6 ms·

What is it that's preventing us from forcing our politicians to offer better options? I would vote for a solution to this, and even donate money to it, if enou

What is it that's preventing us from forcing our politicians to offer better options? I would vote for a solution to this, and even donate money to it, if enough other people were doing the same. Don't most people feel the same about this issue? What systemic problem is preventing a huge mass of people who agree on this from making a meaningful change happen?

nostromo 7y ago
It's just a much harder problem to solve than you realize it is. The truth is a lot of the homeless people that aren't in shelters choose not to go to shelters. Why? The biggest reason is because shelters don't allow drugs or alcohol, and if you're an addict that's an immediate pass. There are other reasons too. Sometimes couples want shelter together, but most are separated by gender (and for good reason: to prevent sexual assaults). Sometimes a person has a pet, and pets are generally not accepted at shelters. So, what do you do? Allow people to shoot up in a shelter? Or deny heroin addicts shelter? As I said, it's not obvious how to fix this. It's definitely not just a "build more beds" situation in most cities.
- AaronFriel 7y ago
  I think my "obvious" solution is that you let people use, and provide methods for them to use safely (needle exchanges, etc.), and offer them support to quit using. By stopping people at the first step, you make it a lot harder to provide the second (safe use) and third (use reduction). Nitpick: I don't like to use the term "homeless people", because it puts homeless first and the emphasis on them as a fixed group of people. They're just people who at this time have housing insecurity, and I think this framing means we can solve it by providing people with safety and security and resources.
  - gnaritas 7y ago
    > They're just people who at this time have housing insecurity They're homeless, trying to hide that reality with a non-sense PC euphemism doesn't change that. This attitude isn't helping, it's obfuscating and bad. They're not housing insecure, short people aren't height-challenged, disabled people aren't differently-abled.
    - AaronFriel 7y ago
      Homelessness is an immutable characteristic they can't change? Sounds like you're reinforcing why the change in framing is helpful and emphasizing their personhood first, their living conditions second.
      - gnaritas 7y ago
        > Homelessness is an immutable characteristic they can't change Don't be obtuse, I didn't remotely suggest that. This is a dishonest reply.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I think it's to start treating addiction as a mental health issue and reopen facilities dedicated to treating more serious mental disorders - in a lot of places mental institutions were closed because of perceived (sometimes quite real) mistreatment but they were never replaced, society just moved on - so now you've got a mix of folks on the street, addicts, inherently mentally disabled and the jobless. Jobless homeless are easy to solve and is generally a transient condition, it's extremely dangerous period of their lives but most people will recover in a small number of years with the right support structures - the mentally disabled without support structures are a permanent problem and we just need to provide funding for permanent support workers for them - lastly, addicts are heavily ostracized but their condition is potentially recoverable - still, addiction treatment is a multi-year or decade process and addicts need solid support structures including a stable living situation to dig their way out. So more beds won't help, the funding going into care is pathetic and it has constant exponential costs on society - more drug users on the streets today means even more tomorrow as more people fall into that cycle. I think legalization of the softer drugs would help, we've done it with MJ up here in Canada and we have yet to devolve into a lawless anarchy, but I really don't know about things like heroin or meth.
- epicureanideal 7y ago
  As I was saying, what's stopping us from forcing the politicians to provide better options? Is there some way we can organize a discussion about practical solutions to this issue, and then pick that and tell the politicians to go do it? I'm not saying our current solutions are good by the way, which seems to be what some people replying are interpreting my comment as. I'm personally in favor of just state funded small apartments, where yes, if they want to shoot up, let them shoot up.
  - ahelwer 7y ago
    Yeah, housing first is absolutely the way to go. Sadly the very thing causing homelessness also makes housing-first much more difficult: astronomically-expensive real estate. Condos in Seattle cost more than $500/sqft, and investing tons of money to construct these buildings further props up the ridiculous valuations. Socialized housing is absolutely the answer, but homelessness will never be solved until we stop treating housing as an investment. Housing increasing in value is also housing increasing in cost. Investment growth is diametrically opposed to affordability.
    - ridethewave 7y ago
      >homelessness will never be solved Interesting. Question: do you think that if all of a sudden a wand was waved and everyone homeless in a given city/geography was magically housed that there would still be (eventually, over time) further homelessness or do you think that homelessness would cease to exist from that point forward? What do you think would happen in say, 5-10-15 years out?
      - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 7y ago
        > in a given city/geography When a city is more hospitable to the homeless, it attracts more homeless. The homeless problem in California's major cities is in part due to their their (relatively) accommodating treatment of the homeless. Cities, even states, aren't ever going to be able to fully tackle this problem alone - there needs to be a massive initiative at the federal level.
- jMyles 7y ago
  You say it's not obvious, but then you ask: > So, what do you do? Allow people to shoot up in a shelter? And the answer is yes, obviously. Safe-injection sites and opiate maintenance programs work. And you also go several steps further by ending drug prohibition entirely. Prohibition has created an environment where the only opioid drugs available are highly concentrated and easy to smuggle, just as alcohol prohibition converted a nation of beer and wine drinkers to whiskey addicts. With raw plant forms of coca and poppy available, we'll see far fewer people shooting up heroin or smoking crack (just as we see today in places where cultivation and consumption of these plants is commonplace).
  - deeg 7y ago
    Unfortunately the answer is not obviously yes. A long time ago I volunteered in a shelter. High (and drink) guests can be more violent and argumentive; fights will break out over people stealing drugs. They pass out and make messes with bodily fluids that have to be cleaned up. They leave dirty needles laying around. Few people, including other guests, want to deal with these and the safety issues and so fewer come (including the volunteers).
    - jMyles 7y ago
      Are you saying that you volunteered at a location which expressly served as a safe-injection or maintenance program site? Or a place where addicts clandestinely acquired and used heroin? This discussion is about the former: is it a good idea to have safe injection or maintenance facilities at or near shelters? The consequences you are describing sound to me like symptoms of the latter, which are not widely described at actual safe injection or maintenance sites.
      - deeg 7y ago
        I volunteered at a shelter in a Boston suburb and the problems were fairly small compared to big cities. This was a while ago so heroin wasn't much of a problem; by far the drug of choice was alcohol with crack a distant second. You cannot allow alcohol in a shelter, it is a recipe for disaster. The problem with simple solutions is that many people don't want to do what you think they should do. They don't want safe injection, they want their hit now. They want to drink until they pass out. They want the freedom to make bad choices.
g_langenderfer 7y ago
If you believe funding housing solutions is the right thing, why won't you do it unilaterally?
- munk-a 7y ago
  Because that's an unreasonable stance to take, social welfare shouldn't be shouldered only by those people who care. As a society we have homeless people and as a society we need to provide options for them.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
beamatronic 7y ago
The problem is that as soon as they increase your taxes to pay for something that you want to pay for, they will take that money and use it for something else.
- Joakal 7y ago
  That's not a problem but a feature of government. Otherwise the government will just focus on dirt roads and horses. Don't like taxes? Move to Somalia.
  - refurb 7y ago
    I’m failing to see the logic of your statement. You’re saying it good when the gov’t raises taxes to pay for outreach to the homeless, but then spends the money on something else, like a new stadium?
tehjoker 7y ago
If you give everyone houses, it relieves pressure from the housing system which causes rents to go down. Therefore, every landlord opposes actually solving homelessness. Since we have government by the rich and landed, we get their position encoded in policy. The degree to which reality diverges from this prescription is the degree to which the politicians fear either a) a declining bushiness environment or b) riots
- ridethewave 7y ago
  >If you give everyone houses, it relieves pressure from the housing system which causes rents to go down. Care to explain your logic around this statement?
  - tehjoker 7y ago
    If you provide a real, quality outlet to all people facing homelessness, then people fear eviction much less. Therefore, they will readily turn to the public option in times of crisis rather than scrabble to pay rent. This lack of fear of the the landlord results in less negotiating power.
    - ridethewave 7y ago
      Not sure I fully understand though do appreciate the communication.

nostromo 7y ago

It's just a much harder problem to solve than you realize it is. The truth is a lot of the homeless people that aren't in shelters choose not to go to shelters. Why? The biggest reason is because shelters don't allow drugs or alcohol, and if you're an addict that's an immediate pass. There are other reasons too. Sometimes couples want shelter together, but most are separated by gender (and for good reason: to prevent sexual assaults). Sometimes a person has a pet, and pets are generally not accepted at shelters. So, what do you do? Allow people to shoot up in a shelter? Or deny heroin addicts shelter? As I said, it's not obvious how to fix this. It's definitely not just a "build more beds" situation in most cities.

AaronFriel 7y ago
I think my "obvious" solution is that you let people use, and provide methods for them to use safely (needle exchanges, etc.), and offer them support to quit using. By stopping people at the first step, you make it a lot harder to provide the second (safe use) and third (use reduction). Nitpick: I don't like to use the term "homeless people", because it puts homeless first and the emphasis on them as a fixed group of people. They're just people who at this time have housing insecurity, and I think this framing means we can solve it by providing people with safety and security and resources.
- gnaritas 7y ago
  > They're just people who at this time have housing insecurity They're homeless, trying to hide that reality with a non-sense PC euphemism doesn't change that. This attitude isn't helping, it's obfuscating and bad. They're not housing insecure, short people aren't height-challenged, disabled people aren't differently-abled.
  - AaronFriel 7y ago
    Homelessness is an immutable characteristic they can't change? Sounds like you're reinforcing why the change in framing is helpful and emphasizing their personhood first, their living conditions second.
    - gnaritas 7y ago
      > Homelessness is an immutable characteristic they can't change Don't be obtuse, I didn't remotely suggest that. This is a dishonest reply.
munk-a 7y ago
I think it's to start treating addiction as a mental health issue and reopen facilities dedicated to treating more serious mental disorders - in a lot of places mental institutions were closed because of perceived (sometimes quite real) mistreatment but they were never replaced, society just moved on - so now you've got a mix of folks on the street, addicts, inherently mentally disabled and the jobless. Jobless homeless are easy to solve and is generally a transient condition, it's extremely dangerous period of their lives but most people will recover in a small number of years with the right support structures - the mentally disabled without support structures are a permanent problem and we just need to provide funding for permanent support workers for them - lastly, addicts are heavily ostracized but their condition is potentially recoverable - still, addiction treatment is a multi-year or decade process and addicts need solid support structures including a stable living situation to dig their way out. So more beds won't help, the funding going into care is pathetic and it has constant exponential costs on society - more drug users on the streets today means even more tomorrow as more people fall into that cycle. I think legalization of the softer drugs would help, we've done it with MJ up here in Canada and we have yet to devolve into a lawless anarchy, but I really don't know about things like heroin or meth.
epicureanideal 7y ago
As I was saying, what's stopping us from forcing the politicians to provide better options? Is there some way we can organize a discussion about practical solutions to this issue, and then pick that and tell the politicians to go do it? I'm not saying our current solutions are good by the way, which seems to be what some people replying are interpreting my comment as. I'm personally in favor of just state funded small apartments, where yes, if they want to shoot up, let them shoot up.
- ahelwer 7y ago
  Yeah, housing first is absolutely the way to go. Sadly the very thing causing homelessness also makes housing-first much more difficult: astronomically-expensive real estate. Condos in Seattle cost more than $500/sqft, and investing tons of money to construct these buildings further props up the ridiculous valuations. Socialized housing is absolutely the answer, but homelessness will never be solved until we stop treating housing as an investment. Housing increasing in value is also housing increasing in cost. Investment growth is diametrically opposed to affordability.
  - ridethewave 7y ago
    >homelessness will never be solved Interesting. Question: do you think that if all of a sudden a wand was waved and everyone homeless in a given city/geography was magically housed that there would still be (eventually, over time) further homelessness or do you think that homelessness would cease to exist from that point forward? What do you think would happen in say, 5-10-15 years out?
    - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 7y ago
      > in a given city/geography When a city is more hospitable to the homeless, it attracts more homeless. The homeless problem in California's major cities is in part due to their their (relatively) accommodating treatment of the homeless. Cities, even states, aren't ever going to be able to fully tackle this problem alone - there needs to be a massive initiative at the federal level.
jMyles 7y ago
You say it's not obvious, but then you ask: > So, what do you do? Allow people to shoot up in a shelter? And the answer is yes, obviously. Safe-injection sites and opiate maintenance programs work. And you also go several steps further by ending drug prohibition entirely. Prohibition has created an environment where the only opioid drugs available are highly concentrated and easy to smuggle, just as alcohol prohibition converted a nation of beer and wine drinkers to whiskey addicts. With raw plant forms of coca and poppy available, we'll see far fewer people shooting up heroin or smoking crack (just as we see today in places where cultivation and consumption of these plants is commonplace).
- deeg 7y ago
  Unfortunately the answer is not obviously yes. A long time ago I volunteered in a shelter. High (and drink) guests can be more violent and argumentive; fights will break out over people stealing drugs. They pass out and make messes with bodily fluids that have to be cleaned up. They leave dirty needles laying around. Few people, including other guests, want to deal with these and the safety issues and so fewer come (including the volunteers).
  - jMyles 7y ago
    Are you saying that you volunteered at a location which expressly served as a safe-injection or maintenance program site? Or a place where addicts clandestinely acquired and used heroin? This discussion is about the former: is it a good idea to have safe injection or maintenance facilities at or near shelters? The consequences you are describing sound to me like symptoms of the latter, which are not widely described at actual safe injection or maintenance sites.
    - deeg 7y ago
      I volunteered at a shelter in a Boston suburb and the problems were fairly small compared to big cities. This was a while ago so heroin wasn't much of a problem; by far the drug of choice was alcohol with crack a distant second. You cannot allow alcohol in a shelter, it is a recipe for disaster. The problem with simple solutions is that many people don't want to do what you think they should do. They don't want safe injection, they want their hit now. They want to drink until they pass out. They want the freedom to make bad choices.

g_langenderfer 7y ago

If you believe funding housing solutions is the right thing, why won't you do it unilaterally?

munk-a 7y ago
Because that's an unreasonable stance to take, social welfare shouldn't be shouldered only by those people who care. As a society we have homeless people and as a society we need to provide options for them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

beamatronic 7y ago

The problem is that as soon as they increase your taxes to pay for something that you want to pay for, they will take that money and use it for something else.

Joakal 7y ago
That's not a problem but a feature of government. Otherwise the government will just focus on dirt roads and horses. Don't like taxes? Move to Somalia.
- refurb 7y ago
  I’m failing to see the logic of your statement. You’re saying it good when the gov’t raises taxes to pay for outreach to the homeless, but then spends the money on something else, like a new stadium?

tehjoker 7y ago

If you give everyone houses, it relieves pressure from the housing system which causes rents to go down. Therefore, every landlord opposes actually solving homelessness. Since we have government by the rich and landed, we get their position encoded in policy. The degree to which reality diverges from this prescription is the degree to which the politicians fear either a) a declining bushiness environment or b) riots

ridethewave 7y ago
>If you give everyone houses, it relieves pressure from the housing system which causes rents to go down. Care to explain your logic around this statement?
- tehjoker 7y ago
  If you provide a real, quality outlet to all people facing homelessness, then people fear eviction much less. Therefore, they will readily turn to the public option in times of crisis rather than scrabble to pay rent. This lack of fear of the the landlord results in less negotiating power.
  - ridethewave 7y ago
    Not sure I fully understand though do appreciate the communication.