3 ms·

> And that led to an insight: people tend to function better when they’re not living on the street or under a bridge. Who would have guessed? Reminds me of the

> And that led to an insight: people tend to function better when they’re not living on the street or under a bridge. Who would have guessed? Reminds me of the old Fran Lebowitz bit about homelessness, where she says they insist on calling it homelessness, since that makes it sound unsolvable. You really can't buy people a home. If they called it houselessness it would be too easily solvable.

draugadrotten 3y ago
> If they called it houselessness it would be too easily solvable. Only if one believes that the lack of a home or a house is the root cause of the individuals problem. A drug addict provided with a house as a home will turn that house into a cesspit in very short time. The drug addict does not clean, does not take out the trash, does not repair. The drug addict will invite other drug addicts to the house, essentially turning it into what is called a drug house. The house can no longer be lived in, and it stops being a home. Now, is that really helping anyone? No, it is not. Helping homeless people is a noble cause and should be done - Finland is doing good there. Helping SF drug addicts is a noble cause and should be done - but not by giving them a free house. They need help with their drug addiction first and foremost. Having somewhere to shelter while they get that help is a necessary part of the solution but it is the solution. Mental issues and drug addiction frequently overlaps but otherwise the same argument applies. Help needs to be directed on the root cause and issues and homelessness is a symptom, not a cause. You disruptors out there, get going. Where is the unicorn hidden here?
- exDM69 3y ago
  > Only if one believes that the lack of a home or a house is the root cause of the individuals problem. Homelessness may not be the root cause, but it effectively prevents one from having a normal life. One is unable to help oneself if they spend all of their time, money and effort staying warm, fed and safe. > A drug addict provided with a house as a home will turn that house into a cesspit in very short time. The drug addict does not clean, does not take out the trash, does not repair. The drug addict will invite other drug addicts to the house, essentially turning it into what is called a drug house. The house can no longer be lived in, and it stops being a home. If you do this you get evicted from normal housing. Which is why the supported "housing first" initiative apartment blocks come with rules, social workers, etc. Typically they tolerate substance abuse but have restrictions on number of visitors, visiting hours, etc. > Helping SF drug addicts is a noble cause and should be done - but not by giving them a free house. They need help with their drug addiction first and foremost. Having somewhere to shelter while they get that help is a necessary part of the solution but it is the solution. It's is extremely difficult to try to get out of substance abuse or mental illness issues when living rough. This is exactly why the paradigm of giving housing first exists. Previous attempts at helping the homeless with substance abuse and mental health were fruitless. All the money and effort put into that had very poor results. Give the keys to a normal apartment to an addict and they'll be doing drugs instead of paying rent and back on the streets in a few months. Housing first, addressing problems second was found to be much more effective. This was researched extensively. About 80% of people given supported housing get out of homelessness [0]. That's a massive difference to earlier "shelter only" model of social support for the homeless. [0] https://www.hdl.fi/blog/asunto-ensin-tavoitteena-pysyva-asuminen/ https://www.hdl.fi/blog/asunto-ensin-tavoitteena-pysyva-asum...
- bjarneh 3y ago
  > Only if one believes that the lack of a home or a house is the root cause of the individuals problem. There are other ways of seeing this. It can start the other way around for instance. I.e. if you end up on the streets; both drugs and alcohol can numb the pain of your current situation, slowly but surely giving you a drug problem on top of your homelessness problem. I fully agree about what can easily happen if we just offered free housing to people with severe drug problems. I'm just wondering if we are using that as an excuse not to help people with something we know is an effective method. Even people with serious drug problems must have a much better chance of kicking their habit if they can avoid living in a tent or under a bridge. How do these horrible conditions with constant fear of being robbed/raped help them kick their habit? > Help needs to be directed on the root cause and issues and homelessness is a symptom, not a cause. Lets assume that the root cause is child abuse, i.e. they are on drugs due to being molested, i.e. molestation is the "root cause". How are we helping that person better by allowing them to live in a place like skid row, where they say that almost 100% of the women living there have been raped (while living there)? I'm just not seeing how the tent/under-a-bridge lifestyle adds anything to our "assistance/help" here?

draugadrotten 3y ago

> If they called it houselessness it would be too easily solvable. Only if one believes that the lack of a home or a house is the root cause of the individuals problem. A drug addict provided with a house as a home will turn that house into a cesspit in very short time. The drug addict does not clean, does not take out the trash, does not repair. The drug addict will invite other drug addicts to the house, essentially turning it into what is called a drug house. The house can no longer be lived in, and it stops being a home. Now, is that really helping anyone? No, it is not. Helping homeless people is a noble cause and should be done - Finland is doing good there. Helping SF drug addicts is a noble cause and should be done - but not by giving them a free house. They need help with their drug addiction first and foremost. Having somewhere to shelter while they get that help is a necessary part of the solution but it is the solution. Mental issues and drug addiction frequently overlaps but otherwise the same argument applies. Help needs to be directed on the root cause and issues and homelessness is a symptom, not a cause. You disruptors out there, get going. Where is the unicorn hidden here?

exDM69 3y ago
> Only if one believes that the lack of a home or a house is the root cause of the individuals problem. Homelessness may not be the root cause, but it effectively prevents one from having a normal life. One is unable to help oneself if they spend all of their time, money and effort staying warm, fed and safe. > A drug addict provided with a house as a home will turn that house into a cesspit in very short time. The drug addict does not clean, does not take out the trash, does not repair. The drug addict will invite other drug addicts to the house, essentially turning it into what is called a drug house. The house can no longer be lived in, and it stops being a home. If you do this you get evicted from normal housing. Which is why the supported "housing first" initiative apartment blocks come with rules, social workers, etc. Typically they tolerate substance abuse but have restrictions on number of visitors, visiting hours, etc. > Helping SF drug addicts is a noble cause and should be done - but not by giving them a free house. They need help with their drug addiction first and foremost. Having somewhere to shelter while they get that help is a necessary part of the solution but it is the solution. It's is extremely difficult to try to get out of substance abuse or mental illness issues when living rough. This is exactly why the paradigm of giving housing first exists. Previous attempts at helping the homeless with substance abuse and mental health were fruitless. All the money and effort put into that had very poor results. Give the keys to a normal apartment to an addict and they'll be doing drugs instead of paying rent and back on the streets in a few months. Housing first, addressing problems second was found to be much more effective. This was researched extensively. About 80% of people given supported housing get out of homelessness [0]. That's a massive difference to earlier "shelter only" model of social support for the homeless. [0] https://www.hdl.fi/blog/asunto-ensin-tavoitteena-pysyva-asuminen/ https://www.hdl.fi/blog/asunto-ensin-tavoitteena-pysyva-asum...
bjarneh 3y ago
> Only if one believes that the lack of a home or a house is the root cause of the individuals problem. There are other ways of seeing this. It can start the other way around for instance. I.e. if you end up on the streets; both drugs and alcohol can numb the pain of your current situation, slowly but surely giving you a drug problem on top of your homelessness problem. I fully agree about what can easily happen if we just offered free housing to people with severe drug problems. I'm just wondering if we are using that as an excuse not to help people with something we know is an effective method. Even people with serious drug problems must have a much better chance of kicking their habit if they can avoid living in a tent or under a bridge. How do these horrible conditions with constant fear of being robbed/raped help them kick their habit? > Help needs to be directed on the root cause and issues and homelessness is a symptom, not a cause. Lets assume that the root cause is child abuse, i.e. they are on drugs due to being molested, i.e. molestation is the "root cause". How are we helping that person better by allowing them to live in a place like skid row, where they say that almost 100% of the women living there have been raped (while living there)? I'm just not seeing how the tent/under-a-bridge lifestyle adds anything to our "assistance/help" here?