5 ms·

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/headw

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.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      > I get it, I’m just another NIMBY No need for strawmanning. > There are simply a lot of people out there who can’t live alone without lots of help You seem to keep labeling people as being intrinsically "homeless", "addicts", "unable to live alone". This can happen to anybody, just like mental and physical illness can come without warning and without asking for permission. "housing first" does not automatically imply "housing first and zero social services".
    - pseudalopex 4y ago
      "In 2019, 20.4 million people aged 12 or older (or 7.4 percent of this population) had an SUD in the past year, including 14.5 million who had an alcohol use disorder and 8.3 million who had an illicit drug use disorder (Figure 46)."[1] How many cook meth do you think? Probably you had neighbors whose substance abuse problems didn't affect you. Housing 1st doesn't mean no social services. Providing social services is easier when people have homes actually. [1] https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2019-nsduh-annual-national-report https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2019-nsduh-annual-nationa...
    - mountainplus 4y ago
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.

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.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    > I get it, I’m just another NIMBY No need for strawmanning. > There are simply a lot of people out there who can’t live alone without lots of help You seem to keep labeling people as being intrinsically "homeless", "addicts", "unable to live alone". This can happen to anybody, just like mental and physical illness can come without warning and without asking for permission. "housing first" does not automatically imply "housing first and zero social services".
  - pseudalopex 4y ago
    "In 2019, 20.4 million people aged 12 or older (or 7.4 percent of this population) had an SUD in the past year, including 14.5 million who had an alcohol use disorder and 8.3 million who had an illicit drug use disorder (Figure 46)."[1] How many cook meth do you think? Probably you had neighbors whose substance abuse problems didn't affect you. Housing 1st doesn't mean no social services. Providing social services is easier when people have homes actually. [1] https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2019-nsduh-annual-national-report https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2019-nsduh-annual-nationa...
  - mountainplus 4y ago

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.