5 ms·

> Something tells me everyone who's homeless isn't a fentanyl addict. Especially given housing costs SF/LA has numerous programs that will give you housing if

> Something tells me everyone who's homeless isn't a fentanyl addict. Especially given housing costs SF/LA has numerous programs that will give you housing if you're homeless. The issue is that many of the homeless refuse to take up these programs and insist on staying in their tents.... because they're mentally ill.... because of drugs.

piperswe 4y ago
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong: - They're homeless - Because they're mentally ill - Because they're on drugs - Because they're mentally ill - Because they're homeless
- LewisVerstappen 4y ago
  To be clear, I'm not suggesting a drug problem is a character defect nor am I implying that these people don't deserve a huge amount of empathy. I'm just unsure if the root cause is the price of housing (despite there meaning numerous problems to house & relocate them) or if it's due to the drug addiction. Anyway, obviously I'm for more housing to reduce the price of rent. There's a youtube channel called Invisible People that interviews homeless people on the streets and the story is very frequently had job -> got on highly addictive drugs -> everything is about getting another hit -> tried rehab multiple times and want to go to rehab again And yeah I mean, heroine/meth/whatever is obviously super dangerous & addictive so you can't really blame them.
metalforever 4y ago
so i am dealing with this issue with a good friend of mine right now, who is homeless in the city of san francisco. No, this isnt true , theres a very very long waitlist for assistance. His credit is shot and he cannot find a new rental. so, hes been living in a hotel. Hes paying the daily, so he has money.
Aloha 4y ago
You should look at the often onerous restrictions that come with those programs, often including: * No Pets * No Visitors * Curfew Time * Limits on the number of people per unit (meaning, families and couples cannot always be accommodated together) - and a host of others. Also in some places there is a requirement that you have a social worker, and/or receiving mental healthcare treatment - except there are long waiting periods. For most long term homeless people telling them "you have to give up your dog" will keep them on the streets - its not "housing, no questions asked" its "housing with rules". Building more housing will reduce the existing homeless population - because a significant portion of existing homeless are working poor, but more importantly, it will stall the creation of new homeless, the longer you're homeless the more likely you are to acquire an addiction, or other mental health issue.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- danenania 4y ago
  I'm sure it can't be this simple, but I would love to hear what the problems are with building large apartment complexes on cheap land in the outskirts of cities, staffing them with security, social workers, medical workers, etc. and then letting people live there no questions asked. You would of course still need some rules in these places and there would certainly be various issues and difficulties, but it seems a whole lot better than what we have happening now in city centers?
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    That's pretty much right on the nose when it comes to 'Housing First' approaches to the homeless. Most localities refuse to do that for political reasons more than practical ones: too many people take to crab-bucket complaining as soon as you just give homeless people homes.
    - Aloha 4y ago
      There is opposition to it across the ideological spectrum, the right doesnt like it, because they feel people should do for themselves, parts of the left doesnt because of one of two reasons A) it doesnt provide an acceptable enough standard of living for those pushed into it B) it doesnt provide the 'comprehensive care' required to really help people (as seen from folks inside the homelessness industrial complex, which is to say, anyone with a vested interest in continuing the status quo). In reality housing first solves a great many problems, and creates some others - but its better than anything else we're currently doing.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    I want to predicate this with a statement, I believe there is no such thing as 'unworthy poor' all poverty is worth solving, because the broader societal costs in not solving poverty is corrosive on wider society. Poverty is at the roots of some of the causes of homelessness, but not all of them. So, a generation ago, we warehoused people who had an inability to thrive in society in mental hospitals, now we do it with jails, or just leave them on the streets. I think it's a thought that upsets people (and runs into ideological issues across the spectrum), but essentially, there is some percentage of the population, that no matter the supports they are given, will fail to thrive. If we try to jail them all, or just ignore the problems, it creates a great number of externalities which effect all of us in a myriad of ways. To further drill down, it's a spectrum of behaviors, some folks have enough problems that cash benefits and subsidized housing are not enough to allow them to follow the rules in general society. In any case, to circle back around, it essentially creates an second class citizen and nuisances around these places, thats a solvable problem though, but rather authoritarian in how you'd have to solve it. I've had extensive conversations for this with friends, and we've come to the conclusion (reluctantly) that the only complete fix for homelessness would be something the equivalent of civil commitment to a 'guided living' community, you'd have a large community on the edge of town, it'd have a mix of halfway houses, group living and individual apartments and has centers for mental health, social work, as well as sources of employment, shops and communal spaces. The idea is, if simple housing supports wont get you out of homelessness, you could be sent there - there would be a way to graduate out of the program, but for some they would go and might never be able to leave.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
The provision of housing to the homeless can be refused for a lot of reasons. One being that the housing might be in a place where the person has no access or restricted access to other social programs such as food or jobs programs. The housing might make them feel unsafe, such as being crammed into a shelter. The housing might be overly restrictive, such as refusing to allow them to bring their pet which may be the only thing keeping them going emotionally. They may feel they don't have adequate support to transition to housing, if the housing demands they get off an addictive substance first (chicken and egg problem, because its much harder to get off an addiction if one is currently in crisis like being homeless).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

piperswe 4y ago

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong: - They're homeless - Because they're mentally ill - Because they're on drugs - Because they're mentally ill - Because they're homeless

LewisVerstappen 4y ago
To be clear, I'm not suggesting a drug problem is a character defect nor am I implying that these people don't deserve a huge amount of empathy. I'm just unsure if the root cause is the price of housing (despite there meaning numerous problems to house & relocate them) or if it's due to the drug addiction. Anyway, obviously I'm for more housing to reduce the price of rent. There's a youtube channel called Invisible People that interviews homeless people on the streets and the story is very frequently had job -> got on highly addictive drugs -> everything is about getting another hit -> tried rehab multiple times and want to go to rehab again And yeah I mean, heroine/meth/whatever is obviously super dangerous & addictive so you can't really blame them.

metalforever 4y ago

so i am dealing with this issue with a good friend of mine right now, who is homeless in the city of san francisco. No, this isnt true , theres a very very long waitlist for assistance. His credit is shot and he cannot find a new rental. so, hes been living in a hotel. Hes paying the daily, so he has money.

Aloha 4y ago

You should look at the often onerous restrictions that come with those programs, often including: * No Pets * No Visitors * Curfew Time * Limits on the number of people per unit (meaning, families and couples cannot always be accommodated together) - and a host of others. Also in some places there is a requirement that you have a social worker, and/or receiving mental healthcare treatment - except there are long waiting periods. For most long term homeless people telling them "you have to give up your dog" will keep them on the streets - its not "housing, no questions asked" its "housing with rules". Building more housing will reduce the existing homeless population - because a significant portion of existing homeless are working poor, but more importantly, it will stall the creation of new homeless, the longer you're homeless the more likely you are to acquire an addiction, or other mental health issue.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
danenania 4y ago
I'm sure it can't be this simple, but I would love to hear what the problems are with building large apartment complexes on cheap land in the outskirts of cities, staffing them with security, social workers, medical workers, etc. and then letting people live there no questions asked. You would of course still need some rules in these places and there would certainly be various issues and difficulties, but it seems a whole lot better than what we have happening now in city centers?
- crooked-v 4y ago
  That's pretty much right on the nose when it comes to 'Housing First' approaches to the homeless. Most localities refuse to do that for political reasons more than practical ones: too many people take to crab-bucket complaining as soon as you just give homeless people homes.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    There is opposition to it across the ideological spectrum, the right doesnt like it, because they feel people should do for themselves, parts of the left doesnt because of one of two reasons A) it doesnt provide an acceptable enough standard of living for those pushed into it B) it doesnt provide the 'comprehensive care' required to really help people (as seen from folks inside the homelessness industrial complex, which is to say, anyone with a vested interest in continuing the status quo). In reality housing first solves a great many problems, and creates some others - but its better than anything else we're currently doing.
- Aloha 4y ago
  I want to predicate this with a statement, I believe there is no such thing as 'unworthy poor' all poverty is worth solving, because the broader societal costs in not solving poverty is corrosive on wider society. Poverty is at the roots of some of the causes of homelessness, but not all of them. So, a generation ago, we warehoused people who had an inability to thrive in society in mental hospitals, now we do it with jails, or just leave them on the streets. I think it's a thought that upsets people (and runs into ideological issues across the spectrum), but essentially, there is some percentage of the population, that no matter the supports they are given, will fail to thrive. If we try to jail them all, or just ignore the problems, it creates a great number of externalities which effect all of us in a myriad of ways. To further drill down, it's a spectrum of behaviors, some folks have enough problems that cash benefits and subsidized housing are not enough to allow them to follow the rules in general society. In any case, to circle back around, it essentially creates an second class citizen and nuisances around these places, thats a solvable problem though, but rather authoritarian in how you'd have to solve it. I've had extensive conversations for this with friends, and we've come to the conclusion (reluctantly) that the only complete fix for homelessness would be something the equivalent of civil commitment to a 'guided living' community, you'd have a large community on the edge of town, it'd have a mix of halfway houses, group living and individual apartments and has centers for mental health, social work, as well as sources of employment, shops and communal spaces. The idea is, if simple housing supports wont get you out of homelessness, you could be sent there - there would be a way to graduate out of the program, but for some they would go and might never be able to leave.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

The provision of housing to the homeless can be refused for a lot of reasons. One being that the housing might be in a place where the person has no access or restricted access to other social programs such as food or jobs programs. The housing might make them feel unsafe, such as being crammed into a shelter. The housing might be overly restrictive, such as refusing to allow them to bring their pet which may be the only thing keeping them going emotionally. They may feel they don't have adequate support to transition to housing, if the housing demands they get off an addictive substance first (chicken and egg problem, because its much harder to get off an addiction if one is currently in crisis like being homeless).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]