4 ms·

For sure. It’s definitely a good thing to provide subsidized housing for the poor. Poverty mitigation is wonderful! But I believe the public wants the visible

For sure. It’s definitely a good thing to provide subsidized housing for the poor. Poverty mitigation is wonderful! But I believe the public wants the visible homeless cared for in a more responsible way.

lkbm 5y ago
I suspect we all broadly agree here. Your point just feels...not irrelevant, but...odd. It's not that there are two types of homeless people, and people are one or the other. The "visible homeless" are a progression from the invisible, semi/temporarily homeless. I've known people who started down the path of homelessness (and one who spent some time in that state and got out). Poverty in general, and housing instability are two causes of that transition. If you can afford rent, afford basic comforts and stability, maintain health coverage and afford healthcare, you're not going to suddenly jump into sleeping under a highway and raving at pedestrians. There's a long journey to that state. We want to prevent that initial slide into temporary homelessness that precedes long-term homelessness, and all the issues that frequently arise with it. When the ship is sinking, and someone says "we need to plug the hole", you don't respond with "No, bail harder!" Sure, bail harder, but the issue isn't that the people trying to plug the hole are missing the core issue.
rocqua 5y ago
It seems more likely that the public wants to feel less bad about / unsafe around the visible homeless. Hence a way to get them out of sight without massive mistreatment would probably be enough to make the general public happy. Put differently, my thesis is that the public cares about people who need the most help, not because they feel they deserve that help the most. Instead I think its because those who need the most help are also the most visible. This primarily makes the public feel unsafe, and secondarily makes it harder to ignore the problem. An effect of this is that the non-visible homeless are de-prioritized for help for reasons of PR. That does not necessarily mean these non-visible homeless deserve more priority, just that their current level of priority could only be right be 'accident'.
- Pigalowda 5y ago
  For sure. Local politicians may lose elections based on how they deal with this minority “visible” population. Efforts to put up more low income housing would help a different cohort that resides under the same umbrella.

lkbm 5y ago

I suspect we all broadly agree here. Your point just feels...not irrelevant, but...odd. It's not that there are two types of homeless people, and people are one or the other. The "visible homeless" are a progression from the invisible, semi/temporarily homeless. I've known people who started down the path of homelessness (and one who spent some time in that state and got out). Poverty in general, and housing instability are two causes of that transition. If you can afford rent, afford basic comforts and stability, maintain health coverage and afford healthcare, you're not going to suddenly jump into sleeping under a highway and raving at pedestrians. There's a long journey to that state. We want to prevent that initial slide into temporary homelessness that precedes long-term homelessness, and all the issues that frequently arise with it. When the ship is sinking, and someone says "we need to plug the hole", you don't respond with "No, bail harder!" Sure, bail harder, but the issue isn't that the people trying to plug the hole are missing the core issue.

rocqua 5y ago

It seems more likely that the public wants to feel less bad about / unsafe around the visible homeless. Hence a way to get them out of sight without massive mistreatment would probably be enough to make the general public happy. Put differently, my thesis is that the public cares about people who need the most help, not because they feel they deserve that help the most. Instead I think its because those who need the most help are also the most visible. This primarily makes the public feel unsafe, and secondarily makes it harder to ignore the problem. An effect of this is that the non-visible homeless are de-prioritized for help for reasons of PR. That does not necessarily mean these non-visible homeless deserve more priority, just that their current level of priority could only be right be 'accident'.

Pigalowda 5y ago
For sure. Local politicians may lose elections based on how they deal with this minority “visible” population. Efforts to put up more low income housing would help a different cohort that resides under the same umbrella.