4 ms·
> If you want to get people off the street, you need to provide a similar level of freedom in the housing you provide as what it replaces. Having a home at all
by slily 3y ago
> If you want to get people off the street, you need to provide a similar level of freedom in the housing you provide as what it replaces.
Having a home at all significantly restricts freedom. Let alone all the maintenance it requires. If it's an apartment is it too restrictive to their freedom? Should they be exempt from lease terms (no pets/no smoking/no drugs etc.)? Should they have a free housekeeper on top?
At which point is it acceptable to expect some level of responsibility from an adult receiving so much in entitlements? I'd argue that an excess of no-strings-attached programs makes homelessness more attractive than hard work to people who are on the edge.
- nemo44x 3y agoIt’s the problem with righteous stances. They don’t actually consider the consequences of their demands. As if it hadn’t been considered by many before and they are the first people to see the light. Not only will the homes become dilapidated they’ll become a drug den immediately. The interiors will be unkept and stripped of useful components to flip for drugs.
- OfSanguineFire 3y agoWhen the homeless in Finland are given a home, it is state housing. Someone who is more knowledgeable than me can tell you whether there are units that permit pets, but I suspect homeless in Finland are much less likely to keep a pet than in the USA. With regard to smoking, this has become rare in Finnish housing both public and private. People know they shouldn't even smoke on their balconies any more but find somewhere outside the building. Tobacco has gradually been taxed higher and higher to the point where much of the population feels it is unaffordable, and the state already has its sights on a complete tobacco ban in the coming years.
- pandemicsoul 3y agoThe problem with American treatments of homeless, drug addiction, even public health is the idea that EVERYONE has some level of personal responsibility – that there is a minimum threshold to "earn" something that you have to do and if you don't, you deserve your fate. And this transforms into public resentment because "if they aren't willing to do the bare minimum, why should my tax dollars support them?" We need to get away from thinking about these problems as a way to force people to "earn" the relief, and instead think about the resolutions as a way of making everyone else's life better. I don't like that there is homelessness. I don't like seeing drug addicts poop in the street. I want folks in that situation to be taken care of for MY sake – to make my city better, to relieve me of the moral burden of thinking about people suffering, etc. Because here's the thing: Some people are NEVER going to be able to maintain responsibility. Some people are NEVER going to be upstanding adults. NO MATTER WHAT we put them through, the worst prisons, the worst homelessness, the most outrageous policing, they're just never going to change. There is no remedy that solves this problem with a burden on the unhoused individual. It's society deciding to solve the problem REGARDLESS of whether the individual has "earned" the resolution.
- throw9away6 3y agoThe problem you run into is that your solution is unwanted by the person you offer it to. You need the dysfunctional person to stop stealing your shit, pooing on the sidewalk and assaulting but they want to continue their current lifestyle. You would have to offer very large carrot to get them to stop and even then it doesn’t always work
- vidarh 3y agoIf your solution is unwanted to the point that it doesn't actually work, it's not a solution.
- pandemicsoul 3y agoThis problem has been solved by most European countries. Why do you think it's unsolvable here?
- 3y ago