4 ms·

This is a particularly uncompassionate take, particularly with you lumping homelessness into this. The vast majority of homeless are not homeless by choice. Ho

This is a particularly uncompassionate take, particularly with you lumping homelessness into this. The vast majority of homeless are not homeless by choice. Homeless people turn down shelters because shelters aren't homes, and are often legitimately worse than being outside. Programs which have offered the homeless real homes, with privacy, the ability to safely store belongings and keep pets, and the ability to decorate, cook, and sleep in quiet, have not had any difficulty filling those homes, but these programs are few and far between (none exist in the US, that I know of). The solution to homelessness is homes, period. Not shelters, homes. Nothing else will work. Mental health treatment is utterly ineffective when the patients are suffering the ongoing trauma of homelessness, and any system which places mental health as a prerequisite to having a home will not work. As such, whatever forceful mental health treatment you're proposing as a solution to your fear of the homeless, is not going to actually solve your problem. If the homeless are removed from the streets and forcibly medicated, they'll end up in the same spot doing the same thing as soon as they're dumped back into the world without any real help. If you actually want a solution that works, you're going to have to grow a little compassion and start trying to actually help the homeless instead of only thinking about how to keep yourself safe from the homeless.

bnralt 4y ago
> Homeless people turn down shelters because shelters aren't homes, and are often legitimately worse than being outside. I keep hearing that homeless avoid shelters because of how dangerous the people are there[1]. And that’s a legitimate point. But then people completely wipe that point from their memory when they say “Just move these people to apartments, there will be no problem.” If other homeless are saying that many of these individuals are too dangerous to be around, we shouldn’t be surprised if people who live in apartments feel the same way. [1] https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-choose-the-streets-over-shelters https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c...
- neon_electro 4y ago
  "...that shelters are dangerous places, that they're full of drugs and drug dealers, that people will steal your shoes, and there's bedbugs and body lice." From your [1]. The reasoning is that dangerous people exist in homeless shelters NOT because those people are homeless, but because people can exist who want to take advantage of homeless people, whether those people are homeless themselves or not. Your conclusion that homeless people living in apartments can cause the same reaction based on their previous homelessness and no other quality isn't a logical one.
- freeone3000 4y ago
  Apartments have doors that lock and walls that isolate. That is the point. Shelters do not.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > I keep hearing that homeless avoid shelters because of how dangerous the people are there[1]. Well, I didn't say that. That's part of the problem but it's not the whole problem. In the interview you quoted, the word "dangerous" is used once: PIRTLE: Part of the reason was, you know, the paranoia and the fear of large groups of people that comes along with schizophrenia, but part of the reason was, and I think this is more generally the case with people, is that you hear a lot of terrible things about shelters, that shelters are dangerous places, that they're full of drugs and drug dealers, that people will steal your shoes, and there's bedbugs and body lice. And yeah, unfortunately a lot of those things are true. It's a bit of a stretch to call that evidence of your position, but I'll grant the point and move on I guess. The interview also says: PIRTLE: Oh yes, there's - I don't want to say that all shelters are like that. There's a lot of very good shelters in this country. But there are a lot of big warehouses that are just places where we stick people at night and we really don't have any regard for how they live there. ...and: PIRTLE: I spent most of my time homeless out on the street. It wasn't until the very end of my homelessness that I ended up in a shelter. And I found out that a lot of what I was afraid of was true. I never found out what a body louse was until I got into the shelter. You know, I had my shoes stolen, just like people said you get your shoes stolen, although I will say that there were three people in the shelter who offered to give me a pair of shoes after that happened. So there is a sense of community there. I don't want to give the impression that everyone in the shelter is bad. But you have a lot of people with a lot of problems, and so when you cram them all together, you just have one big problem. That's why I'm a big fan of smaller, scattered-sized shelters, where people can get more focus on what they need to get help. Note that the "danger" here isn't "you're going to get murdered", it's theft--a predictable consequence of not having any place to store your personal belongings when you can't actively protect them. And then there's this part which bears reiterating: But you have a lot of people with a lot of problems, and so when you cram them all together, you just have one big problem. Do you see why maybe putting people into apartments might actually be a partial solution to this problem? And you'll note, I'm not actually saying we put them in apartments right next to pre-existing tenants. My actual suggestion would be to build new housing, and repurpose or rebuild unused office and retail space. There's clearly a shortage of housing, and that shortage is being maintained because it serves to inflate housing prices, making a few people rich. If there's anything there should be an excess of, it's basic needs like homes. So it starts to sound like you're responding to a straw man argument I didn't make, based on an interview that you read very selectively.
- watwut 4y ago
  That was not original point. Also actual issues are that you are often kicked off for a day with all your possessions. You can not be there during afternoon. You can not left your crap there. Other frequent issue is that you can not lock your stuff. I dont live with homeless, but if I had to stay with dozens of non-homeless strangers I would still felt the need to lock somehow most important possessions.
jschveibinz 4y ago
I have thought about this a great deal, so please consider my thoughtful response. Compassion is about everyone and everything. I am extremely compassionate and I live to reduce suffering for the greatest number of people, and animals. It is possible to err on the side of providing accommodation to a few, while causing grief for the many. This is a calculus that is hard to make, but it is necessary nonetheless.
- neon_electro 4y ago
  Whose grief? Quantified how? Compared against what benefit provided by the "accommodation to a few"?
majormajor 4y ago
Does "free homes for the homeless" possibly work in the US without becoming "free basic homes for everyone"? It is ludicrously easy to attack politically otherwise ("you're working two jobs to make rent for you and your family, and now they want to give these people a free home that's new and nicer than your crappy old apartment!"), and you know the American right would rip it to shreds, given they already see social security/medicare as too expensive. EDIT: there's also the issue of "they don't wanna do things that way, so we're gonna give them nicer things; meanwhile, all the rest of you should keep following the laws kthx." We need to figure out how to reintegrate people into society without giving up on the ideas of that society in the first place. From what I've looked up, places with much more established shelter programs and capacity than SF have fewer problems than SF. It makes zero sense to refuse to even start there. Personally, I would start with shelters and with programs to try to prevent homelessness in the first place; the input funnel is the key variable here, because as you mention, everything else becomes much harder after that.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > Does "free homes for the homeless" possibly work in the US without becoming "free basic homes for everyone"? No. Free basic homes for everyone is exactly what I want. > It is ludicrously easy to attack politically otherwise ("you're working two jobs to make rent for you and your family, and now they want to give these people a free home that's new and nicer than your crappy old apartment!"), and you know the American right would rip it to shreds, given they already see social security/medicare as too expensive. Easy attacks have easy solutions. Nobody should have to work two jobs to make rent, and tiered aid should exist for people who aren't already homeless such that that isn't necessary (in addition to addressing income disparities). Nobody is proposing we give the homeless free new homes and give the barely-homed nothing. > there's also the issue of "they don't wanna do things that way, so we're gonna give them nicer things; meanwhile, all the rest of you should keep following the laws kthx." I'm not even sure this narrative is coherent. Is the implication that the homeless are lawbreakers and therefore deserve to be punished... with homelessness? > We need to figure out how to reintegrate people into society without giving up on the ideas of that society in the first place. No, we don't. Which idea exactly are you talking about? If there is some idea of our society that is opposed to the idea that humans deserve to have their basic needs met, I'm pretty on board with changing the idea of our society. > From what I've looked up, places with much more established shelter programs and capacity than SF have fewer problems than SF. It makes zero sense to refuse to even start there. Who's refusing to even start there? You won't hear any perfect solution fallacies[1] from me. But I'm fully on board with imperfect solutions when better solutions aren't available, but your post seems to be arguing that we shouldn't even try the better solutions, because people might object. It's a weird circular argument: we're opposed to trying giving people homes because people might be opposed to it? We need to change minds, which is why I'm having this conversation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
briffle 4y ago
> As such, whatever forceful mental health treatment you're proposing as a solution to your fear of the homeless, is not going to actually solve your problem. I have a 70 year old family friend that owns a farm, 4th generation of his family to own the farm. it butts up to the Freeway. His farm is less than 1/4 a mile outside a large (~200k) city limits on the west coast. He has an encampment of 30 or so homeless people living on his land. (A spot set aside for nature by the county, so its wooded, not actively farmed). this is about 200 yards from his house. In a typical day, 15 or so semis' and old motorhomes pull over along the freeway offramp, to buy/sell meth. They cut down the trees, set fires to warm themselves, wander trough his property, have stolen countless tools, scrap metal, diesel fuel, etc from him. Basically a large tent/tarp city, with human waste, needles, stolen bikes/cars, (well, stolen everything) Its also caused a huge influx of rats, coyotes, and other scavengers. The County Sheriff has told him they no longer respond to trespassing and vandalism calls, and to just file a report. (they are overwhelmed with them) His 68 year old wife will no longer ride her horse on that half of the farm, she is scared of them, and if their dogs charge at her horses again they might spook them and cause her to get really hurt. One time, before they said no more trespassing calls, the sheriff did tell them to leave, they moved their camp from the trees, to right alongside the freeway, which is owned by the state dept of transportation. they couldn't do anything then, since it was state land, and they moved back the next week. once they do clear out, because its private property, he is solely responsible for the cleanup costs, including the human waste, needles, stolen abandoned cars, etc. He could also be fined by the state for cutting down trees, etc, in an area that is supposed to be set aside for nature. (even though he did not do it) I understand your ideas, And I am all for building them all homes. I am all for compassion, empathy, and helping out those that are less fortunate, and need help. But if it was funded, today, 100%, that would be 12-18 months to build the homes. There are solutions that need to be done now. And there are solutions that need to be done long term as well. We should be doing all the things, not just waiting for the one perfect thing to be put in place.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  Who is proposing that we wait, doing nothing, for a perfect solution to be put in place? I'm certainly not. I'm very in favor of harm reduction. All I'm doing is addressing the only solution which is actually going to solve the problem in the long run. There remains a persistent refusal to talk about giving homeless people homes. Literally not a single response to my post has seriously engaged with the idea.
falcolas 4y ago
In support of this: Somewhere around 53% of homeless people are employed, part or full time. 40% of people were employed in the same year they became homeless. Definitely feels like a safety net issue and not a "homelessness is entirely a mental illness issue". https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/finding/learning-about-homelessness-using-linked-survey-and-administrative-data/ https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/finding/learning-about-home...
72f988bf 4y ago
> Programs which have offered the homeless real homes, with privacy, the ability to safely store belongings and keep pets, and the ability to decorate, cook, and sleep in quiet, have not had any difficulty filling those homes, but these programs are few and far between (none exist in the US, that I know of). This one is close to what you're describing: https://www.lihihousing.org/tinyhouses https://www.lihihousing.org/tinyhouses (Consider donating!) These tiny house villages are real tiny homes, providing privacy & dignity. And you're right about people preferring anything over a shelter: "Some of the people we spoke with told us that if given a choice between staying in a nearby homeless shelter or spending their nights in a tent, they will choose the tent" (https://www.krem.com/article/money/economy/boomtown-inland-northwest/seattle-tiny-home-homelessness-program/293-8f786342-14c8-4eaa-b0a1-0feeaa8596af https://www.krem.com/article/money/economy/boomtown-inland-n...) A tiny house in a small-by-design village is a better solution than a tent in a large encampment or shelter.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  That's exactly what I'm proposing, and I'm overjoyed to see that happening in the US! Thanks for bringing it to my attention! I'm going to do more research on their finances, but if nothing bad comes up I'll probably move a bunch of my donation budget to them.
- telotortium 4y ago
  That's exactly what needs to be built. The other thing that needs to be done is for cities to not tolerate homeless people living unsheltered in city streets or parks. Any homeless people that refuse to enter shelters in the city should be deported to these tiny home villages.
zamnos 4y ago
> In 2005, Utah adopted a 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness using a Housing First strategy. Although other areas had employed the practice of prioritizing housing for people experiencing homelessness, Utah was the first jurisdiction to adopt this strategy as part of an official plan at the statewide level. Within 10 years, the number of people experiencing chronic homelessness in the state of Utah fell by 90 percent. During this time, HASLC developed several apartment complexes for people experiencing homelessness, with its first permanent supportive housing development opening in 2007. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-inpractice-092022.html#:~:text=In%202005%2C%20Utah%20adopted%20a,plan%20at%20the%20statewide%20level https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-inpractice-0....

bnralt 4y ago

> Homeless people turn down shelters because shelters aren't homes, and are often legitimately worse than being outside. I keep hearing that homeless avoid shelters because of how dangerous the people are there[1]. And that’s a legitimate point. But then people completely wipe that point from their memory when they say “Just move these people to apartments, there will be no problem.” If other homeless are saying that many of these individuals are too dangerous to be around, we shouldn’t be surprised if people who live in apartments feel the same way. [1] https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-choose-the-streets-over-shelters https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c...

neon_electro 4y ago
"...that shelters are dangerous places, that they're full of drugs and drug dealers, that people will steal your shoes, and there's bedbugs and body lice." From your [1]. The reasoning is that dangerous people exist in homeless shelters NOT because those people are homeless, but because people can exist who want to take advantage of homeless people, whether those people are homeless themselves or not. Your conclusion that homeless people living in apartments can cause the same reaction based on their previous homelessness and no other quality isn't a logical one.
freeone3000 4y ago
Apartments have doors that lock and walls that isolate. That is the point. Shelters do not.
kerkeslager 4y ago
> I keep hearing that homeless avoid shelters because of how dangerous the people are there[1]. Well, I didn't say that. That's part of the problem but it's not the whole problem. In the interview you quoted, the word "dangerous" is used once: PIRTLE: Part of the reason was, you know, the paranoia and the fear of large groups of people that comes along with schizophrenia, but part of the reason was, and I think this is more generally the case with people, is that you hear a lot of terrible things about shelters, that shelters are dangerous places, that they're full of drugs and drug dealers, that people will steal your shoes, and there's bedbugs and body lice. And yeah, unfortunately a lot of those things are true. It's a bit of a stretch to call that evidence of your position, but I'll grant the point and move on I guess. The interview also says: PIRTLE: Oh yes, there's - I don't want to say that all shelters are like that. There's a lot of very good shelters in this country. But there are a lot of big warehouses that are just places where we stick people at night and we really don't have any regard for how they live there. ...and: PIRTLE: I spent most of my time homeless out on the street. It wasn't until the very end of my homelessness that I ended up in a shelter. And I found out that a lot of what I was afraid of was true. I never found out what a body louse was until I got into the shelter. You know, I had my shoes stolen, just like people said you get your shoes stolen, although I will say that there were three people in the shelter who offered to give me a pair of shoes after that happened. So there is a sense of community there. I don't want to give the impression that everyone in the shelter is bad. But you have a lot of people with a lot of problems, and so when you cram them all together, you just have one big problem. That's why I'm a big fan of smaller, scattered-sized shelters, where people can get more focus on what they need to get help. Note that the "danger" here isn't "you're going to get murdered", it's theft--a predictable consequence of not having any place to store your personal belongings when you can't actively protect them. And then there's this part which bears reiterating: But you have a lot of people with a lot of problems, and so when you cram them all together, you just have one big problem. Do you see why maybe putting people into apartments might actually be a partial solution to this problem? And you'll note, I'm not actually saying we put them in apartments right next to pre-existing tenants. My actual suggestion would be to build new housing, and repurpose or rebuild unused office and retail space. There's clearly a shortage of housing, and that shortage is being maintained because it serves to inflate housing prices, making a few people rich. If there's anything there should be an excess of, it's basic needs like homes. So it starts to sound like you're responding to a straw man argument I didn't make, based on an interview that you read very selectively.
watwut 4y ago
That was not original point. Also actual issues are that you are often kicked off for a day with all your possessions. You can not be there during afternoon. You can not left your crap there. Other frequent issue is that you can not lock your stuff. I dont live with homeless, but if I had to stay with dozens of non-homeless strangers I would still felt the need to lock somehow most important possessions.

jschveibinz 4y ago

I have thought about this a great deal, so please consider my thoughtful response. Compassion is about everyone and everything. I am extremely compassionate and I live to reduce suffering for the greatest number of people, and animals. It is possible to err on the side of providing accommodation to a few, while causing grief for the many. This is a calculus that is hard to make, but it is necessary nonetheless.

neon_electro 4y ago
Whose grief? Quantified how? Compared against what benefit provided by the "accommodation to a few"?

majormajor 4y ago

Does "free homes for the homeless" possibly work in the US without becoming "free basic homes for everyone"? It is ludicrously easy to attack politically otherwise ("you're working two jobs to make rent for you and your family, and now they want to give these people a free home that's new and nicer than your crappy old apartment!"), and you know the American right would rip it to shreds, given they already see social security/medicare as too expensive. EDIT: there's also the issue of "they don't wanna do things that way, so we're gonna give them nicer things; meanwhile, all the rest of you should keep following the laws kthx." We need to figure out how to reintegrate people into society without giving up on the ideas of that society in the first place. From what I've looked up, places with much more established shelter programs and capacity than SF have fewer problems than SF. It makes zero sense to refuse to even start there. Personally, I would start with shelters and with programs to try to prevent homelessness in the first place; the input funnel is the key variable here, because as you mention, everything else becomes much harder after that.

kerkeslager 4y ago
> Does "free homes for the homeless" possibly work in the US without becoming "free basic homes for everyone"? No. Free basic homes for everyone is exactly what I want. > It is ludicrously easy to attack politically otherwise ("you're working two jobs to make rent for you and your family, and now they want to give these people a free home that's new and nicer than your crappy old apartment!"), and you know the American right would rip it to shreds, given they already see social security/medicare as too expensive. Easy attacks have easy solutions. Nobody should have to work two jobs to make rent, and tiered aid should exist for people who aren't already homeless such that that isn't necessary (in addition to addressing income disparities). Nobody is proposing we give the homeless free new homes and give the barely-homed nothing. > there's also the issue of "they don't wanna do things that way, so we're gonna give them nicer things; meanwhile, all the rest of you should keep following the laws kthx." I'm not even sure this narrative is coherent. Is the implication that the homeless are lawbreakers and therefore deserve to be punished... with homelessness? > We need to figure out how to reintegrate people into society without giving up on the ideas of that society in the first place. No, we don't. Which idea exactly are you talking about? If there is some idea of our society that is opposed to the idea that humans deserve to have their basic needs met, I'm pretty on board with changing the idea of our society. > From what I've looked up, places with much more established shelter programs and capacity than SF have fewer problems than SF. It makes zero sense to refuse to even start there. Who's refusing to even start there? You won't hear any perfect solution fallacies[1] from me. But I'm fully on board with imperfect solutions when better solutions aren't available, but your post seems to be arguing that we shouldn't even try the better solutions, because people might object. It's a weird circular argument: we're opposed to trying giving people homes because people might be opposed to it? We need to change minds, which is why I'm having this conversation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

briffle 4y ago

> As such, whatever forceful mental health treatment you're proposing as a solution to your fear of the homeless, is not going to actually solve your problem. I have a 70 year old family friend that owns a farm, 4th generation of his family to own the farm. it butts up to the Freeway. His farm is less than 1/4 a mile outside a large (~200k) city limits on the west coast. He has an encampment of 30 or so homeless people living on his land. (A spot set aside for nature by the county, so its wooded, not actively farmed). this is about 200 yards from his house. In a typical day, 15 or so semis' and old motorhomes pull over along the freeway offramp, to buy/sell meth. They cut down the trees, set fires to warm themselves, wander trough his property, have stolen countless tools, scrap metal, diesel fuel, etc from him. Basically a large tent/tarp city, with human waste, needles, stolen bikes/cars, (well, stolen everything) Its also caused a huge influx of rats, coyotes, and other scavengers. The County Sheriff has told him they no longer respond to trespassing and vandalism calls, and to just file a report. (they are overwhelmed with them) His 68 year old wife will no longer ride her horse on that half of the farm, she is scared of them, and if their dogs charge at her horses again they might spook them and cause her to get really hurt. One time, before they said no more trespassing calls, the sheriff did tell them to leave, they moved their camp from the trees, to right alongside the freeway, which is owned by the state dept of transportation. they couldn't do anything then, since it was state land, and they moved back the next week. once they do clear out, because its private property, he is solely responsible for the cleanup costs, including the human waste, needles, stolen abandoned cars, etc. He could also be fined by the state for cutting down trees, etc, in an area that is supposed to be set aside for nature. (even though he did not do it) I understand your ideas, And I am all for building them all homes. I am all for compassion, empathy, and helping out those that are less fortunate, and need help. But if it was funded, today, 100%, that would be 12-18 months to build the homes. There are solutions that need to be done now. And there are solutions that need to be done long term as well. We should be doing all the things, not just waiting for the one perfect thing to be put in place.

kerkeslager 4y ago
Who is proposing that we wait, doing nothing, for a perfect solution to be put in place? I'm certainly not. I'm very in favor of harm reduction. All I'm doing is addressing the only solution which is actually going to solve the problem in the long run. There remains a persistent refusal to talk about giving homeless people homes. Literally not a single response to my post has seriously engaged with the idea.

falcolas 4y ago

In support of this: Somewhere around 53% of homeless people are employed, part or full time. 40% of people were employed in the same year they became homeless. Definitely feels like a safety net issue and not a "homelessness is entirely a mental illness issue". https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/finding/learning-about-homelessness-using-linked-survey-and-administrative-data/ https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/finding/learning-about-home...

72f988bf 4y ago

> Programs which have offered the homeless real homes, with privacy, the ability to safely store belongings and keep pets, and the ability to decorate, cook, and sleep in quiet, have not had any difficulty filling those homes, but these programs are few and far between (none exist in the US, that I know of). This one is close to what you're describing: https://www.lihihousing.org/tinyhouses https://www.lihihousing.org/tinyhouses (Consider donating!) These tiny house villages are real tiny homes, providing privacy & dignity. And you're right about people preferring anything over a shelter: "Some of the people we spoke with told us that if given a choice between staying in a nearby homeless shelter or spending their nights in a tent, they will choose the tent" (https://www.krem.com/article/money/economy/boomtown-inland-northwest/seattle-tiny-home-homelessness-program/293-8f786342-14c8-4eaa-b0a1-0feeaa8596af https://www.krem.com/article/money/economy/boomtown-inland-n...) A tiny house in a small-by-design village is a better solution than a tent in a large encampment or shelter.

kerkeslager 4y ago
That's exactly what I'm proposing, and I'm overjoyed to see that happening in the US! Thanks for bringing it to my attention! I'm going to do more research on their finances, but if nothing bad comes up I'll probably move a bunch of my donation budget to them.
telotortium 4y ago
That's exactly what needs to be built. The other thing that needs to be done is for cities to not tolerate homeless people living unsheltered in city streets or parks. Any homeless people that refuse to enter shelters in the city should be deported to these tiny home villages.

zamnos 4y ago

> In 2005, Utah adopted a 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness using a Housing First strategy. Although other areas had employed the practice of prioritizing housing for people experiencing homelessness, Utah was the first jurisdiction to adopt this strategy as part of an official plan at the statewide level. Within 10 years, the number of people experiencing chronic homelessness in the state of Utah fell by 90 percent. During this time, HASLC developed several apartment complexes for people experiencing homelessness, with its first permanent supportive housing development opening in 2007. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-inpractice-092022.html#:~:text=In%202005%2C%20Utah%20adopted%20a,plan%20at%20the%20statewide%20level https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-inpractice-0....