5 ms·

You can’t give apartments away at market rates to fix homelessness because about half of the homeless people are too mentally troubled/addicted to be able to ha

You can’t give apartments away at market rates to fix homelessness because about half of the homeless people are too mentally troubled/addicted to be able to handle an apartment. So you still have to pay for security and now you also have to pay for people to come and clean the apartments. Also, SF has indoor shelters and such. Including putting people in hotels. The tents, AIUI, are for people who wouldn’t be allowed in the shelters for whatever reason (like people with dogs or people who are using drugs very frequently, not allowed around children, etc.)

joshribakoff 5y ago
Incredible that you’re down voted for simply speaking the truth. There are literally people who fling their HIV positive blood or feces at anyone who approaches them and carry machetes and axes. They need conservatorship not an apartment
- opportune 5y ago
  I guess what I said just sounds callous to people who are aware of homelessness but don’t have direct experience trying to help them. It’s a complex problem and there’s a reason beyond graft that it hasn’t been fixed. As with many things I’m sure 80% of the resources are going to the 20% of people who are the most difficult to handle. Many homeless people are normal people who are just very down on their luck. But those homeless people are often “invisible” to the general public since they usually don’t sleep rough, yell at people on the street, etc. Finland can probably solve it because they fund “inpatient mental health services” which is what can actually fix homelessness for the most difficult people suffering it. That is super expensive though.
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    On the other hand, you cannot force people into the wards unless they pose grave danger to themselves or the society. And the current sentiment is that yelling slurs or urinating in a subway is not grave enough to justify involuntary confinement.
    - ghufran_syed 5y ago
      Not quite true in California - being "gravely disabled" also justifies involuntary detainment and treatment: "A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter." In reality though, the lack of funding for such people means that only the most severe are treated under this category. What's required is the funding and political will to enforce it, the necessary legal structure is already in place. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=WIC&sectionNum=5008 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
      - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
        > "A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter." Wait a minute. Does it also apply to all these infamous unemployed college graduates who still live with parents?
        kayodelycaon 5y ago
        This really isn’t funny or comparable. Unemploymed college graduates do not lack the capacity to do these things, they have a choice to do them or not do them. People with mental health issues that compromise their ability to care for themselves don’t have a choice.
        AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
        Not funny, indeed, but how do we tell people who "can, but don't want" from those who want, but cannot care for themselves?
        kayodelycaon 5y ago
        In most cases, that’s fairly easy to tell by looking at their history, current living situation, and cognitive abilities. Also, are those who are lazy really the majority case here? Or a straw man being used to justify ignoring the problem?
  - mbrodersen 5y ago
    The article shows that Finland is spending less money solving the problem. The complete opposite of what you are arguing. Does that in any way make you consider, even for a second, that your pre-conceived ideology/religion might get in the way of you understanding what the reality is?
- jimbob45 5y ago
  Sounds like those people belong in an asylum then, not an apartment. I know some asylums are mismanaged and let’s just pretend they’re not here and that states properly fund and regulate them.
  - FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
    It's a gray area. There are people who, with care and looking-after, can be useful-if-weird members of society, but who without that support would spiral out of control. "Crazy"/"not-crazy" isn't a binary.
WhatIsDukkha 5y ago
"""about half of the homeless people are too mentally troubled/addicted to be able to handle an apartment.""" citation needed You're simply expressing your prejudice about a huge group of people and you have immediate experience about a very few of them that you noticed (probably because they were loud). Are some people too troubled for easy housing? Absolutely, but you've made this huge step into "about half" and you are expressing a prejudice which keeps the problem from being solved because it becomes seemingly impossible with this hurdle you've invented.
- Enginerrrd 5y ago
  An over estimate, but not too far off the mark: "In 2019, 36% percent of the chronically homeless suffered from a chronic substance abuse problem, a severe mental illness, or both" [1] For the published data used to come to this conclusion see [2]. This doesn't include less sever mental illness which almost certainly contributes. [1] https://sunrisehouse.com/addiction-demographics/homeless-population/ https://sunrisehouse.com/addiction-demographics/homeless-pop... [2] https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_NatlTerrDC_2019.pdf https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_...
  - tdeck 5y ago
    That statistic doesn't come near to supporting OP's claim. There are plenty of people with substance abuse problems or mental illness who could "handle" living in a free apartment if it were provided to them. The fact that they can't afford market-rate housing doesn't necessarily mean they'd destroy any home they lived in.
    - Barrin92 5y ago
      The US isn't the only country with homeless people. In much of Europe where people actually can literally go and obtain free social housing there are still sizeable homeless populations for exactly the reason OP pointed out, they cannot manage their day-to-day affairs because they are drug addicted or mentally ill. In Germany we have about 50k people living on the streets. Technically none of those people need to be. They could all get the necessary financial aid.
andrepd 5y ago
You're not wrong except when you say "about half". Unless you have hard statistics it's better to refrain from throwing numbers up in the air.
mbrodersen 5y ago
So how do you explain the real world facts of the Finish success? I know it goes against your preconceived ideology/religion but perhaps reevaluate what you think is true given counterfactual real world events?

joshribakoff 5y ago

Incredible that you’re down voted for simply speaking the truth. There are literally people who fling their HIV positive blood or feces at anyone who approaches them and carry machetes and axes. They need conservatorship not an apartment

opportune 5y ago
I guess what I said just sounds callous to people who are aware of homelessness but don’t have direct experience trying to help them. It’s a complex problem and there’s a reason beyond graft that it hasn’t been fixed. As with many things I’m sure 80% of the resources are going to the 20% of people who are the most difficult to handle. Many homeless people are normal people who are just very down on their luck. But those homeless people are often “invisible” to the general public since they usually don’t sleep rough, yell at people on the street, etc. Finland can probably solve it because they fund “inpatient mental health services” which is what can actually fix homelessness for the most difficult people suffering it. That is super expensive though.
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  On the other hand, you cannot force people into the wards unless they pose grave danger to themselves or the society. And the current sentiment is that yelling slurs or urinating in a subway is not grave enough to justify involuntary confinement.
  - ghufran_syed 5y ago
    Not quite true in California - being "gravely disabled" also justifies involuntary detainment and treatment: "A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter." In reality though, the lack of funding for such people means that only the most severe are treated under this category. What's required is the funding and political will to enforce it, the necessary legal structure is already in place. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=WIC&sectionNum=5008 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
    - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
      > "A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter." Wait a minute. Does it also apply to all these infamous unemployed college graduates who still live with parents?
      - kayodelycaon 5y ago
        This really isn’t funny or comparable. Unemploymed college graduates do not lack the capacity to do these things, they have a choice to do them or not do them. People with mental health issues that compromise their ability to care for themselves don’t have a choice.
        AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
        Not funny, indeed, but how do we tell people who "can, but don't want" from those who want, but cannot care for themselves?
        kayodelycaon 5y ago
        In most cases, that’s fairly easy to tell by looking at their history, current living situation, and cognitive abilities. Also, are those who are lazy really the majority case here? Or a straw man being used to justify ignoring the problem?
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  The article shows that Finland is spending less money solving the problem. The complete opposite of what you are arguing. Does that in any way make you consider, even for a second, that your pre-conceived ideology/religion might get in the way of you understanding what the reality is?
jimbob45 5y ago
Sounds like those people belong in an asylum then, not an apartment. I know some asylums are mismanaged and let’s just pretend they’re not here and that states properly fund and regulate them.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  It's a gray area. There are people who, with care and looking-after, can be useful-if-weird members of society, but who without that support would spiral out of control. "Crazy"/"not-crazy" isn't a binary.

WhatIsDukkha 5y ago

"""about half of the homeless people are too mentally troubled/addicted to be able to handle an apartment.""" citation needed You're simply expressing your prejudice about a huge group of people and you have immediate experience about a very few of them that you noticed (probably because they were loud). Are some people too troubled for easy housing? Absolutely, but you've made this huge step into "about half" and you are expressing a prejudice which keeps the problem from being solved because it becomes seemingly impossible with this hurdle you've invented.

Enginerrrd 5y ago
An over estimate, but not too far off the mark: "In 2019, 36% percent of the chronically homeless suffered from a chronic substance abuse problem, a severe mental illness, or both" [1] For the published data used to come to this conclusion see [2]. This doesn't include less sever mental illness which almost certainly contributes. [1] https://sunrisehouse.com/addiction-demographics/homeless-population/ https://sunrisehouse.com/addiction-demographics/homeless-pop... [2] https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_NatlTerrDC_2019.pdf https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_...
- tdeck 5y ago
  That statistic doesn't come near to supporting OP's claim. There are plenty of people with substance abuse problems or mental illness who could "handle" living in a free apartment if it were provided to them. The fact that they can't afford market-rate housing doesn't necessarily mean they'd destroy any home they lived in.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    The US isn't the only country with homeless people. In much of Europe where people actually can literally go and obtain free social housing there are still sizeable homeless populations for exactly the reason OP pointed out, they cannot manage their day-to-day affairs because they are drug addicted or mentally ill. In Germany we have about 50k people living on the streets. Technically none of those people need to be. They could all get the necessary financial aid.

andrepd 5y ago

You're not wrong except when you say "about half". Unless you have hard statistics it's better to refrain from throwing numbers up in the air.

mbrodersen 5y ago

So how do you explain the real world facts of the Finish success? I know it goes against your preconceived ideology/religion but perhaps reevaluate what you think is true given counterfactual real world events?