4 ms·

Simply giving the homeless, a lot of them addicted and with mental health original, a $4700/month home or the money directly does not help them. Without being

Simply giving the homeless, a lot of them addicted and with mental health original, a $4700/month home or the money directly does not help them. Without being presumptive, it irks me to see internet experts barge it with their own theories and expertise, rather than the people who have studied and dedicated themselves for decades.

abeppu 3y ago
I'm _not_ saying give them the money directly. > Without being presumptive, it irks me to see internet experts barge it with their own theories and expertise, rather than the people who have studied and dedicated themselves for decades. I will also defer to experts who do not have a financial stake in the game. My understanding is that "housing first" has a lot of expert proponents. My frustration is that even when housing can be acquired for less than the cost of clearly inferior services (again, $5k/mo per tent in SF parking-lot safe sleeping sites), we refuse to do it. I have not heard any expert on homelessness argue that safe sleeping sites were a "good" solution. I do know that we paid a lot for them.
Spivak 3y ago
Edit: Unlike the sibling poster I am saying it give it to them directly. I guarantee you it if you set the average homeless person up with a nice apartment and just gave them the change from that $4700 in a real bank account no strings attached in perpetuity the problem would get sorted real quick. Oh no they do drugs?! like the heaviest drug users I've ever met aren't white collar. Even better offer them that same $4700 deal but pay to relocate them to the midwest and they'll be able to afford all but the penthouse luxury apartments, pay all their bills and expenses, and still put $2k in savings/discretionary spending every month. Like we're talking about spending an amount of money that would be life changing to the average american household per capita and pretending that somehow it wouldn't change lives. Sure there's gonna be exceptions but buy some sandwiches and forties shoot the shit with some homeless folks sometime. They're mostly normal-ass people who've been traumatized by homelessness and stuck. In a world where I become one of those rich people that can't spend money fast enough to not get richer that's 100% gonna be my lifetime project. Wonder if Bezos is looking for a new wife.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Definitely giving them $4700/month no strings attached will solve the problem quickly. I get it, white collar people are the heaviest drug users, but the fent will kill them in the street in a couple of months. That’s just $10,400 spent, which is much better than where we are now. It is, however, a very dark solution, and not humane at all.
  - meowtimemania 3y ago
    That's kinda what's happened in some pilot programs in SF. "Of the 515 residents the city tracked in permanent housing since 2016, 25% died, while 21% returned to the streets.” https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1659972231328583680?s=20 https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1659972231328583680?s=20 Not sure why someone would return to the streets but the 25% death rate is insane.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Look, I get what you're saying but there's very little alternative. Putting strings on the aid makes it not do the one thing it needs to do which is provide unwavering stability and a sustainable alternative to their previous way of living. If you want to force people into rehab because their addiction is going to kill them then do that. That's an independent problem from being homeless. We can't be like addiction is a disease and "just get clean your ability to have food and shelter depends on it" at the same time. Edit: Also good fucking lord I can't even imagine a worse way to do permanent housing. You disperse them into regular neighborhoods like any other renter. Whoever thought packing them together was a good idea is insane. The bit about white collar drug users isn't some snipe about executives doing too much cocaine, but that white collar drug users aren't dropping dead like flies on vinegar.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      > You disperse them into regular neighborhoods like any other renter. Nobody wants to live by a potential meth lab. This is how NIMBY get credibility. > but that white collar drug users aren't dropping dead like flies on vinegar. Not before they become homeless, sure. Also, white collar drugs tend to be a lot more survivable than fent.

abeppu 3y ago

I'm _not_ saying give them the money directly. > Without being presumptive, it irks me to see internet experts barge it with their own theories and expertise, rather than the people who have studied and dedicated themselves for decades. I will also defer to experts who do not have a financial stake in the game. My understanding is that "housing first" has a lot of expert proponents. My frustration is that even when housing can be acquired for less than the cost of clearly inferior services (again, $5k/mo per tent in SF parking-lot safe sleeping sites), we refuse to do it. I have not heard any expert on homelessness argue that safe sleeping sites were a "good" solution. I do know that we paid a lot for them.

Spivak 3y ago

Edit: Unlike the sibling poster I am saying it give it to them directly. I guarantee you it if you set the average homeless person up with a nice apartment and just gave them the change from that $4700 in a real bank account no strings attached in perpetuity the problem would get sorted real quick. Oh no they do drugs?! like the heaviest drug users I've ever met aren't white collar. Even better offer them that same $4700 deal but pay to relocate them to the midwest and they'll be able to afford all but the penthouse luxury apartments, pay all their bills and expenses, and still put $2k in savings/discretionary spending every month. Like we're talking about spending an amount of money that would be life changing to the average american household per capita and pretending that somehow it wouldn't change lives. Sure there's gonna be exceptions but buy some sandwiches and forties shoot the shit with some homeless folks sometime. They're mostly normal-ass people who've been traumatized by homelessness and stuck. In a world where I become one of those rich people that can't spend money fast enough to not get richer that's 100% gonna be my lifetime project. Wonder if Bezos is looking for a new wife.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Definitely giving them $4700/month no strings attached will solve the problem quickly. I get it, white collar people are the heaviest drug users, but the fent will kill them in the street in a couple of months. That’s just $10,400 spent, which is much better than where we are now. It is, however, a very dark solution, and not humane at all.
- meowtimemania 3y ago
  That's kinda what's happened in some pilot programs in SF. "Of the 515 residents the city tracked in permanent housing since 2016, 25% died, while 21% returned to the streets.” https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1659972231328583680?s=20 https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1659972231328583680?s=20 Not sure why someone would return to the streets but the 25% death rate is insane.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Look, I get what you're saying but there's very little alternative. Putting strings on the aid makes it not do the one thing it needs to do which is provide unwavering stability and a sustainable alternative to their previous way of living. If you want to force people into rehab because their addiction is going to kill them then do that. That's an independent problem from being homeless. We can't be like addiction is a disease and "just get clean your ability to have food and shelter depends on it" at the same time. Edit: Also good fucking lord I can't even imagine a worse way to do permanent housing. You disperse them into regular neighborhoods like any other renter. Whoever thought packing them together was a good idea is insane. The bit about white collar drug users isn't some snipe about executives doing too much cocaine, but that white collar drug users aren't dropping dead like flies on vinegar.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    > You disperse them into regular neighborhoods like any other renter. Nobody wants to live by a potential meth lab. This is how NIMBY get credibility. > but that white collar drug users aren't dropping dead like flies on vinegar. Not before they become homeless, sure. Also, white collar drugs tend to be a lot more survivable than fent.