3 ms·

Thank you for this reply. It’s scary to see how many are so ready to “defund police” by “funding corporate ability to murder” (my quotes re sentiment) - which i

Thank you for this reply. It’s scary to see how many are so ready to “defund police” by “funding corporate ability to murder” (my quotes re sentiment) - which is what happened with Pinkertons, etc. If those homeless camps have drug problems - the lowest hanging fruit may seem like enabling a private police force, but the hanging fruit will be in actually helping the drug problem…

prottog 4y ago
> by “funding corporate ability to murder” (my quotes re sentiment) I don't know about the discussion, but what I'm taking away from the article is actually what policing could be if the shield of immunity that fuels the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude is taken away.
- flandish 4y ago
  For sure - but any cohort that’s capable of escalation will escalate on a long enough timeline. Police are more and more “mini militaries” (I am sure there are cities with more $ in police than some nations have in military $) I think social services, crisis intervention, and mental health/drug help will benefit more and for longer. That, though, goes against another deep seeded inherent “bonus” to keeping homeless homeless, addicts addicted, and police forces of all styles (pub/priv) in action: Those “homeless” types scare an entire low/middle class of labor into accepting any wage no matter how exploitative, out of a fear if becoming one of “them.”
zuzu89 4y ago
> will be in actually helping the drug problem… while this should be obvious to anyone who has seen the camps, we still get articles that claim "the obvious answer to homelessness" is just more housing. Of course we need more housing but how do cheaper rents convince addicts to change their lifestyle? it's the conventional argument that's being brought up all the time while claiming "everyone's ignoring it". doing some novel reporting on homelessness without leaving their homes: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/01/homelessness-affordable-housing-crisis-democrats-causes/672224/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/01/homeles...
- opportune 4y ago
  From what I’ve read, the homeless people who sleep on the street and generally create trouble (due to severe addiction and other mental issues) are only about 1/3 of the homeless. A lot of the other homeless you would never recognize as homeless, don’t sleep rough, and are not necessarily “chronically homeless” - those are the ones that would benefit from cheaper housing
  - Zigurd 4y ago
    Your conclusion doesn't follow. Why wouldn't people who sleep rough benefit from a housing first policy?
    - opportune 4y ago
      Sorry I don’t mean that 1/3 sleep rough, more that 1/3 have big mental issues (and tend to be the ones that sleep rough and the ones you envision when you hear the word “homeless”). For that cohort housing first makes them not-homeless but is insufficient to address their problems. They’re not able to take care of themselves and would need a lot of labor to keep their place habitable and safe. You would probably spend much more money on maintenance and cleaning than you would on the structure
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      Because the rough sleeping is not the cause of their problems, so just addressing that by itself won't make their problems go away.
      - naasking 4y ago
        The evidence disagrees. Housing-first policies in multiple countries have been a smashing successes in reducing addiction, so clearly there are some factors you're missing. For instance, theft and violence is a huge reason homeless people avoid shelters. Having a sanctuary that's somewhat secure from thieves and muggers means they actually add some stability. Stability makes their lives less shitty which reduces the urges to use to escape their shitty situation. That's just one example I've read about.

prottog 4y ago

> by “funding corporate ability to murder” (my quotes re sentiment) I don't know about the discussion, but what I'm taking away from the article is actually what policing could be if the shield of immunity that fuels the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude is taken away.

flandish 4y ago
For sure - but any cohort that’s capable of escalation will escalate on a long enough timeline. Police are more and more “mini militaries” (I am sure there are cities with more $ in police than some nations have in military $) I think social services, crisis intervention, and mental health/drug help will benefit more and for longer. That, though, goes against another deep seeded inherent “bonus” to keeping homeless homeless, addicts addicted, and police forces of all styles (pub/priv) in action: Those “homeless” types scare an entire low/middle class of labor into accepting any wage no matter how exploitative, out of a fear if becoming one of “them.”

zuzu89 4y ago

> will be in actually helping the drug problem… while this should be obvious to anyone who has seen the camps, we still get articles that claim "the obvious answer to homelessness" is just more housing. Of course we need more housing but how do cheaper rents convince addicts to change their lifestyle? it's the conventional argument that's being brought up all the time while claiming "everyone's ignoring it". doing some novel reporting on homelessness without leaving their homes: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/01/homelessness-affordable-housing-crisis-democrats-causes/672224/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/01/homeles...

opportune 4y ago
From what I’ve read, the homeless people who sleep on the street and generally create trouble (due to severe addiction and other mental issues) are only about 1/3 of the homeless. A lot of the other homeless you would never recognize as homeless, don’t sleep rough, and are not necessarily “chronically homeless” - those are the ones that would benefit from cheaper housing
- Zigurd 4y ago
  Your conclusion doesn't follow. Why wouldn't people who sleep rough benefit from a housing first policy?
  - opportune 4y ago
    Sorry I don’t mean that 1/3 sleep rough, more that 1/3 have big mental issues (and tend to be the ones that sleep rough and the ones you envision when you hear the word “homeless”). For that cohort housing first makes them not-homeless but is insufficient to address their problems. They’re not able to take care of themselves and would need a lot of labor to keep their place habitable and safe. You would probably spend much more money on maintenance and cleaning than you would on the structure
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Because the rough sleeping is not the cause of their problems, so just addressing that by itself won't make their problems go away.
    - naasking 4y ago
      The evidence disagrees. Housing-first policies in multiple countries have been a smashing successes in reducing addiction, so clearly there are some factors you're missing. For instance, theft and violence is a huge reason homeless people avoid shelters. Having a sanctuary that's somewhat secure from thieves and muggers means they actually add some stability. Stability makes their lives less shitty which reduces the urges to use to escape their shitty situation. That's just one example I've read about.