6 ms·

I think "ending homelessness" is a great slogan, and in politics the voting public generally don't go for nuance. What is reasonable and achievable is reducing

I think "ending homelessness" is a great slogan, and in politics the voting public generally don't go for nuance. What is reasonable and achievable is reducing homelessness to those who want to live on the streets. Alternatively, everyone who wants to live in an house has access to one. This is, I imagine, the real goal of the program.

ransackdev 3y ago
Being a nomad is not the same as being homeless. Go to downtown SF and I guarantee you zero of those people have chosen to live on the streets.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  What is "choice"? Almost everyone living on the streets is there because of a series of choices which they made, usually over a long time frame. Perhaps at the time they were not entirely voluntary choices, or conscious choices, but cumulatively they have chosen a certain pathway that led them to losing their income, job, belongings, and housing. Even an abused wife who's been dumped out by her husband, well, she did choose that husband. Obviously there is nobody who rises from a warm bed one morning, says "screw all this!" sells all they have and goes to rough it on the streets (except, perhaps, for Saint Francis of Assisi, but he found something productive to do.) I spent a lot of time Downtown hanging out with minors, and one day my good friend who's a dad confided to me something surprising. He said "Most of these kids aren't homeless or runaways, you know. Most of them are from wealthy neighborhoods and have good parents, but they come out here just to mingle." So it was like Future Runaways of America out there. And make no mistake, the area has a huge effort of outreach to runaways and homeless minors. Once someone winds up on the streets, more choices are offered. Those choices can either drive a person deeply into a hole from which they will never recover and never get off the streets, or they could just keep them going while they can stabilize and find needed services, and begin a process to get off the streets. Many people will pursue the former. Even if they pursue the latter course, they may not make it. And then you have people who realize, hey, this life is ok for me. I guess I don't mind it so much, and it's not worth trying to get housed. So they stay as-is for the rest of their lives.
  - ransackdev 3y ago
    They didn't necessarily choose to live there but like you said might end up there through indirect actions, whereas a nomad takes direct actions, to live out of a backpack. Huge difference. Making a series of choices, which are probably mistakes, and ending up on the streets, is the not the same as walking out of your house to live off the grid and out of the rat race
- nostrebored 3y ago
  What? There are shelters all over the Bay Area that stipulate no drug use. They are complete with transitional housing and job placement programs. The same is true in other west coast cities. I’ve been very close with formerly homeless people in SF, and they said the exact opposite: people choosing to be homeless move to SF because it’s the nicest place to do it in the U.S.
  - ransackdev 3y ago
    Shelters have a finite number of beds. You just said homeless people are relocating to SF because "it's the nicest place in the US to be homeless" (you should take a long hard look at what you just tried to excuse) - that sounds like your typical capacity problem except it's one of the few things in SV that won't elastically scale based on demand.
jojobas 3y ago
You forgot those who say they want to live in a home and trash it the very next day. There are people who make the most caring bleeding-heart volunteers give up.
- noelwelsh 3y ago
  Right. This is why you can't have an effective program that just says "here's a house, have fun!" You need to address the issues that cause people to act like that, preferrably before the issues actually happen. Prevention is much easier than cure, particularly for behavioural problems. In other words, homelessness is very often not a root problem but a symptom of other underlying problems.
  - jlawson 3y ago
    What about that large group of people whose problems are not solvable by your social systems and technology? The ones you can't fix, because humans aren't infinitely moldable. What's your policy towards them?
    - noelwelsh 3y ago
      Gosh, when I did I get appointed to this policy role? Anyway, I don't think you're conversing in good faith so I'm not going to spend much time on a response. If you really want to get into the details of what actually causes homelessness and what can be done about it, there is a lot of research (though little political will to do things that actually work here in the UK.) E.g. https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/ https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/
      - jlawson 3y ago
        I am asking a question in good faith because I really don't know what you're thinking. You said that homelessness is a symptom of underlying problems, which is true, but also said, "You need to address the issues that cause people to act like that". Sure, this will work for some, but not others. I am genuinely asking what you propose to do about the people for whom this is not feasible or possible - whose underlying problems we cannot address.

ransackdev 3y ago

Being a nomad is not the same as being homeless. Go to downtown SF and I guarantee you zero of those people have chosen to live on the streets.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
What is "choice"? Almost everyone living on the streets is there because of a series of choices which they made, usually over a long time frame. Perhaps at the time they were not entirely voluntary choices, or conscious choices, but cumulatively they have chosen a certain pathway that led them to losing their income, job, belongings, and housing. Even an abused wife who's been dumped out by her husband, well, she did choose that husband. Obviously there is nobody who rises from a warm bed one morning, says "screw all this!" sells all they have and goes to rough it on the streets (except, perhaps, for Saint Francis of Assisi, but he found something productive to do.) I spent a lot of time Downtown hanging out with minors, and one day my good friend who's a dad confided to me something surprising. He said "Most of these kids aren't homeless or runaways, you know. Most of them are from wealthy neighborhoods and have good parents, but they come out here just to mingle." So it was like Future Runaways of America out there. And make no mistake, the area has a huge effort of outreach to runaways and homeless minors. Once someone winds up on the streets, more choices are offered. Those choices can either drive a person deeply into a hole from which they will never recover and never get off the streets, or they could just keep them going while they can stabilize and find needed services, and begin a process to get off the streets. Many people will pursue the former. Even if they pursue the latter course, they may not make it. And then you have people who realize, hey, this life is ok for me. I guess I don't mind it so much, and it's not worth trying to get housed. So they stay as-is for the rest of their lives.
- ransackdev 3y ago
  They didn't necessarily choose to live there but like you said might end up there through indirect actions, whereas a nomad takes direct actions, to live out of a backpack. Huge difference. Making a series of choices, which are probably mistakes, and ending up on the streets, is the not the same as walking out of your house to live off the grid and out of the rat race
nostrebored 3y ago
What? There are shelters all over the Bay Area that stipulate no drug use. They are complete with transitional housing and job placement programs. The same is true in other west coast cities. I’ve been very close with formerly homeless people in SF, and they said the exact opposite: people choosing to be homeless move to SF because it’s the nicest place to do it in the U.S.
- ransackdev 3y ago
  Shelters have a finite number of beds. You just said homeless people are relocating to SF because "it's the nicest place in the US to be homeless" (you should take a long hard look at what you just tried to excuse) - that sounds like your typical capacity problem except it's one of the few things in SV that won't elastically scale based on demand.

jojobas 3y ago

You forgot those who say they want to live in a home and trash it the very next day. There are people who make the most caring bleeding-heart volunteers give up.

noelwelsh 3y ago
Right. This is why you can't have an effective program that just says "here's a house, have fun!" You need to address the issues that cause people to act like that, preferrably before the issues actually happen. Prevention is much easier than cure, particularly for behavioural problems. In other words, homelessness is very often not a root problem but a symptom of other underlying problems.
- jlawson 3y ago
  What about that large group of people whose problems are not solvable by your social systems and technology? The ones you can't fix, because humans aren't infinitely moldable. What's your policy towards them?
  - noelwelsh 3y ago
    Gosh, when I did I get appointed to this policy role? Anyway, I don't think you're conversing in good faith so I'm not going to spend much time on a response. If you really want to get into the details of what actually causes homelessness and what can be done about it, there is a lot of research (though little political will to do things that actually work here in the UK.) E.g. https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/ https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/
    - jlawson 3y ago
      I am asking a question in good faith because I really don't know what you're thinking. You said that homelessness is a symptom of underlying problems, which is true, but also said, "You need to address the issues that cause people to act like that". Sure, this will work for some, but not others. I am genuinely asking what you propose to do about the people for whom this is not feasible or possible - whose underlying problems we cannot address.