4 ms·

I've lived all over the US. Sometimes, homeless are down on luck. These are mostly the invisible type, that you may not even know exist. Then you have the cr

I've lived all over the US. Sometimes, homeless are down on luck. These are mostly the invisible type, that you may not even know exist. Then you have the crazies. Mostly harmless, but not productive in society so much, so kinda outcast. Then you have the grifters. Harmless mostly, enterprising folk. They're out there playing fake violins in parking lots with their family. And staking out busy offramps with their signs. My city now has mostly the drugged type. These are the worst, they are aggressive, hateful, and many times violent. I've seen people ask for money, then spend a few seconds sizing me up before just going about their day. For reference, I'm a huge guy, and I'd feel sorry for normal folks in those situations. One beheaded a woman in the parking lot of a Kohl's last year, for example. The city has mostly given up, and are building them little drug dens downtown so they'll stop bothering everyone, hopefully. It's easy to say you want to be compassionate, and look for solutions. After living in it with the aggressive type, I honestly wish the cops would just billy club them and ship them off elsewhere. I absolutely want to help anyone down on their luck and trying. And the crazies. And I feel sorry for them getting grouped in with the other category of folk. It's not simple to compare homeless across a single city, much less different cities, much less different countries. There aren't a lot of lessons to be learned between the three or four types.

kstenerud 4y ago
Any solution not currently being employed couldn't work because the local issues are different in some nebulous way, and it would require careful study before making a hasty move, and there are all these special cases that are different, and it just couldn't work so we should give up because nothing will ever work even if it has worked elsewhere, and just club them all to death instead.
- silisili 4y ago
  This is so dismissive. We have to admit and analyze the reasons for homelessness before we attempt a solution. Sometimes, people who do everything right end up homeless due to illness, rising rents, death in the family, or any multitude of reasons. If we gave these people free housing and resources, they'd likely bounce back and be fine. If we mix in folks who are drugged out beyond belief, who are violent, who have no desire to improve, it taints the entire project. Do you want to put a family of 4 trying to get by next door to some shirtless guy with a machete who constantly threatens to stab everyone? Why? Now all the neighbors complain, crime goes up, etc. It's time to admit some people either aren't worth helping, or at least can't be helped in the way that others can.
  - tfourb 4y ago
    But who is gaining anything if the "drugged out, violent, no desire to improve" folks are living on the street instead of some government provided (or paid for) permanent housing? The point of the Finnish project and similar approaches in other countries is to first get people off the street, because it is much easier and cheaper to resolve any other issues within the context of a permanent home. Yes, some of the beneficiaries will still take drugs, be violent, etc. But they would be that way (or worse) if they were homeless and it actually makes it cheaper and easier to deal with these issues if they have housing. So you loose nothing by making housing available even to the worst or most intractable cases but you open up a whole world of opportunity for those homeless people, who just need a permanent place to stay to get their live back in order. The worst approach to this type of problem (which most US cities seem to have taken) is to basically say "as long as we do not have a perfect, magic solution that resolves the homelessness problem instantly, we'd rather keep all these people living on the street, because heaven forbid we pay even one dollar of tax payer money to someone who turns out not to be 'worthy'". Frankly it is a barbaric and dumb view of the world. Every government program (just like all private investment and enterprise) will include some waste and misadventure. Just accept that its not going to be a perfect experience for everyone involved and commit to constantly evaluating and improving the approach.
    - silisili 4y ago
      Perhaps we are converging on a compromise. I'm completely OK housing them, as long as they are housed physically separately from the others.
      - tfourb 4y ago
        Usually, these programs achieve the best results if people are actually integrated into "normal" neighborhoods and not clustered with other people with pre-existing problems. But of course this should depend on a social and psychological assessment. People with mental issues (under which I would count violence as well) should absolutely receive different and more attention and special arrangements.
  - 4y ago

kstenerud 4y ago

Any solution not currently being employed couldn't work because the local issues are different in some nebulous way, and it would require careful study before making a hasty move, and there are all these special cases that are different, and it just couldn't work so we should give up because nothing will ever work even if it has worked elsewhere, and just club them all to death instead.

silisili 4y ago
This is so dismissive. We have to admit and analyze the reasons for homelessness before we attempt a solution. Sometimes, people who do everything right end up homeless due to illness, rising rents, death in the family, or any multitude of reasons. If we gave these people free housing and resources, they'd likely bounce back and be fine. If we mix in folks who are drugged out beyond belief, who are violent, who have no desire to improve, it taints the entire project. Do you want to put a family of 4 trying to get by next door to some shirtless guy with a machete who constantly threatens to stab everyone? Why? Now all the neighbors complain, crime goes up, etc. It's time to admit some people either aren't worth helping, or at least can't be helped in the way that others can.
- tfourb 4y ago
  But who is gaining anything if the "drugged out, violent, no desire to improve" folks are living on the street instead of some government provided (or paid for) permanent housing? The point of the Finnish project and similar approaches in other countries is to first get people off the street, because it is much easier and cheaper to resolve any other issues within the context of a permanent home. Yes, some of the beneficiaries will still take drugs, be violent, etc. But they would be that way (or worse) if they were homeless and it actually makes it cheaper and easier to deal with these issues if they have housing. So you loose nothing by making housing available even to the worst or most intractable cases but you open up a whole world of opportunity for those homeless people, who just need a permanent place to stay to get their live back in order. The worst approach to this type of problem (which most US cities seem to have taken) is to basically say "as long as we do not have a perfect, magic solution that resolves the homelessness problem instantly, we'd rather keep all these people living on the street, because heaven forbid we pay even one dollar of tax payer money to someone who turns out not to be 'worthy'". Frankly it is a barbaric and dumb view of the world. Every government program (just like all private investment and enterprise) will include some waste and misadventure. Just accept that its not going to be a perfect experience for everyone involved and commit to constantly evaluating and improving the approach.
  - silisili 4y ago
    Perhaps we are converging on a compromise. I'm completely OK housing them, as long as they are housed physically separately from the others.
    - tfourb 4y ago
      Usually, these programs achieve the best results if people are actually integrated into "normal" neighborhoods and not clustered with other people with pre-existing problems. But of course this should depend on a social and psychological assessment. People with mental issues (under which I would count violence as well) should absolutely receive different and more attention and special arrangements.
- 4y ago