4 ms·

> What if the housing was abundant and affordable but came with strings attached, like not being able to do drugs or engage in other antisocial behavior in them

> What if the housing was abundant and affordable but came with strings attached, like not being able to do drugs or engage in other antisocial behavior in them? Would that be a draconian policy? Yes - in two ways. First, "antisocial behavior" is a very loose phrase. Do you mean "crimes," or do you mean something broader? If the latter, then you're applying a higher standard to the most vulnerable than to everyone else in society, and that's definitely draconain. Second, expecting people to quit addictive drugs cold turkey in order to obtain housing is absolutely doomed to fail. Why not have harm reduction clinics and secular drug rehabs as an option? That would almost certainly lead to better outcomes.

prottog 4y ago
Technically drug use (at least of the kind commonly done by this demographic) is a crime ;-) but of course I agree that criminal laws aren't always logical or moral. I'm given to understand that harm reduction clinics and secular drug rehabs already exist in San Francisco? That might be wrong. But either way, since the taxpayers of SF are already funding a variety of homelessness-related programs run by the city to the tune of $60k per year per homeless person, those programs absolutely need to come with strings attached, if nothing else to be able to prove to the taxpayers that the programs are successful. But the policy in the city (and I'm not saying that you are in support of this) has evolved to the point that the very desired outcome of harm-reduction or drug rehab -- that is, reducing drug abuse and dependency -- is infringing on the right of the homeless to behave as they wish, often with the justification that nobody complains about wealthy people doing drugs. At that point, taxpayers are just paying homeless people to do drugs with the side benefit of paying city workers who administer the programs.
- NoraCodes 4y ago
  Yeah, I largely agree. This is one reason I'm inclined to support direct-cash-transfer programs like the New Leaf Project in Vancouver, Canada; it dramatically reduces overhead and, according to the study related to that project, actually does a much better job in getting people off the street than managed programs with complex policy and behavior requirements. If the objective is to get people into houses, that's the way to go.

prottog 4y ago

Technically drug use (at least of the kind commonly done by this demographic) is a crime ;-) but of course I agree that criminal laws aren't always logical or moral. I'm given to understand that harm reduction clinics and secular drug rehabs already exist in San Francisco? That might be wrong. But either way, since the taxpayers of SF are already funding a variety of homelessness-related programs run by the city to the tune of $60k per year per homeless person, those programs absolutely need to come with strings attached, if nothing else to be able to prove to the taxpayers that the programs are successful. But the policy in the city (and I'm not saying that you are in support of this) has evolved to the point that the very desired outcome of harm-reduction or drug rehab -- that is, reducing drug abuse and dependency -- is infringing on the right of the homeless to behave as they wish, often with the justification that nobody complains about wealthy people doing drugs. At that point, taxpayers are just paying homeless people to do drugs with the side benefit of paying city workers who administer the programs.

NoraCodes 4y ago
Yeah, I largely agree. This is one reason I'm inclined to support direct-cash-transfer programs like the New Leaf Project in Vancouver, Canada; it dramatically reduces overhead and, according to the study related to that project, actually does a much better job in getting people off the street than managed programs with complex policy and behavior requirements. If the objective is to get people into houses, that's the way to go.