6 ms·

Exactly. I want the support system to be good enough that there are few to no "unluckies" in these encampments. If we make it possible for virtually everyone wh

Exactly. I want the support system to be good enough that there are few to no "unluckies" in these encampments. If we make it possible for virtually everyone who wants to get back on their feet to do so, then we can bring on the regulations to keep the streets clear. I'd gladly pay more in taxes if it meant I could eat lunch in my car in peace or go shopping in the bad part of town without getting accosted by some asshole who "just needs gas money to get home" like it's not the third time this week.

kraftman 4y ago
What kind of person would be there and not unlucky?
- scottshamus 4y ago
  People with serious mental health and/or addiction issues
  - kraftman 4y ago
    Shouldn't those people be supported by the system and not in encampments?
    - copperx 4y ago
      Certainly. That's what every taxpayer wants, but it's not clear why the government doesn't do anything towards that goal.
      - lupire 4y ago
        Because if the government has the power to imprison homeless people (even if the prisons are "nice" hospitals... today), then they also have the power to imprison "hysterical" women and blacks and gays and anyone else who the government thinks is mentally insufficient. Source: US History.
        Avicebron 4y ago
        Not sure I follow, can you explain in more detail? You just conflated two different time periods in history and compared them as if the circumstances havent changed?
        rdubs333 4y ago
        technically he is kinda right its a felony now in tennessee to be homeless.
      - digisign 4y ago
        Not every. There's an odd coalition of rural republicans who don't want to pay, in cahoots with inner-city lefties fighting for the freedom to eat out of garbage cans. Add in a court restriction here and there and local government's hands are tied. There's also the factor that it is a nation-wide problem. Once city can't solve it, if they did everyone would just go there.
        ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        Laws preventing people eating out of garbage cans seems to indicate that there are people who feel compelled to do so, presumably because the system has failed them terribly. How does an inner city lefty being against such a law (which just seems to be criminalizing extreme poverty), put them in league with the people who don't want a social safety net and so are placing people in that very situation? Isn't it cheaper to give them food than to lock them in prison ... and then give them food?
        digisign 4y ago
        Results, not intentions. Seems you have focused on the "garbage" phrase, but it was not meant to be exactly literal. To clarify, it was rather shorthand for everything these folks do. More specifically, supporting the mentally ill to refuse treatment. Later (as you allude), they will vocally support not enforcing various quality of life laws that have been broken. Logically, these two things are in conflict. Either the mentally ill are competent to make decisions, or they aren't... pick one. This, combined with lack of funding are the primary hurdles to helping these folks get into places to care for them. I would also support other subsets of the homeless population to be helped. But, a lot of people prefer them just where they are apparently. The results of their actions speak louder than words.
  - vintermann 4y ago
    That sounds pretty unlucky to me.
vondur 4y ago
We pay a ton of taxes in California already to deal with the homeless, yet nothing seems to get done. We need better government. There is no accountability for any of these programs that are enacted.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  > There is no accountability for any of these programs that are enacted. You can call or email Lourdes Morales in the non-partisan CA LAO if you're truly interested. Note that nearly 1/4 of the entire United States homeless population currently resides in California. The state deals with homelessness at a scale/complexity that makes advice like "we should have better government" and "people should be accountable" not very helpful.
  - rayhomelessbus 4y ago
    That's what happens when you start a homelessness program. The other states decide their homeless have a better chance with you and now you will never be able to fix the issue. State funding can never fix this issue and a state funded program will always fail. Don't even get me started on the idea that charity would solve it, they line their pockets more on nice vacation packages rather than solving the problem itself. Dig deeper and see the coolaid in action.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
alsetmusic 4y ago
The tone of this really is disappointing because it sounds more like a complaint about the unhoused rather than compassion for their situation. Anyway, housing first is a proven method for resolving the cycle of homelessness[0]. Rather than placing restrictions on people (get sober, get a job, etc) to access shelter, putting people in a stable home environment right off the bat has greater success at keeping people housed long-term. I learned about a study on housing first and one of the primary champions of the initiative in a fantastic podcast series called According to Need, by the 99% Invisible crew. It's an eye-opening look at the beuracracy that keeps people unhoused when they seek help[1]. Bonus points that it's reported on in the Bay Area, where the problem is completely out of control. Episode three deals with housing first, but I'd really recommend listening to the entire series if you have the time. "However, for the chronically homeless population, which represents about 10 percent of the homeless population, research has shown, and our experience has been, that when these individuals have a place of their own where they can be safe, the drinking and drug use decreases. Also, with effective case management support, we have found a positive supportive community is created in the single site locations."[2] [0] https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Research.pdf https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Research... [1] https://99percentinvisible.org/need/ https://99percentinvisible.org/need/ [2] https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/07/14/further-questions-about-housing-first/94326784/ https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/07/1...
- alienbeast 4y ago
  Pardon my ignorance, but does "housing-first" come with an expiration date, or is it indefinite? Obviously, if you pay for someone's home, you cure their homelessness, but the goal is to have them pay for their own home eventually, right? I'd expect something like: You get 1 year of "housing-first"-style free housing with no requirements, then you get 1 year of "tough love" free housing with sobriety and job-search requirements, then you get kicked out.
  - mofosyne 4y ago
    I imagine it depends on the cost differential between the externalities of them being homeless like crime, health and surrounding business impact vs just providing basic housing indefinitely with some resources to get out when ready. People with complex issues have variable amount of time to resolve it. Can't put a time on it. But you can figure what cost you more and how much you value human dignity within that cost framework. So an arbitrary time limit in this case does not make sense as a government public welfare policy.

kraftman 4y ago

What kind of person would be there and not unlucky?

scottshamus 4y ago
People with serious mental health and/or addiction issues
- kraftman 4y ago
  Shouldn't those people be supported by the system and not in encampments?
  - copperx 4y ago
    Certainly. That's what every taxpayer wants, but it's not clear why the government doesn't do anything towards that goal.
    - lupire 4y ago
      Because if the government has the power to imprison homeless people (even if the prisons are "nice" hospitals... today), then they also have the power to imprison "hysterical" women and blacks and gays and anyone else who the government thinks is mentally insufficient. Source: US History.
      - Avicebron 4y ago
        Not sure I follow, can you explain in more detail? You just conflated two different time periods in history and compared them as if the circumstances havent changed?
        rdubs333 4y ago
        technically he is kinda right its a felony now in tennessee to be homeless.
    - digisign 4y ago
      Not every. There's an odd coalition of rural republicans who don't want to pay, in cahoots with inner-city lefties fighting for the freedom to eat out of garbage cans. Add in a court restriction here and there and local government's hands are tied. There's also the factor that it is a nation-wide problem. Once city can't solve it, if they did everyone would just go there.
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        Laws preventing people eating out of garbage cans seems to indicate that there are people who feel compelled to do so, presumably because the system has failed them terribly. How does an inner city lefty being against such a law (which just seems to be criminalizing extreme poverty), put them in league with the people who don't want a social safety net and so are placing people in that very situation? Isn't it cheaper to give them food than to lock them in prison ... and then give them food?
        digisign 4y ago
        Results, not intentions. Seems you have focused on the "garbage" phrase, but it was not meant to be exactly literal. To clarify, it was rather shorthand for everything these folks do. More specifically, supporting the mentally ill to refuse treatment. Later (as you allude), they will vocally support not enforcing various quality of life laws that have been broken. Logically, these two things are in conflict. Either the mentally ill are competent to make decisions, or they aren't... pick one. This, combined with lack of funding are the primary hurdles to helping these folks get into places to care for them. I would also support other subsets of the homeless population to be helped. But, a lot of people prefer them just where they are apparently. The results of their actions speak louder than words.
- vintermann 4y ago
  That sounds pretty unlucky to me.

vondur 4y ago

We pay a ton of taxes in California already to deal with the homeless, yet nothing seems to get done. We need better government. There is no accountability for any of these programs that are enacted.

CharlesW 4y ago
> There is no accountability for any of these programs that are enacted. You can call or email Lourdes Morales in the non-partisan CA LAO if you're truly interested. Note that nearly 1/4 of the entire United States homeless population currently resides in California. The state deals with homelessness at a scale/complexity that makes advice like "we should have better government" and "people should be accountable" not very helpful.
- rayhomelessbus 4y ago
  That's what happens when you start a homelessness program. The other states decide their homeless have a better chance with you and now you will never be able to fix the issue. State funding can never fix this issue and a state funded program will always fail. Don't even get me started on the idea that charity would solve it, they line their pockets more on nice vacation packages rather than solving the problem itself. Dig deeper and see the coolaid in action.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

alsetmusic 4y ago

The tone of this really is disappointing because it sounds more like a complaint about the unhoused rather than compassion for their situation. Anyway, housing first is a proven method for resolving the cycle of homelessness[0]. Rather than placing restrictions on people (get sober, get a job, etc) to access shelter, putting people in a stable home environment right off the bat has greater success at keeping people housed long-term. I learned about a study on housing first and one of the primary champions of the initiative in a fantastic podcast series called According to Need, by the 99% Invisible crew. It's an eye-opening look at the beuracracy that keeps people unhoused when they seek help[1]. Bonus points that it's reported on in the Bay Area, where the problem is completely out of control. Episode three deals with housing first, but I'd really recommend listening to the entire series if you have the time. "However, for the chronically homeless population, which represents about 10 percent of the homeless population, research has shown, and our experience has been, that when these individuals have a place of their own where they can be safe, the drinking and drug use decreases. Also, with effective case management support, we have found a positive supportive community is created in the single site locations."[2] [0] https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Research.pdf https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Research... [1] https://99percentinvisible.org/need/ https://99percentinvisible.org/need/ [2] https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/07/14/further-questions-about-housing-first/94326784/ https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/07/1...

alienbeast 4y ago
Pardon my ignorance, but does "housing-first" come with an expiration date, or is it indefinite? Obviously, if you pay for someone's home, you cure their homelessness, but the goal is to have them pay for their own home eventually, right? I'd expect something like: You get 1 year of "housing-first"-style free housing with no requirements, then you get 1 year of "tough love" free housing with sobriety and job-search requirements, then you get kicked out.
- mofosyne 4y ago
  I imagine it depends on the cost differential between the externalities of them being homeless like crime, health and surrounding business impact vs just providing basic housing indefinitely with some resources to get out when ready. People with complex issues have variable amount of time to resolve it. Can't put a time on it. But you can figure what cost you more and how much you value human dignity within that cost framework. So an arbitrary time limit in this case does not make sense as a government public welfare policy.