3 ms·

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 m

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.
- vidarh 4y ago
  Is the shirtless guy with a machete going to be less dangerous when sleeping on the streets? Are the neighbours not going to complain, and the crime going to be lower because he doesn't have a fixed address where he can get sleep, and where authorities can follow him up? > 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. Even if that was the case, the experience from Finland is that giving homeless people housing reduces the cost to society, so even if that is the case providing housing is still worthwhile even from a purely selfish point of view of taxpayers wanting to reduce the impact on themselves.
- danaris 4y ago
  Do you know why people end up "drugged out"? In a great many cases, it's because they lost hope, and the drugs were the only thing that let them escape from their pain and despair. There's a good amount of scientific evidence that drug addiction is harder to fall into, and vastly easier to break out of, when people have a support system. This includes having a place to live.

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.
vidarh 4y ago
Is the shirtless guy with a machete going to be less dangerous when sleeping on the streets? Are the neighbours not going to complain, and the crime going to be lower because he doesn't have a fixed address where he can get sleep, and where authorities can follow him up? > 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. Even if that was the case, the experience from Finland is that giving homeless people housing reduces the cost to society, so even if that is the case providing housing is still worthwhile even from a purely selfish point of view of taxpayers wanting to reduce the impact on themselves.
danaris 4y ago
Do you know why people end up "drugged out"? In a great many cases, it's because they lost hope, and the drugs were the only thing that let them escape from their pain and despair. There's a good amount of scientific evidence that drug addiction is harder to fall into, and vastly easier to break out of, when people have a support system. This includes having a place to live.