6 ms·

> What do you do if someone wants to sleep on the street? When all of the available shelters are full this is not a relevant question. > Where do you build t

> What do you do if someone wants to sleep on the street? When all of the available shelters are full this is not a relevant question. > Where do you build these dorms? Near transit so people that can't afford a car can get around. There's not a shortage of underutilized land in west coast cities. > Are there barriers to living in these dorms? Sobriety requirements, job searching, etc? no, none of those situations are improved by leaving someone outside. > We should definitely try to solve this but I don't think it is simple at all. There are complex problems in our society, but not having enough bedrooms has a simple solution: build more bedrooms. Someone is going to have a better chance finding a job if they get a good night sleep and have a place to shower.

mulmen 5y ago
> When all of the available shelters are full this is not a relevant question. It is relevant when we are talking about building more housing. Why build something if people won't use it? > Near transit so people that can't afford a car can get around. There's not a shortage of underutilized land in west coast cities. Underutilized land near transit? What do you do about the NIMBYs? > no, none of those situations are improved by leaving someone outside. Of course, but do you want to live in a shelter with people doing drugs? Should there be some that are drug friendly and some that aren't? > There are complex problems in our society, but not having enough bedrooms has a simple solution: build more bedrooms. Actually providing public housing isn't simple though. We have a long history of trying all kinds of approaches that didn't work for whatever reason. There's no simple answer. > Someone is going to have a better chance finding a job if they get a good night sleep and have a place to shower. This assumes they want to find a job though.
- jljljl 5y ago
  > It is relevant when we are talking about building more housing. Why build something if people won't use it? If the shelters are full, it's clear people are using them. If we start seeing vacancies in shelters, then we can worry about this.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    I don’t doubt we need more space now. Vacancies in shelters would suggest we created too much supply, which would be a waste of resources. I prefer to take the approach of understanding the current needs and working to address all of those needs.
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      > I prefer to take the approach of understanding the current needs and working to address all of those needs. So what is your proposed solution?
      - mulmen 5y ago
        I asked up-thread if dorm style housing should have restrictions. That's a genuine question. I don't have the answers. It is not acceptable that we have any number of people sleeping on the street. I realize we can't simply prohibit that. But if we are going to reclaim our public spaces we need solutions that work for everyone. There is never going to be one simple solution to that. So yeah, build more housing. But what kind? Some of it should simply be affordable housing for gainfully employed people. Some should be dorm style for emergency stays. Some should have a focus on rehab. Some should have a focus on finding employment. There's probably a need for a mix. But we definitely need some places that are safe for vulnerable populations which have more restrictions and different resources than low-barrier-to-entry based shelters or housing. Should we try to put addicts on a rehab path? Are we willing to ignore that problem to solve homelessness? I don't know. I think it's worth having a conversation. It's complicated and messy and unclear.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      If that’s true, do houses with years long vacancies in NYC or LA mean that housing is too high in supply? Having been homeless, the needs are best served with a reliable friend network, an emergency place you can stay at that is a step above a shelter/church I never been to a woman’s only shelter, I heard they suck too though. I prefer staying with friends but hidden spots are fine like hammock in a park, storage units, amenities like showers at the gym, or houses, and a feeling of purpose, growth and not failure. Brahmins take an oath of poverty and are respected, as are monks who beg for food. If you can, understand the needs from dogfooding.
- cheriot 5y ago
  All of the shelters where I live are full. The article describes increasing chronic unsheltered populations in west coast cities. Do any of these have empty shelter beds? SF and LA do not. "Underutilized land near transit? What do you do about the NIMBYs?" Tell them to take a hike. The state needs to get more involved with objective rules so we don't have a game of each neighborhood screaming NIMBY. > Of course, but do you want to live in a shelter with people doing drugs? Should there some that are drug friendly and some that aren't? I don't know the answer to this. When we have enough shelters and people have a locked door to sleep behind this will probably be the next problem to solve. > Actually providing public housing isn't simple though. Shelters and public housing are different. Any kind of shelter has to be fully maintained with public funds because the people sleeping in them are broke. There's a countries with large amounts of successful public housing. The theme is that it's well maintained so it's actually desirable for stable, normal people. Allowing a wider range of incomes to move in so that rent can cover operations and maintenance makes it less dependent on the whims of local pols.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    Thanks for the thoughtful response. Telling NIMBYs to take a hike isn’t simple. How do you actually achieve that? The question is not if we have enough shelter space. The question is if there are homeless who do not want shelter space. In other words do we have another problem to focus on in parallel.
    - cheriot 5y ago
      California had a lot of success with Project Home Key that acquired existing hotels and converts them to supportive housing. It worked well because it was quick and often required only one vote by local authorities. In contrast, building new shelters is too easy to drag out and kill with a thousand paper cuts. Some SF Supervisors have spent years saying they want a homeless shelter in their district, but just can't find a place to put it. Others propose a site and then drag out funding forever. My ideal solution would be a state agency that funds and builds shelters, supportive housing, public housing etc. Each municipality gets a list of how many beds it needs and can pick the locations. BUT if they refuse to pick sites then the state does it for them. Then the state builds it without any more bottlenecks on local politicians. imo the key is allowing local choice, but not to say no. If we make shelters a realistic option and a large number of people won't take them we'll have another problem. But we haven't gotten to that bridge yet.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  Ohh come on! Yes, some of these questions are relevant, theoretically. > Why build something if people won't use it? We know some people will use it since the ones already built are full. If we look at other cities - eg. NYC we see the ratio sheltered to unsheltered are different from SF. The difference? Availability of shelter. SF has hundreds of beds and thousands of homeless. Surely a few hundred more beds would be used. > Should there be some that are drug friendly and some that aren't? The article illustrated that the majority of the growth was with people that are not drug users, so this is a big issue, but you can exclude drug users and still make a difference without dealing with this question. (but maybe you should find a way to help them too). > This assumes they want to find a job though. Surely some do. If not, they're still a person and we should help them.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    You seem to be interpreting "what do you do with people who won't stay in shelters" as "we should not build more shelters", which is not an argument that is being made. I am simply asking what do you do with the people who don't want to stay in shelters? What can we do for them? I do not believe that we should ignore any group of homeless just because there is a simple solution for some of it. Maybe there is an argument for building different types of shelters. Maybe some of them are not voluntary. Maybe some allow drugs and some do not. There is no one-size-fits-all answer here. Pretending this is simple is doing a disservice to everyone involved.

mulmen 5y ago

> When all of the available shelters are full this is not a relevant question. It is relevant when we are talking about building more housing. Why build something if people won't use it? > Near transit so people that can't afford a car can get around. There's not a shortage of underutilized land in west coast cities. Underutilized land near transit? What do you do about the NIMBYs? > no, none of those situations are improved by leaving someone outside. Of course, but do you want to live in a shelter with people doing drugs? Should there be some that are drug friendly and some that aren't? > There are complex problems in our society, but not having enough bedrooms has a simple solution: build more bedrooms. Actually providing public housing isn't simple though. We have a long history of trying all kinds of approaches that didn't work for whatever reason. There's no simple answer. > Someone is going to have a better chance finding a job if they get a good night sleep and have a place to shower. This assumes they want to find a job though.

jljljl 5y ago
> It is relevant when we are talking about building more housing. Why build something if people won't use it? If the shelters are full, it's clear people are using them. If we start seeing vacancies in shelters, then we can worry about this.
- mulmen 5y ago
  I don’t doubt we need more space now. Vacancies in shelters would suggest we created too much supply, which would be a waste of resources. I prefer to take the approach of understanding the current needs and working to address all of those needs.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > I prefer to take the approach of understanding the current needs and working to address all of those needs. So what is your proposed solution?
    - mulmen 5y ago
      I asked up-thread if dorm style housing should have restrictions. That's a genuine question. I don't have the answers. It is not acceptable that we have any number of people sleeping on the street. I realize we can't simply prohibit that. But if we are going to reclaim our public spaces we need solutions that work for everyone. There is never going to be one simple solution to that. So yeah, build more housing. But what kind? Some of it should simply be affordable housing for gainfully employed people. Some should be dorm style for emergency stays. Some should have a focus on rehab. Some should have a focus on finding employment. There's probably a need for a mix. But we definitely need some places that are safe for vulnerable populations which have more restrictions and different resources than low-barrier-to-entry based shelters or housing. Should we try to put addicts on a rehab path? Are we willing to ignore that problem to solve homelessness? I don't know. I think it's worth having a conversation. It's complicated and messy and unclear.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    If that’s true, do houses with years long vacancies in NYC or LA mean that housing is too high in supply? Having been homeless, the needs are best served with a reliable friend network, an emergency place you can stay at that is a step above a shelter/church I never been to a woman’s only shelter, I heard they suck too though. I prefer staying with friends but hidden spots are fine like hammock in a park, storage units, amenities like showers at the gym, or houses, and a feeling of purpose, growth and not failure. Brahmins take an oath of poverty and are respected, as are monks who beg for food. If you can, understand the needs from dogfooding.
cheriot 5y ago
All of the shelters where I live are full. The article describes increasing chronic unsheltered populations in west coast cities. Do any of these have empty shelter beds? SF and LA do not. "Underutilized land near transit? What do you do about the NIMBYs?" Tell them to take a hike. The state needs to get more involved with objective rules so we don't have a game of each neighborhood screaming NIMBY. > Of course, but do you want to live in a shelter with people doing drugs? Should there some that are drug friendly and some that aren't? I don't know the answer to this. When we have enough shelters and people have a locked door to sleep behind this will probably be the next problem to solve. > Actually providing public housing isn't simple though. Shelters and public housing are different. Any kind of shelter has to be fully maintained with public funds because the people sleeping in them are broke. There's a countries with large amounts of successful public housing. The theme is that it's well maintained so it's actually desirable for stable, normal people. Allowing a wider range of incomes to move in so that rent can cover operations and maintenance makes it less dependent on the whims of local pols.
- mulmen 5y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response. Telling NIMBYs to take a hike isn’t simple. How do you actually achieve that? The question is not if we have enough shelter space. The question is if there are homeless who do not want shelter space. In other words do we have another problem to focus on in parallel.
  - cheriot 5y ago
    California had a lot of success with Project Home Key that acquired existing hotels and converts them to supportive housing. It worked well because it was quick and often required only one vote by local authorities. In contrast, building new shelters is too easy to drag out and kill with a thousand paper cuts. Some SF Supervisors have spent years saying they want a homeless shelter in their district, but just can't find a place to put it. Others propose a site and then drag out funding forever. My ideal solution would be a state agency that funds and builds shelters, supportive housing, public housing etc. Each municipality gets a list of how many beds it needs and can pick the locations. BUT if they refuse to pick sites then the state does it for them. Then the state builds it without any more bottlenecks on local politicians. imo the key is allowing local choice, but not to say no. If we make shelters a realistic option and a large number of people won't take them we'll have another problem. But we haven't gotten to that bridge yet.
vineyardmike 5y ago
Ohh come on! Yes, some of these questions are relevant, theoretically. > Why build something if people won't use it? We know some people will use it since the ones already built are full. If we look at other cities - eg. NYC we see the ratio sheltered to unsheltered are different from SF. The difference? Availability of shelter. SF has hundreds of beds and thousands of homeless. Surely a few hundred more beds would be used. > Should there be some that are drug friendly and some that aren't? The article illustrated that the majority of the growth was with people that are not drug users, so this is a big issue, but you can exclude drug users and still make a difference without dealing with this question. (but maybe you should find a way to help them too). > This assumes they want to find a job though. Surely some do. If not, they're still a person and we should help them.
- mulmen 5y ago
  You seem to be interpreting "what do you do with people who won't stay in shelters" as "we should not build more shelters", which is not an argument that is being made. I am simply asking what do you do with the people who don't want to stay in shelters? What can we do for them? I do not believe that we should ignore any group of homeless just because there is a simple solution for some of it. Maybe there is an argument for building different types of shelters. Maybe some of them are not voluntary. Maybe some allow drugs and some do not. There is no one-size-fits-all answer here. Pretending this is simple is doing a disservice to everyone involved.