago
The support is pretty good in Vancouver, but there's two big compounding problems. 1 - drugs, which is a massive complication modifier 2 - capacity, which is stressed a LOT by other areas of the country. For example, other provinces have a policy of buying one-way bus tickets to Vancouver for any homeless person who asks (or is slyly convinced to leave). Vancouver can't do anything to stop it, for good reason - freedom of movement within the country is a guaranteed legal right.
- hackermailman 7y ago
  Also non returnable warrants, you get pinched for something in another province like theft or drug crimes in Alberta or elsewhere, flee to another province like BC to avoid jail and police don't want to pay to send you back. Then you end up a homeless criminal in the downtown eastside of Vancouver.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
Good support for the homeless tends to attract more homeless to big cities. See The Shirky Principle. Places that don't have such problems have good support for human beings generally, not (just) good support for the homeless in specific.
- neonate 7y ago
  If you don't mind, I'd be curious to hear your take on the controversy around whether the west-coast homelessness problem is aggravated by people moving there from other places with colder climates and less 'support'. I'd also be curious to hear what you think about the degree to which the worst of this is a drug abuse problem vs. something else.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    Studies show that most homeless are "locals," but some percentage do travel to more desirable areas, plus some towns and other institutions will just give a homeless person a one way ticket to get rid of them. However, I'm skeptical of the usefulness and accuracy of the official data we have on the homeless. Homeless lives are lived largely in secret. They may have no address and no phone. This is a vulnerable population and the system does not serve them well. I imagine even a lot of self-reported data is unreliable because vulnerable people will lie at times to protect themselves. In the US, a lot of homeless data is based on the annual Point In Time count which occurs in late January. I recently tripped across an article that explicitly stated it occurs at that time because it's the coldest part of the year and homeless individuals do their best to seek shelter, if only temporarily. So it seems to me that this count is likely an undercount and it's an undercount entirely on purpose. I participated in planning meetings for the local Point in Time Count last year. I've also seen anonymous questions online from people participating who had concerns about various populations being overlooked by the count, such as post-hurricane victims still living in hotels after their house was destroyed. I traveled to the West Coast while homeless. I intentionally returned to California because the West Coast is better for my health. I then spent about 5.5 years homeless in California before leaving the state to get back into housing someplace cheaper. California is exporting poor people to other states and has been for years. If you are a waitress or trucker or similar, you will be better off elsewhere. But homeless people can end up stuck in place in California. The weather in large parts of California make it fairly tolerable to sleep outside. This can become a recipe for long term homelessness. Data does suggest that California has more homeless who are unsheltered and more chronic, long term homelessness than most places. Off the top of my head, I think California has 8% of the US population and an estimated 25% of our homeless. So either California is incredibly broken or it's a de facto dumping ground for the nation's homeless. I suspect there's some truth to both interpretations. Re drugs: I think generally think drug abuse is usually a symptom of other problems. I'm not someone who believes in the Twelve Step model of addiction. Research and first-hand experience with users suggests that's not an accurate model. The history of Alcoholics Anonymous is that it began with a few hardcore alcoholics whose alcoholism was literally killing them and they still could not stop, so they gave it up to God and that worked. Now, every college student who goes on a bender is at risk of being called an alcoholic and sent to AA. Reality: Older people typically drink less than younger people with absolutely no outside intervention whatsoever. Given that general mental framework, I see our national drug crisis as a statement that there is something very wrong with our overall social fabric. If you fix that, then the drug crisis will die down. It will never go away entirely. There will always be people trying to drown some of their sorrows for one reason or another. But the levels we are seeing speaks to something rotten at the heart of our society. Generally speaking, I think we need single payer national healthcare and we need to fix our housing supply issues. Those two things would go a long way towards restoring a healthy social fabric to the US.

The support clearly isn't that good, because places with actually good support don't have these problems.

by DanBC 7y ago

The support clearly isn't that good, because places with actually good support don't have these problems.

The support is great, as I understand it anyway, unless you are addicted to drugs. The places for the homeless to go to do not accept people with drugs, which seems reasonable but then you create this situation with lots of addicts on the streets not getting the help they really need.

DanBC 7y ago
Clearly the support is fucking terrible if you still have large homeless populations of mentally ill people defecating in the street and committing criminal offences.
- cpuguy83 7y ago
  As I said above... the issue seems to be no place to go for people addicted to drugs.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    I don't understand how that equals "good support".
    - cpuguy83 7y ago
      We are saying essentially the same thing, just that what's there isn't all bad, just not good enough and ignores a group of people because we've decided that we don't like people who are on drugs.

chaostheory 7y ago

Which places? Unfortunately in the US we have decent homelessness support, but we have extremely poor or non-existent mental health support which is what this problem really is

DanBC 7y ago
I don't understand how people can say the support is good if it does not address mental illness nor substance misuse. That's not good support, it's hopelessly inadequate.
- kamarg 7y ago
  If you are homeless but able to contribute to the economy if you weren't homeless the programs are very good. If even after getting off the streets, you still require additional help, the support available to you is significantly less good. Put another way, if it was likely you could get yourself out of the homeless situation there's plenty of support in place for you. If you require help, there's little that is in place. So, whether the support is good depends almost entirely on what type of homeless you are. It can be good for some while being abysmal for others.
- chaostheory 7y ago
  Because being homeless does not mean that you are suffering from mental issues. It's also much harder to address the real problem of not addressing mental health, when you lump it all into the same category of homelessness. I know it first hand because I used to be homeless (but not "visible homeless") at one point.
  - sgift 7y ago
    > Because being homeless does not mean that you are suffering from mental issues. A relevant part of them do, or we wouldn't have this discussion. That all sounds like "we have good help systems for some homeless" at most, which then somehow gets generalized into "we have good help systems for homeless" when this obviously isn't the case for a part of them.

drspacemonkey 7y ago

The support is pretty good in Vancouver, but there's two big compounding problems. 1 - drugs, which is a massive complication modifier 2 - capacity, which is stressed a LOT by other areas of the country. For example, other provinces have a policy of buying one-way bus tickets to Vancouver for any homeless person who asks (or is slyly convinced to leave). Vancouver can't do anything to stop it, for good reason - freedom of movement within the country is a guaranteed legal right.

hackermailman 7y ago
Also non returnable warrants, you get pinched for something in another province like theft or drug crimes in Alberta or elsewhere, flee to another province like BC to avoid jail and police don't want to pay to send you back. Then you end up a homeless criminal in the downtown eastside of Vancouver.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

Good support for the homeless tends to attract more homeless to big cities. See The Shirky Principle. Places that don't have such problems have good support for human beings generally, not (just) good support for the homeless in specific.

neonate 7y ago
If you don't mind, I'd be curious to hear your take on the controversy around whether the west-coast homelessness problem is aggravated by people moving there from other places with colder climates and less 'support'. I'd also be curious to hear what you think about the degree to which the worst of this is a drug abuse problem vs. something else.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Studies show that most homeless are "locals," but some percentage do travel to more desirable areas, plus some towns and other institutions will just give a homeless person a one way ticket to get rid of them. However, I'm skeptical of the usefulness and accuracy of the official data we have on the homeless. Homeless lives are lived largely in secret. They may have no address and no phone. This is a vulnerable population and the system does not serve them well. I imagine even a lot of self-reported data is unreliable because vulnerable people will lie at times to protect themselves. In the US, a lot of homeless data is based on the annual Point In Time count which occurs in late January. I recently tripped across an article that explicitly stated it occurs at that time because it's the coldest part of the year and homeless individuals do their best to seek shelter, if only temporarily. So it seems to me that this count is likely an undercount and it's an undercount entirely on purpose. I participated in planning meetings for the local Point in Time Count last year. I've also seen anonymous questions online from people participating who had concerns about various populations being overlooked by the count, such as post-hurricane victims still living in hotels after their house was destroyed. I traveled to the West Coast while homeless. I intentionally returned to California because the West Coast is better for my health. I then spent about 5.5 years homeless in California before leaving the state to get back into housing someplace cheaper. California is exporting poor people to other states and has been for years. If you are a waitress or trucker or similar, you will be better off elsewhere. But homeless people can end up stuck in place in California. The weather in large parts of California make it fairly tolerable to sleep outside. This can become a recipe for long term homelessness. Data does suggest that California has more homeless who are unsheltered and more chronic, long term homelessness than most places. Off the top of my head, I think California has 8% of the US population and an estimated 25% of our homeless. So either California is incredibly broken or it's a de facto dumping ground for the nation's homeless. I suspect there's some truth to both interpretations. Re drugs: I think generally think drug abuse is usually a symptom of other problems. I'm not someone who believes in the Twelve Step model of addiction. Research and first-hand experience with users suggests that's not an accurate model. The history of Alcoholics Anonymous is that it began with a few hardcore alcoholics whose alcoholism was literally killing them and they still could not stop, so they gave it up to God and that worked. Now, every college student who goes on a bender is at risk of being called an alcoholic and sent to AA. Reality: Older people typically drink less than younger people with absolutely no outside intervention whatsoever. Given that general mental framework, I see our national drug crisis as a statement that there is something very wrong with our overall social fabric. If you fix that, then the drug crisis will die down. It will never go away entirely. There will always be people trying to drown some of their sorrows for one reason or another. But the levels we are seeing speaks to something rotten at the heart of our society. Generally speaking, I think we need single payer national healthcare and we need to fix our housing supply issues. Those two things would go a long way towards restoring a healthy social fabric to the US.