3 ms·

> Giving these individuals expensive housing is not going to solve anything. The "housing first" approach does seem to have a number of successful examples. ht

by abeppu 4y ago

> Giving these individuals expensive housing is not going to solve anything. The "housing first" approach does seem to have a number of successful examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Evidence_and_outcome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Evidence_and_out... > we have a chronic opioid and meth crisis which tips many people over into serious mental illness. But also the most visible homeless population is not the only homeless population, and people who became homeless through other paths can get stuck. Having a home is really helpful for e.g. getting and keeping a job, resolving or managing health issues, etc.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
On the ground in a city determined to kill people with its liberal drug policies I can say this housing-first does NOT save junkies. Its main benefit is to provide people who do not know the conditions and the costs a way to attack those of us who do. Read the wiki page - their examples are primarily before 2010 when the opioid crisis really kicked in and many of the examples are about alcohol addiction - not hard drugs. You can't give a junkie anything you don't want them to trade for drugs. If you give them an apartment they'll sell the plumbing fixtures and everything else. They'll also go back to sleeping outside, right next to where they procure their fentanyl, because nothing but acquiring and using matters. Vancouver and SF also both insist you can't give someone a dingy basement suite (like many of their residents actually pay for and live in) but you have to give them a bright cheery condo in an expensive area. All done seemingly to avoid ever having enough money to house more than a few people. Housing first isn't actually being tried, in a way that taxpayers or foreign drug-policy experts would expect. It's more about the careers of the literal thousands of people, poverty pimps, who "manage" the problem every day, and the power it gives them in city council to make sweeping decisions for the city. The number of lives lost positively correlates with dollars spent because the money goes to feel-good nonsense and bandaids, and actually counter-productive measures like fentanyl vending machines which have been proven to increase, not replace, street crime.

by abeppu 4y ago

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

On the ground in a city determined to kill people with its liberal drug policies I can say this housing-first does NOT save junkies. Its main benefit is to provide people who do not know the conditions and the costs a way to attack those of us who do. Read the wiki page - their examples are primarily before 2010 when the opioid crisis really kicked in and many of the examples are about alcohol addiction - not hard drugs. You can't give a junkie anything you don't want them to trade for drugs. If you give them an apartment they'll sell the plumbing fixtures and everything else. They'll also go back to sleeping outside, right next to where they procure their fentanyl, because nothing but acquiring and using matters. Vancouver and SF also both insist you can't give someone a dingy basement suite (like many of their residents actually pay for and live in) but you have to give them a bright cheery condo in an expensive area. All done seemingly to avoid ever having enough money to house more than a few people. Housing first isn't actually being tried, in a way that taxpayers or foreign drug-policy experts would expect. It's more about the careers of the literal thousands of people, poverty pimps, who "manage" the problem every day, and the power it gives them in city council to make sweeping decisions for the city. The number of lives lost positively correlates with dollars spent because the money goes to feel-good nonsense and bandaids, and actually counter-productive measures like fentanyl vending machines which have been proven to increase, not replace, street crime.