5 ms·

I think it's important to note a couple of things. > The city of San Francisco released data last week showing that 55% of homeless individuals rejected shelte

by tedivm 3y ago

I think it's important to note a couple of things. > The city of San Francisco released data last week showing that 55% of homeless individuals rejected shelter when offered it I think it's very important to understand why people turn down the beds. There are several reasons- * Shelters have very restricted hours, so if someone has a job that includes nights they likely can't use a shelter. A large number of homeless people are employed. * To accept space at a shelter homeless people often have to abandon their belongings. If they have a tent, for example, these normally aren't allowed. * Getting a bed for one night does not mean that they'll have one the second night. So throwing away their tent for one night in a bed just doesn't make sense. * Shelters often don't allow pets, and a lot of homeless people have dogs. > She’s right. San Francisco is under a federal injunction that bars officials from enforcing laws against camping or sleeping in public spaces as long as its homeless population exceeds available shelter beds. There's a really, really important point here. If every homeless person accepted a bed, there still would be no where near enough to cover the homeless population. This is part of the reason people aren't willing to accept temporary shelter, as they know it's temporary (since there isn't enough for everyone the city basically rotates people around) It's also really important to note that SF has, per capita (of population, not of homeless population), the lowest amount of shelter beds of any major city in the US. The bay area itself is even worse, as some cities don't have any shelter space at all. A huge part of this is because housing is so expensive, as is building. This article tries to play it off as people just choosing to be homeless, but the reality is a lot more nuanced than that.

nostromo 3y ago
You missed the most common reason: * Drugs and alcohol are not allowed
- kevingadd 3y ago
  Even if this is the most common reason, unless "most common" means 99%, there are still a bunch of people who can't take advantage of shelters through no fault of their own.
  - goodpoint 3y ago
    Just like most people are homeless through no fault of their own.
- tedivm 3y ago
  I honestly don't believe that is anywhere near the common reason. I know this is anecodotal (as is your comment), but I've spent a lot of time around the homeless population. I was "housed homeless" for a year, and my sister was homeless for several years due to mental illness. The rate of drug use amongst the homeless does tend to be higher than the average population, and I don't think there's any denying that. However, it isn't nearly as universal as people seem to think. The average homeless person is homeless for less than two years, and it is normally due to financial reasons. Given programs that provide housing these people can normally come off the streets and live great lives. The simple fact that so many people manage to bounce back shows that what the average person things of homeless people isn't the actual reality. The other thing, and this might sound obvious, is that the people who do drugs or drink simply take their stuff before they go to the shelters. These aren't people with hundreds of dollars to blow on their addictions. They often panhandle, eat, drug/do drugs, and then look for a place to crash. This also isn't the entire homeless population, just a smaller portion of it (that people use to justify not helping the larger portion, even though the whole population does need help).
evancox100 3y ago
I think well meaning liberals want to believe that all of society’s problems can be solved without any form of coercion, and that is simply not the case. If someone is homeless and has a dog, and there is a shelter bed for them, you may just need to force them to give up their dog and move to the shelter (or else face arrest). There are overriding concerns greater than letting people keep their pets. I recognize the solutions are more complex than just force people to give up their pets, but most of those solutions involve some application of coercive force. Edit: I did not explicitly spell this out, but clearly if you take away the dog it should be put up for adoption, not executed on the street while the owner is forced to watch, for maximum cruelty. Some people seem to think I was advocating something like the latter.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Consider that if the housing option you're providing is so shitty that people opt for homelessness over staying there it's cruel to force them to stay there. You're arguing for a cruel and authoritarian option no matter how much you want blame those you want to victimise.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Taking the dog away and putting it up for adoption, while better than shooting it in front of the owner, is still not something the person wants to do. They have an emotional sentimental attachment to the animal and sometimes it is literally the only thing keeping them from killing themselves. And you want them to give it up? In exchange for a warm bed? 3 months from now when they've been kicked out for whatever reason, they won't have a warm bed anymore, and worse, they won't have their pet. Better just to keep the pet and be homeless. Yes, if we took the pet away from them it would be more convenient for the rest of us. It would also be more convenient if they did not exist at all. Unfortunately that's not the reality we live in. We really like giving people agency in their own lives, and taking it away isn't something most of us are huge fans of. We can debate whether or not that's a good thing, but for now, people have agency, even temporarily unhoused people, and they don't want to give up their pets, their lifetime companion, in exchange for a few days of warmth.
- chrismcb 3y ago
scarmig 3y ago
1) your two points are at odds: some proportion of the homeless refuse shelter under any circumstances. What, then, is the point of wildly overprovisioning shelter beds, when ones are going unused today? 2) So, the idea is that until the government guarantees a free rental unit that accepts pets and provides a storage unit for all of a homeless person's stuff, it should be prevented from enforcing any laws about camping in public spaces and preventing the public from using those spaces?
- tedivm 3y ago
  You're missing the point. The reason they don't give things up is because the shelter is temporary, but they results of using it aren't. If you tell a homeless person you're going to shelter them for six months, the vast majority will take the shelter. If you tell them they have to move and you'll give them a bed for a night then many of them will see that as a shitty deal (which it is). As for the legal stuff, you'll have to ask the supreme court as I wasn't the one arguing the case or making the law. That being said there are cities that have built out storage systems for homeless people. You don't even have to go that far for it, as Berkeley has been experimenting with this for awhile now. https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/08/27/city-makes-available-new-storage-lockers-for-those-without-homes https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/08/27/city-makes-available... That said, giving the homeless a place to stay is cheaper than leaving them on the street. The vast majority of people in these programs end up getting jobs and paying their own way in the future.
  - scarmig 3y ago
    You're missing the point: requiring the government to provide permanent housing that has storage units and allows pets (and alcohol, and drugs, and...) before it can take action on homelessness is not an effective approach. Temporary housing is useful, even though it might mean having to give up a dog. The fact that most of those remaining on the streets don't want it has no bearing on whether the government should be able to enforce public safety and sanitation laws.
    - tedivm 3y ago
goodpoint 3y ago
The main reason is that shelters are more dangerous than streets.

by tedivm 3y ago

nostromo 3y ago

You missed the most common reason: * Drugs and alcohol are not allowed

kevingadd 3y ago
Even if this is the most common reason, unless "most common" means 99%, there are still a bunch of people who can't take advantage of shelters through no fault of their own.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Just like most people are homeless through no fault of their own.
tedivm 3y ago
I honestly don't believe that is anywhere near the common reason. I know this is anecodotal (as is your comment), but I've spent a lot of time around the homeless population. I was "housed homeless" for a year, and my sister was homeless for several years due to mental illness. The rate of drug use amongst the homeless does tend to be higher than the average population, and I don't think there's any denying that. However, it isn't nearly as universal as people seem to think. The average homeless person is homeless for less than two years, and it is normally due to financial reasons. Given programs that provide housing these people can normally come off the streets and live great lives. The simple fact that so many people manage to bounce back shows that what the average person things of homeless people isn't the actual reality. The other thing, and this might sound obvious, is that the people who do drugs or drink simply take their stuff before they go to the shelters. These aren't people with hundreds of dollars to blow on their addictions. They often panhandle, eat, drug/do drugs, and then look for a place to crash. This also isn't the entire homeless population, just a smaller portion of it (that people use to justify not helping the larger portion, even though the whole population does need help).

evancox100 3y ago

I think well meaning liberals want to believe that all of society’s problems can be solved without any form of coercion, and that is simply not the case. If someone is homeless and has a dog, and there is a shelter bed for them, you may just need to force them to give up their dog and move to the shelter (or else face arrest). There are overriding concerns greater than letting people keep their pets. I recognize the solutions are more complex than just force people to give up their pets, but most of those solutions involve some application of coercive force. Edit: I did not explicitly spell this out, but clearly if you take away the dog it should be put up for adoption, not executed on the street while the owner is forced to watch, for maximum cruelty. Some people seem to think I was advocating something like the latter.

vidarh 3y ago
Consider that if the housing option you're providing is so shitty that people opt for homelessness over staying there it's cruel to force them to stay there. You're arguing for a cruel and authoritarian option no matter how much you want blame those you want to victimise.
fragmede 3y ago
Taking the dog away and putting it up for adoption, while better than shooting it in front of the owner, is still not something the person wants to do. They have an emotional sentimental attachment to the animal and sometimes it is literally the only thing keeping them from killing themselves. And you want them to give it up? In exchange for a warm bed? 3 months from now when they've been kicked out for whatever reason, they won't have a warm bed anymore, and worse, they won't have their pet. Better just to keep the pet and be homeless. Yes, if we took the pet away from them it would be more convenient for the rest of us. It would also be more convenient if they did not exist at all. Unfortunately that's not the reality we live in. We really like giving people agency in their own lives, and taking it away isn't something most of us are huge fans of. We can debate whether or not that's a good thing, but for now, people have agency, even temporarily unhoused people, and they don't want to give up their pets, their lifetime companion, in exchange for a few days of warmth.
chrismcb 3y ago

scarmig 3y ago

1) your two points are at odds: some proportion of the homeless refuse shelter under any circumstances. What, then, is the point of wildly overprovisioning shelter beds, when ones are going unused today? 2) So, the idea is that until the government guarantees a free rental unit that accepts pets and provides a storage unit for all of a homeless person's stuff, it should be prevented from enforcing any laws about camping in public spaces and preventing the public from using those spaces?

tedivm 3y ago
You're missing the point. The reason they don't give things up is because the shelter is temporary, but they results of using it aren't. If you tell a homeless person you're going to shelter them for six months, the vast majority will take the shelter. If you tell them they have to move and you'll give them a bed for a night then many of them will see that as a shitty deal (which it is). As for the legal stuff, you'll have to ask the supreme court as I wasn't the one arguing the case or making the law. That being said there are cities that have built out storage systems for homeless people. You don't even have to go that far for it, as Berkeley has been experimenting with this for awhile now. https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/08/27/city-makes-available-new-storage-lockers-for-those-without-homes https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/08/27/city-makes-available... That said, giving the homeless a place to stay is cheaper than leaving them on the street. The vast majority of people in these programs end up getting jobs and paying their own way in the future.
- scarmig 3y ago
  You're missing the point: requiring the government to provide permanent housing that has storage units and allows pets (and alcohol, and drugs, and...) before it can take action on homelessness is not an effective approach. Temporary housing is useful, even though it might mean having to give up a dog. The fact that most of those remaining on the streets don't want it has no bearing on whether the government should be able to enforce public safety and sanitation laws.
  - tedivm 3y ago

goodpoint 3y ago

The main reason is that shelters are more dangerous than streets.