4 ms·

Homeless shelters exist for this purpose. There’s also HUD or similar entities if you’re not in the US. There are also private nonprofits like churches that he

Homeless shelters exist for this purpose. There’s also HUD or similar entities if you’re not in the US. There are also private nonprofits like churches that help with homelessness

runnerup 4y ago
There are widespread reports that there is no shelter availability for single men in my metro area. I think I’ll be able to get a cot some nights, but I suspect that multiple times per week I’ll be unable to find a cot in a shelter within a 4-hour walk of city center. It’s hard to go around and ask at each shelter every night…there’s a limited time window for checkin so if my first two tries are full I probably won’t make it to a third option before they lock up for the night. Not sure what the legal thing to do then is. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Emergency-domestic-violence-shelters-struggle-to-14878668.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/... I’m also a bit concerned about the safety and conditions in the shelters, being that close to unpredictable strangers. But I’d prefer that over doing anything illegal.
mullingitover 4y ago
> There are also private nonprofits like churches that help with homelessness It's honestly shocking that the US has absurdly wealthy churches and we have greater than zero homeless people on the streets. Helping the poor is the core tenet of the christian faith. If they practiced what they preach, it should be impossible to lay down on the street for more than five minutes and not be swarmed with offers for help.
- RobertRoberts 4y ago
  Many people _refuse_ housing for these reasons: (I've been directly told these, or have seen them reported) * Housing is dangerous/scary (robbery, rape, physical violence, etc...) * Housing is a conspiracy (to control people or other irrational ideas) * The rules of housing are too restricting. (can't have a pet, visitors, noise rules, cleanliness rules, curfew rules, behavior rules, etc...) There are others as well, but can't recall immediately. A church can't fix these problems, no matter how rich.
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    A church doesn't have to satisfy every one of concerns, they simply should make the offer to shelter those in need. The core argument for forced normalization of slum conditions is that there's no alternative, because there are more people than than space in shelters. The lack of available shelter is a choice, and wealthy churches are choosing to keep billions on their asset sheets rather than perform the duties they nominally exist to perform.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > wealthy churches are choosing to keep billions on their asset sheets rather than perform the duties they nominally exist to perform. While some churches do physical charity, that’s not the nominal function of a church in the general sense (it may implicitly be part of why churches are legally treated as charities in the US, getting not merely tax exemption but deductibility of donations for donors, but that is more an indictment of that policy than anything else.)
- chaostheory 4y ago
  The chronically homeless are really just mentally ill people who refuse treatment. It’s a product of Ronald Reagan when he simultaneously defunded mental hospitals and required that mentally ill people give consent for treatment. No private organization can fix that immediately no matter how rich
naet 4y ago
Shelters are often worse than being outside in my past experience. People in shelters use lots of hard hard drug and fight or sexually assault each other, shelters are full of tons of illness (physical and mental), rampant theft, you'll end up with awful pests like bedbugs, body lice, scabies, fleas... and you aren't even guaranteed to be let in, after hours of waiting in line, due to lack of availability. They aren't well funded enough, aren't taken care of, don't have enough staff to keep you safe, and have too many troubled people in too close quarters. The ones sponsored by religious organizations are usually just as bad and add an extra layer of judgement and religious propaganda on top of it all, rudely implying that all your problems are because you don't follow their faith. I'm not saying I have a good alternative in mind; being outside can also (obviously) suck for different reasons, but there are tons of legitimate reasons to avoid shelters even when you're homeless.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  Being outside exposes you to the same dangers. The difference is that there’s even less supervision outside, there’s no set food distribution, and the elements can get extreme
kayodelycaon 4y ago
My uncle was homeless for a while. One of the church run shelters required everyone staying there to attend the religious services at the shelter.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  That doesn't seem crazy, especially if you believe that faith and spirituality is helpful to a human.
  - theossuary 4y ago
    It is crazy that the only legal option for homeless people requires they attend church.
    - pindab0ter 4y ago
      It is crazy that a state forbids something without successfully offering legal alternatives for those without means.

Homeless shelters exist for this purpose. There’s also HUD or similar entities if you’re not in the US. There are also private nonprofits like churches that help with homelessness

runnerup 4y ago

There are widespread reports that there is no shelter availability for single men in my metro area. I think I’ll be able to get a cot some nights, but I suspect that multiple times per week I’ll be unable to find a cot in a shelter within a 4-hour walk of city center. It’s hard to go around and ask at each shelter every night…there’s a limited time window for checkin so if my first two tries are full I probably won’t make it to a third option before they lock up for the night. Not sure what the legal thing to do then is. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Emergency-domestic-violence-shelters-struggle-to-14878668.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/... I’m also a bit concerned about the safety and conditions in the shelters, being that close to unpredictable strangers. But I’d prefer that over doing anything illegal.

mullingitover 4y ago

> There are also private nonprofits like churches that help with homelessness It's honestly shocking that the US has absurdly wealthy churches and we have greater than zero homeless people on the streets. Helping the poor is the core tenet of the christian faith. If they practiced what they preach, it should be impossible to lay down on the street for more than five minutes and not be swarmed with offers for help.

RobertRoberts 4y ago
Many people _refuse_ housing for these reasons: (I've been directly told these, or have seen them reported) * Housing is dangerous/scary (robbery, rape, physical violence, etc...) * Housing is a conspiracy (to control people or other irrational ideas) * The rules of housing are too restricting. (can't have a pet, visitors, noise rules, cleanliness rules, curfew rules, behavior rules, etc...) There are others as well, but can't recall immediately. A church can't fix these problems, no matter how rich.
- mullingitover 4y ago
  A church doesn't have to satisfy every one of concerns, they simply should make the offer to shelter those in need. The core argument for forced normalization of slum conditions is that there's no alternative, because there are more people than than space in shelters. The lack of available shelter is a choice, and wealthy churches are choosing to keep billions on their asset sheets rather than perform the duties they nominally exist to perform.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > wealthy churches are choosing to keep billions on their asset sheets rather than perform the duties they nominally exist to perform. While some churches do physical charity, that’s not the nominal function of a church in the general sense (it may implicitly be part of why churches are legally treated as charities in the US, getting not merely tax exemption but deductibility of donations for donors, but that is more an indictment of that policy than anything else.)
chaostheory 4y ago
The chronically homeless are really just mentally ill people who refuse treatment. It’s a product of Ronald Reagan when he simultaneously defunded mental hospitals and required that mentally ill people give consent for treatment. No private organization can fix that immediately no matter how rich

naet 4y ago

Shelters are often worse than being outside in my past experience. People in shelters use lots of hard hard drug and fight or sexually assault each other, shelters are full of tons of illness (physical and mental), rampant theft, you'll end up with awful pests like bedbugs, body lice, scabies, fleas... and you aren't even guaranteed to be let in, after hours of waiting in line, due to lack of availability. They aren't well funded enough, aren't taken care of, don't have enough staff to keep you safe, and have too many troubled people in too close quarters. The ones sponsored by religious organizations are usually just as bad and add an extra layer of judgement and religious propaganda on top of it all, rudely implying that all your problems are because you don't follow their faith. I'm not saying I have a good alternative in mind; being outside can also (obviously) suck for different reasons, but there are tons of legitimate reasons to avoid shelters even when you're homeless.

chaostheory 4y ago
Being outside exposes you to the same dangers. The difference is that there’s even less supervision outside, there’s no set food distribution, and the elements can get extreme

kayodelycaon 4y ago

My uncle was homeless for a while. One of the church run shelters required everyone staying there to attend the religious services at the shelter.

xyzelement 4y ago
That doesn't seem crazy, especially if you believe that faith and spirituality is helpful to a human.
- theossuary 4y ago
  It is crazy that the only legal option for homeless people requires they attend church.
  - pindab0ter 4y ago
    It is crazy that a state forbids something without successfully offering legal alternatives for those without means.