6 ms·

You (Americans) have decided that you don't want to give homeless people help. If the availability of actual no-strings-attached help in the US was more than a

You (Americans) have decided that you don't want to give homeless people help. If the availability of actual no-strings-attached help in the US was more than a footnote, homeless people would come flocking to get it. While there certainly are individuals whom it is very hard to help, that is the minority.

logicalmonster 4y ago
I'd like to understand your perspective better. Can you give some examples of the strings attached to the help that are a problem? For instance, homeless shelters might have rules like "don't get drunk or high in the shelter". Is that what you're referring to?
- jasonpeacock 4y ago
  Houston, TX is a great example of this. First, they give shelter without condition, then they have counselors to help. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-... So yes - literally "no strings attached". They go around to homeless people and say "would you like a place to live?" and provide it. There's no requirements for sobriety, faith, counseling, etc.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Are they allowed to cook meth in the place they are given? What about renting it out so they can get some money to buy drugs? Do they have to ever clean it to avoid bug and rat infestations? What happens when their dealer comes to collect? And will neighbors tolerate a dramatic uptick in porch piracy and prowling needed to get money to buy those drugs? There are just so many ways no strings attached housing can and does go wrong when substance abuse is ignored. Around here, they sure to couple it with at least an equal amount of social services since many of these people can’t live on their own. Costs are around $10k/month. The nice thing about no drug shelters is that it really works for those that aren’t on drugs anyways. We can’t just assume all homeless are on drugs and can stand being in permissive shelter/housing environments (which can be quite dangerous for the above reasons and more).
    - mountainplus 4y ago
      >Are they allowed to cook meth in the place they are given? What about renting it out so they can get some money to buy drugs? Do they have to ever clean it to avoid bug and rat infestations? What happens when their dealer comes to collect? And will neighbors tolerate a dramatic uptick in porch piracy and prowling needed to get money to buy those drugs? Most of the comments here makes me incredibly upset and disgusted just by their nature of inhumane scape-goating and denigrating from a privileged position. But its not just that, I lost some hope that people here would be curious enough not to bring up these shitty panels. But these questions are especially wrong, not just by the attitude but also because it is totally irrelevant to homeless of Houston. All these questions you ask apply to sheltered people with addiction, or sheltered people dealing to people with addiction, and mind you old people (elders, grandparents, who you might think much of and respect [rightly so!]) who can not take care of themselves anymore, as well.* Why would you need to differentiate let alone lump all of homeless people under the label of "addict." Some are addicts yes, however have you thought that this might be not the cause but the effect of their state? They are easy targets for blame, wouldn't you agree that it is intellectually quite an easy way out of interacting with part of our society? Why would you point fingers at those who lose for the whole slew of issues with how modern societies are priced and functioning? For me your comment comes off as an example of ignorant and narrow-minded attitude: assuming the worst and pointing out all the why-nots. I encourage you to study this issue and read upon it, just here for example on HN if you search for homelessness there is a nice study on how Finland provides for them. I hope you can develop some empathy towards these people who are behind the veneer of urban filth just the same as you or me or ancestors from 500 years ago. Disclaimer: I have been homeless while sober and have been an addict while sheltered and working. * As far as I know, the contract between old people and society is to move them to homes for the elderly. Which makes me think that while there is more love and money involved, the motives and solutions are the same to both problems
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        I’ve had neighbors with substance abuse problems and it was hell until my lease expired and I could get out. I’m glad you were functional when addicted or homeless, but that is the exception, not the rule. I get it, I’m just another NIMBY becuase I’ve experienced someone trying to cook meth in their apartment next door, or a rat infestation overflowing from a hoarder. There are simply a lot of people out there who can’t live alone without lots of help. To think otherwise is insanity. Houston’s approach is going to have blowback (I f it hasn’t already) if they are just throwing people in housing in the community. Again, housing first simply doesn’t work, you need to throw in a lot of additional social services if you don’t want the place to burn down. We also want to avoid slums where we just concentrate all the unhoused together, making the problem even more difficult. I get the ideal that everyone deserves housing regardless of their lifestyle choices, implementation is much more complicated than that.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    Thanks for the info. Worth looking into Houston's approach further. One thing I'm concerned about with this Houston solution is sort of "The McNamara Fallacy". If you're just focusing on one variable "how many people don't have a home?" it's easy to get these numbers very low if you ignore all qualifications for homes and just give homes out as quickly as resources allow. But a problem is that the statistic of low homelessness doesn't necessarily measure the overall quality of life for the general population. In fact, this solution (depending on how its implemented) might cause untold misery to normal communities who are now dealing with an influx of homeless. You might go from a homeless person sleeping on a bench outside of an apartment complex (not a good situation), to them having a key to the door and being able to wander down the hall, in the laundry room, at the mailbox, etc. For average working people, this situation isn't necessarily progress even if the homeless statistics are officially better.
- NohatCoder 4y ago
  Those are strings, yes. And while it is perfectly understandable that shelters may need such rules, they do ultimately cut some people off from help. Other typical strings include strict bedtimes, including getting awoken early and told to leave. Mandatory religious activities. And a lot of homeless people will report being talked down to at shelters, and generally not being treated well. The good shelters are always filled, if it is cold enough, the bad ones are as well. Homelessness is mainly a result of poverty, if you want fewer homeless people you should do something for the poor people, so that they may stay or return to being homed. What government programs exist for this purpose are generally woefully inadequate. Another example of strings attached is SNAP/food stamps. You set up a bureaucratic system in order to give money to poor people that can only be used for food. Those poor people then wonder how they are going to pay rent.
choko 4y ago
First, saying "you Americans" is fairly pointless (and inflammatory) given the autonomy and policy differences between states. Second, difficult to help individuals being in the minority will require a very good citation. The difficult to help ones are likely causing the biggest issues - shooting up on street corners and deficating in public.
- NohatCoder 4y ago
  You Americans, as opposed to blaming logicalmonster for all the misery. And while there are differences between states, none of them have anything close to western European countries. As for homeless people, you can't tell that someone is homeless just by looking at them. Your personal statistic include only those very visible people who in addition to being homeless have tattered clothes and are incapable of personal hygiene. The majority look like ordinary people.
  - choko 4y ago
    This sounds like pointless nationistic chest beating as Im certain you are not familiar with programs across the entirety of the USA.
    - olsonjeffery 4y ago
      What a ridiculous argument tactic (“since you can’t reckon with the totality of a system according to my arbitrary standard you can’t critique it”). Furthermore, complaining about the use of “you Americans” is childish tone policing and something one does when they are unable to address the merits of an argument. Maybe if you had an actual argument you could think up something else to share, rather than attempts to stymie discussion because it appears to make you uncomfortable. Lastly, you brought up nationalism. From my vantage point (as another American) it looks like you’re just trying to shut down debate instead of face the reality of the outcomes we Americans have engineered for our most vulnerable populations.
hnuser847 4y ago
We give them plenty of help. What we don’t do is force them into shelters or mental hospitals, so many voluntarily choose to the live on the street. I remember one particularly cold Chicago winter where I made a couple dozen sandwiches to give to the homeless. I drove up to one of the large encampments under a bridge in my neighborhood where a guy was begging for money from cars passing by. I pulled up and offered him the sandwiches, and the guy smiled and said “no thanks, we just ordered a pizza!”. Mind you, these people were living in tents in the dead of winter! I remember another time when I bought a few different food items from a convenience store and offered them to a couple homeless guys sleeping in the sidewalk in the middle of downtown. They picked through the five or six items and each grabbed one thing. Nothing wrong with having preferences, but it astonished me that they didn’t want all of it. These people are not being deprived of their basic needs. They just don’t want to live in shelters.
- NohatCoder 4y ago
  It is not like you have enough shelters and/or mental hospitals for all those people anyway, and you certainly don't have anyone paying for admitting homeless people to a hospital. I think what your experience shows is that food is not that hard to come by in the US, the local shelter or soup kitchen may have sandwiches that are superior to yours. Pizza once in a while is way cheaper than a home, not to mention access to medical care, so they get the luxury they can afford.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  How comes that in the US people "voluntarily choose to the live on the street" when in most other countries people are happy to move into temporary houses when provided? > These people are not being deprived of their basic needs. They just don’t want to live in shelters. Or maybe shelters are very dangerous or too noisy to sleep or too difficult to access without enqueuing for hours every day or too far from places where people can earn some money with odd jobs or begging.

logicalmonster 4y ago

I'd like to understand your perspective better. Can you give some examples of the strings attached to the help that are a problem? For instance, homeless shelters might have rules like "don't get drunk or high in the shelter". Is that what you're referring to?

jasonpeacock 4y ago
Houston, TX is a great example of this. First, they give shelter without condition, then they have counselors to help. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-... So yes - literally "no strings attached". They go around to homeless people and say "would you like a place to live?" and provide it. There's no requirements for sobriety, faith, counseling, etc.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Are they allowed to cook meth in the place they are given? What about renting it out so they can get some money to buy drugs? Do they have to ever clean it to avoid bug and rat infestations? What happens when their dealer comes to collect? And will neighbors tolerate a dramatic uptick in porch piracy and prowling needed to get money to buy those drugs? There are just so many ways no strings attached housing can and does go wrong when substance abuse is ignored. Around here, they sure to couple it with at least an equal amount of social services since many of these people can’t live on their own. Costs are around $10k/month. The nice thing about no drug shelters is that it really works for those that aren’t on drugs anyways. We can’t just assume all homeless are on drugs and can stand being in permissive shelter/housing environments (which can be quite dangerous for the above reasons and more).
  - mountainplus 4y ago
    >Are they allowed to cook meth in the place they are given? What about renting it out so they can get some money to buy drugs? Do they have to ever clean it to avoid bug and rat infestations? What happens when their dealer comes to collect? And will neighbors tolerate a dramatic uptick in porch piracy and prowling needed to get money to buy those drugs? Most of the comments here makes me incredibly upset and disgusted just by their nature of inhumane scape-goating and denigrating from a privileged position. But its not just that, I lost some hope that people here would be curious enough not to bring up these shitty panels. But these questions are especially wrong, not just by the attitude but also because it is totally irrelevant to homeless of Houston. All these questions you ask apply to sheltered people with addiction, or sheltered people dealing to people with addiction, and mind you old people (elders, grandparents, who you might think much of and respect [rightly so!]) who can not take care of themselves anymore, as well.* Why would you need to differentiate let alone lump all of homeless people under the label of "addict." Some are addicts yes, however have you thought that this might be not the cause but the effect of their state? They are easy targets for blame, wouldn't you agree that it is intellectually quite an easy way out of interacting with part of our society? Why would you point fingers at those who lose for the whole slew of issues with how modern societies are priced and functioning? For me your comment comes off as an example of ignorant and narrow-minded attitude: assuming the worst and pointing out all the why-nots. I encourage you to study this issue and read upon it, just here for example on HN if you search for homelessness there is a nice study on how Finland provides for them. I hope you can develop some empathy towards these people who are behind the veneer of urban filth just the same as you or me or ancestors from 500 years ago. Disclaimer: I have been homeless while sober and have been an addict while sheltered and working. * As far as I know, the contract between old people and society is to move them to homes for the elderly. Which makes me think that while there is more love and money involved, the motives and solutions are the same to both problems
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      I’ve had neighbors with substance abuse problems and it was hell until my lease expired and I could get out. I’m glad you were functional when addicted or homeless, but that is the exception, not the rule. I get it, I’m just another NIMBY becuase I’ve experienced someone trying to cook meth in their apartment next door, or a rat infestation overflowing from a hoarder. There are simply a lot of people out there who can’t live alone without lots of help. To think otherwise is insanity. Houston’s approach is going to have blowback (I f it hasn’t already) if they are just throwing people in housing in the community. Again, housing first simply doesn’t work, you need to throw in a lot of additional social services if you don’t want the place to burn down. We also want to avoid slums where we just concentrate all the unhoused together, making the problem even more difficult. I get the ideal that everyone deserves housing regardless of their lifestyle choices, implementation is much more complicated than that.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  Thanks for the info. Worth looking into Houston's approach further. One thing I'm concerned about with this Houston solution is sort of "The McNamara Fallacy". If you're just focusing on one variable "how many people don't have a home?" it's easy to get these numbers very low if you ignore all qualifications for homes and just give homes out as quickly as resources allow. But a problem is that the statistic of low homelessness doesn't necessarily measure the overall quality of life for the general population. In fact, this solution (depending on how its implemented) might cause untold misery to normal communities who are now dealing with an influx of homeless. You might go from a homeless person sleeping on a bench outside of an apartment complex (not a good situation), to them having a key to the door and being able to wander down the hall, in the laundry room, at the mailbox, etc. For average working people, this situation isn't necessarily progress even if the homeless statistics are officially better.
NohatCoder 4y ago
Those are strings, yes. And while it is perfectly understandable that shelters may need such rules, they do ultimately cut some people off from help. Other typical strings include strict bedtimes, including getting awoken early and told to leave. Mandatory religious activities. And a lot of homeless people will report being talked down to at shelters, and generally not being treated well. The good shelters are always filled, if it is cold enough, the bad ones are as well. Homelessness is mainly a result of poverty, if you want fewer homeless people you should do something for the poor people, so that they may stay or return to being homed. What government programs exist for this purpose are generally woefully inadequate. Another example of strings attached is SNAP/food stamps. You set up a bureaucratic system in order to give money to poor people that can only be used for food. Those poor people then wonder how they are going to pay rent.

choko 4y ago

First, saying "you Americans" is fairly pointless (and inflammatory) given the autonomy and policy differences between states. Second, difficult to help individuals being in the minority will require a very good citation. The difficult to help ones are likely causing the biggest issues - shooting up on street corners and deficating in public.

NohatCoder 4y ago
You Americans, as opposed to blaming logicalmonster for all the misery. And while there are differences between states, none of them have anything close to western European countries. As for homeless people, you can't tell that someone is homeless just by looking at them. Your personal statistic include only those very visible people who in addition to being homeless have tattered clothes and are incapable of personal hygiene. The majority look like ordinary people.
- choko 4y ago
  This sounds like pointless nationistic chest beating as Im certain you are not familiar with programs across the entirety of the USA.
  - olsonjeffery 4y ago
    What a ridiculous argument tactic (“since you can’t reckon with the totality of a system according to my arbitrary standard you can’t critique it”). Furthermore, complaining about the use of “you Americans” is childish tone policing and something one does when they are unable to address the merits of an argument. Maybe if you had an actual argument you could think up something else to share, rather than attempts to stymie discussion because it appears to make you uncomfortable. Lastly, you brought up nationalism. From my vantage point (as another American) it looks like you’re just trying to shut down debate instead of face the reality of the outcomes we Americans have engineered for our most vulnerable populations.

hnuser847 4y ago

We give them plenty of help. What we don’t do is force them into shelters or mental hospitals, so many voluntarily choose to the live on the street. I remember one particularly cold Chicago winter where I made a couple dozen sandwiches to give to the homeless. I drove up to one of the large encampments under a bridge in my neighborhood where a guy was begging for money from cars passing by. I pulled up and offered him the sandwiches, and the guy smiled and said “no thanks, we just ordered a pizza!”. Mind you, these people were living in tents in the dead of winter! I remember another time when I bought a few different food items from a convenience store and offered them to a couple homeless guys sleeping in the sidewalk in the middle of downtown. They picked through the five or six items and each grabbed one thing. Nothing wrong with having preferences, but it astonished me that they didn’t want all of it. These people are not being deprived of their basic needs. They just don’t want to live in shelters.

NohatCoder 4y ago
It is not like you have enough shelters and/or mental hospitals for all those people anyway, and you certainly don't have anyone paying for admitting homeless people to a hospital. I think what your experience shows is that food is not that hard to come by in the US, the local shelter or soup kitchen may have sandwiches that are superior to yours. Pizza once in a while is way cheaper than a home, not to mention access to medical care, so they get the luxury they can afford.
goodpoint 4y ago
How comes that in the US people "voluntarily choose to the live on the street" when in most other countries people are happy to move into temporary houses when provided? > These people are not being deprived of their basic needs. They just don’t want to live in shelters. Or maybe shelters are very dangerous or too noisy to sleep or too difficult to access without enqueuing for hours every day or too far from places where people can earn some money with odd jobs or begging.