5 ms·

>if a significant proportion of homeless prefer homelessness to the help you're offering, perhaps the "help" isn't all that helpful. If you want to get people o

by bumby 3y ago

>if a significant proportion of homeless prefer homelessness to the help you're offering, perhaps the "help" isn't all that helpful. 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. Can you elaborate on the the specific rules you’re referring to? That might help guide the discussion. Because at face value, there seems to be an issue where there isn’t an acknowledgment that with freedom comes responsibility. That responsibility looks an awful lot like rules that many people in these situations struggle to manage. It seems hard to argue for one without necessitating the other but maybe some specific examples could clarify your point.

duped 3y ago
A big one is drug/alcohol use. One of the understandings behind "housing first" policies is that when you treat chronic homelessness as a public health problem, you need to attack the big symptoms first (being unhoused) before you can see the outcomes you want (being a productive member of society). Housing isn't a reward, it's a basic human need. And it's the baseline for treating people - because you cannot treat people if you cannot find them.
- bumby 3y ago
  Don’t you think it makes sense to attack the root problem (addiction) as well as the “big symptoms”? Wouldn’t that look like a rule to be in a treatment program or be otherwise clean? I can get on board with housing being a basic human need that society helps supply. But that’s subtly different than the OP’s claim of housing with virtually the same freedom from rules. I’m not sure “unfettered housing” is a human right.
  - toddmorey 3y ago
    Well don’t frame it as a right, think in terms of desired outcome. If a user relapses, does removing their housing help in recovery?
    - bumby 3y ago
      I think we’re in agreement. The two are coupled. This is contrary to the OP, where housing would be completely decoupled, no-strings-attached.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        How do you expect to get. an addict to voluntarily accept housings with strings that experience is that a lot of them actively avoid? The pint of the Finnish approach is that the old approach of attaching strings fails at both addressing homelessness and addiction.
        bumby 3y ago
        Ah, ok. I think I see the confusion. I think you're applying a false dichotomy here. It's not an "either you are clean or you don't get housing" in most places. But, if a therapist sees that addiction is a contributing factor, they will often make the free housing contingent on being part of a drug rehab program. So it's not "clean or else you're back on the street" but it's looking at it as part of the overall problem that's keeping a person from being self-sufficient. They aren't even generally piss tested as part of that. The cases where they are forced to be clean prior is when they are referred to housing services by a probation or parole officer. But that "remain clean" condition is more a function of the probation/parole than the housing program.
  - abofh 3y ago
    Addiction isn't a root problem of anything, it's a symptom of other things that led you to become addicted to whatever (gambling, drugs, etc) If you address only the symptoms and not the sociatal issues that exacerbate them, you won't actually solve the problem.
    - bumby 3y ago
      Fair enough, but doesn’t the same principle apply? Namely, that if we really want to solve the problem, the root issues need to be the priority? You seem to agree with this, but that doesn’t necessarily align with the OP. Giving no strings attached housing isn’t fixing root issues.
      - cutemonster 3y ago
        They didn't say that housing fixes root issues. They said it's a "baseline for treating people".
        bumby 3y ago
        But they also framed it as simply a means to an end: "finding people so you can treat them." I can sympathize with the "baseline for treating people" argument, but that, by itself, doesn't address the fact that there is a fundamental symmetry missing. If people want "freedom" they also need to demonstrate "responsibility" for a society to work. There is no free lunch, unfortunately. Literally every "baseline" right guaranteed by the US Constitution can be framed in this same give/take dynamic. The OP was conflating the issue IMO. They are saying basic shelter isn't enough; people have a right to free housing with no strings attached. I think those are two very different mental frameworks to view this problem.
    - throw9away6 3y ago
      Addiction is the problem homeless is a symptom. Homelessness is a temporary state that one can move in and out of based on access to economic resources but addiction is a permanent state that though great willpower some can occasionally be suppressed.
  - liveoneggs 3y ago
    Addicts will choose the streets over housing to feed the addiction.
  - TheCleric 3y ago
    For me it boils down to this, which is more successful: treating addiction without houselessness as a factor or treating it with houselessness as a factor? If it's the former, then you provide the home to increase efficacy.
    - bumby 3y ago
      I understand this point; I think where most people take issue is that it doesn't seem very effective. (or maybe it is, and people are just ignorant of the impact). And once you give people a benefit, it's exceedingly hard to take it away, potentially leaving society worse off than before.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        Where other than Finland is it being tried? What is systematically failing is to expect people to get clean before providing housing. It doesn't get people clean and it doesn't get people off the streets.
        bumby 3y ago
        See my response to your comment below. It's the general case (where I live, at least) that people aren't required to be clean to get housing. But they are required to be part of a rehab program is a therapist/counselor/case worker has deemed addiction to be a contributing factor to their circumstances. They don't have to be clean in those cases, but working toward being cured of their addiction.
  - duped 3y ago
    > Wouldn’t that look like a rule to be in a treatment program or be otherwise clean? It looks more like using permanent supportive housing as a way to get people into treatment programs and stick with them.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Don’t you think it makes sense to attack the root problem (addiction) as well as the “big symptoms”? Addiction very often isn’t the root problem, there may not even be a unique root problem. Addiction is a difficult to manage persistent condition that complicates, is conplicated by, reinforces, and co-occurs with other problems, which may be caused by it, may cause it, or may be linked by more distant causal connections or not, at root, commonly caused despite interacting and reinforcing each other once present. You need to deal with the complex situation presented, not try to solve a tricky and generally unsolvable chicken-and-egg problem that is usually irrelevant to the path forward.
    - bumby 3y ago
      Let me be clear: I’m not advocating an either-or solution. My point is that the complex problem must be treated as exactly that. To me, just focusing on giving people housing is the antithesis of treating it as a complex problem.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > One of the understandings behind "housing first" policies is that when you treat chronic homelessness as a public health problem, you need to attack the big symptoms first (being unhoused) before you can see the outcomes you want (being a productive member of society). That’s somewhat inaccurate; housing is attacked not because it is a big symptom, but because it (1) grratly complicates addressing the other problems, and (2) admits of a fairly direct solution. If we could just simply give people thr absence of addiction or mental health problems, that’d be a stronger contender for a first intervention where the problems are cooccurring, but factually we can’t so its not an option.
- bumby 3y ago
  (Devils advocate bc I don’t actually believe this but think it illustrates an important point): Why don’t we just give them money? Because, ultimately, housing need is there largely because they can’t afford housing right? So the deeper cause is a financial one. I suspect most people exist be onboard with this because they know it won’t solve the underlying problems. It’s also the same with simply giving “free” housing. Most people who deal in processes understand treating the root cause it paramount and should be their priority. Getting sidetracked by proximate causes is a good way to squander resources that can also tend to make things worse.
  - felurx 3y ago
    One benefit of meeting basic needs (like housing, food, utilities) directly is that it's easier for the people who need it. Some others here have pointed out that many homeless people have something that keeps them from managing a household, and taking as much of that off their shoulders is helpful in that it allows them to build a life step-by-step, for example by focusing on mental and physical health first and at some point education, instead of having to adjust to a lot of stuff at once. Also, yeah, addictions are a thing. And I don't mean that as in "Oh, those people are so irresponsible! We can't trust them to spend their money right!". Addiction fucks you up (and/or is a result of the world fucking you up), and if what has been your only way to feel not-completely-terrible for a while is the other option, I don't think I can personally blame anyone who isn't able to take steps along a long and difficult road with uncertain outcomes, with their basic needs still not met. In short: Money is a tool that can be used to meet basic needs, but by itself it does not meet basic needs. Using it to do that is not easy, especially if you're not used to that, and double-especially if you're addicted to something as a result of your shitty living conditions. (I should note that I'm _not_ speaking from experience here. If someone who has some, ideally someone who has second-hand experience with many people, please correct me!)
  - Fluorescence 3y ago
    You can follow GiveDirectly, currently run by Rory Stewart to see unconditional cash payments in action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveDirectly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveDirectly > Most people who deal in processes understand treating the root cause it paramount I think that over-simplifies this type of wicked problem where consequences become causes. For example, poverty and under-housing causes abusive childhoods, mental health and substance use issues. The challenge is not to identify a leaky pipe to stop a flood but to intervene in a complex dynamical system and convert doom cycles into virtuous upward spirals of improvement.
aedocw 3y ago
Some strings: Many/most shelters will not let you bring in a pet. If you've never had any hard times in your life and had a dog companion at the same time you might not understand, but for many people having that pet is the only thing sustaining their will to live day to day. Many/most shelters will not let you sleep with your companion, even if you're married. The comfort of another human is an easy thing to get used to, and can be devastating to go without. Generally though if you're running a shelter and taking in people with MH issues or other challenges this one makes some sense, you are always at risk bringing of in folks who can't respect boundaries and will want to have inappropriate intimacy in the open (for instance). All shelters have a strict limit on how many personal belongings you can bring in. If you have no house, but you do have a shopping cart full of possessions, what are you supposed to do with them?
- bumby 3y ago
  I think these are good examples and there are probably viable solutions to them. I’ve heard of the purple leash program that is looking to expand the number of shelters that allow pets for example. Thanks for elaborating!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 40yearoldman 3y ago
  I can go see the the homeless. Pets are not keeping the masses of homeless out of shelters. Not being able to take drugs when ever the hell they feel like it is what keeps them out. The only thing that will fix this is if we change the laws. And those laws are going to feel weird at first. But we need to classify people who are homeless for more than 6 weeks as mentally ill. And at that point we force them into rehab facilities.
  - bumby 3y ago
    We haven’t been able to involuntarily house the mentally ill for decades in the US, though. I fear this approach would just exacerbated a stigma around mental illness
itake 3y ago
In other forums, I’ve heard homeless complain they can’t bring their pets and would rather stay on the street than lose their best friend. From a public perspective, cleaning up and repairing pet damage seems an extra unnecessary cost that may hurt the next person that wants to live in the unit who may have allergies. In seattle, I’ve seen people in low income housing units complain their neighbors use drugs like marijuana, which they are extremely sensitive to. If you’re trying to get sober, having a neighbor using drugs makes it that much harder. Imho, most of these rules are normal “be nice to your neighbor”
- pierat 3y ago
  There's reasons why homeless members of society have dogs. And well, it ain't pretty. First, it's a deterrent to cops who fuck around. If they harass or arrest a homeless person with a dog, it's a whole lot more work that involves animal control.... So dogs are cop deterrent. Secondly, it's defense in some of the homeless camps. Dogs will defend their human.
  - itake 3y ago
    I get it, but if they had housing, the excuses fall apart. Cops won’t bother them if they are in a shelter not causing issues. The housing would provide its own protections via securely locked doors and shelter staff. I’ve also seen enough police killing dog videos to question the first point.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      Wanting to be treated like a human is not excuses. As long as you want to treat homeless as of they're not people, why is it a surprise. many of them don't want to play along?
      - bumby 3y ago
        This is a terrible strawman. I haven't seen anyone here make a claim that homeless have no moral worth or being unworthy of respect. I think there's a case made for the opposite: expecting someone to be actively working towards self-sufficiency (if they're capable) is treating them with a modicum of decency and respect by not infantilizing them.
atdrummond 3y ago
Don’t expect much. They give “no strings attached” housing in SF and not only does it not help people get off drugs, it results in millions of dollars a year in expenses to pay for damages caused by the newly housed. I have been on the streets and an an opioid addict in medication assisted treatment. I have yet to meet a single addict who returned to normalcy without taking some stock of the damage they’ve caused and making amends to change their life. People who are given unearned housing with no restrictions continue to live their life in a way that harms not only themselves, but those around them. There’s a reason that the only countries where safe supply/legalization have worked (Portugal, Estonia, Switzerland, etc) continued to attack drug markets and sellers and set expectations around public assistance and behaviour from those receiving it. You cannot just give an addict a home and drugs and suddenly expect them to become upstanding, contributing members of society. (I won’t even delve into how the current California/West Coast paradigm is exceptionally dehumanizing as it presumes these people are only able to do one thing - consume money and drugs.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
thrwaway99956 3y ago
I’m probably going to be homeless soon and based on the research I’ve done on the shelters near me, I’m going to try like hell not to forced into a shelter. For one, from what I’ve read, the conditions are squalid. So many reports of bed bugs, old moldy food, etc. I’ve heard family shelters and shelters for women are nicer, but I’m a single male. If I want to sleep with bugs and eat shit, I can do that myself while keeping away from volatile people and situations. And then there’s theft. Some of the rules regarding property and just the general environment seem to lead to a lot of theft. If I catch someone stealing my shit, I’m going to defend myself and my property, which I imagine a shelter won’t take too kindly to. Then there’s the fact that they seemed staffed with jaded, underpaid individuals who don’t give a shit about you and want to force their believes down your throat while the owners continuously suck down government money. They also seem to be very much first come first serve, some even charge you money to stay, so it’s not like it’s even a stable position.
vidarh 3y ago
Lack of ability to have pets. Lack of ability to drink or do drugs. Lack of safe storage options for property. Restrictions on visitors. If you don't let people treat their home as a home, it's not.
- bumby 3y ago
  It's not their home if they're not paying for it though, assuming you believe in property rights. Do you expect a hotel, for example, to condone you doing drugs on premises, to bring any manner of pets in, etc.?

by bumby 3y ago

duped 3y ago

A big one is drug/alcohol use. One of the understandings behind "housing first" policies is that when you treat chronic homelessness as a public health problem, you need to attack the big symptoms first (being unhoused) before you can see the outcomes you want (being a productive member of society). Housing isn't a reward, it's a basic human need. And it's the baseline for treating people - because you cannot treat people if you cannot find them.

bumby 3y ago
Don’t you think it makes sense to attack the root problem (addiction) as well as the “big symptoms”? Wouldn’t that look like a rule to be in a treatment program or be otherwise clean? I can get on board with housing being a basic human need that society helps supply. But that’s subtly different than the OP’s claim of housing with virtually the same freedom from rules. I’m not sure “unfettered housing” is a human right.
- toddmorey 3y ago
  Well don’t frame it as a right, think in terms of desired outcome. If a user relapses, does removing their housing help in recovery?
  - bumby 3y ago
    I think we’re in agreement. The two are coupled. This is contrary to the OP, where housing would be completely decoupled, no-strings-attached.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      How do you expect to get. an addict to voluntarily accept housings with strings that experience is that a lot of them actively avoid? The pint of the Finnish approach is that the old approach of attaching strings fails at both addressing homelessness and addiction.
      - bumby 3y ago
        Ah, ok. I think I see the confusion. I think you're applying a false dichotomy here. It's not an "either you are clean or you don't get housing" in most places. But, if a therapist sees that addiction is a contributing factor, they will often make the free housing contingent on being part of a drug rehab program. So it's not "clean or else you're back on the street" but it's looking at it as part of the overall problem that's keeping a person from being self-sufficient. They aren't even generally piss tested as part of that. The cases where they are forced to be clean prior is when they are referred to housing services by a probation or parole officer. But that "remain clean" condition is more a function of the probation/parole than the housing program.
- abofh 3y ago
  Addiction isn't a root problem of anything, it's a symptom of other things that led you to become addicted to whatever (gambling, drugs, etc) If you address only the symptoms and not the sociatal issues that exacerbate them, you won't actually solve the problem.
  - bumby 3y ago
    Fair enough, but doesn’t the same principle apply? Namely, that if we really want to solve the problem, the root issues need to be the priority? You seem to agree with this, but that doesn’t necessarily align with the OP. Giving no strings attached housing isn’t fixing root issues.
    - cutemonster 3y ago
      They didn't say that housing fixes root issues. They said it's a "baseline for treating people".
      - bumby 3y ago
        But they also framed it as simply a means to an end: "finding people so you can treat them." I can sympathize with the "baseline for treating people" argument, but that, by itself, doesn't address the fact that there is a fundamental symmetry missing. If people want "freedom" they also need to demonstrate "responsibility" for a society to work. There is no free lunch, unfortunately. Literally every "baseline" right guaranteed by the US Constitution can be framed in this same give/take dynamic. The OP was conflating the issue IMO. They are saying basic shelter isn't enough; people have a right to free housing with no strings attached. I think those are two very different mental frameworks to view this problem.
  - throw9away6 3y ago
    Addiction is the problem homeless is a symptom. Homelessness is a temporary state that one can move in and out of based on access to economic resources but addiction is a permanent state that though great willpower some can occasionally be suppressed.
- liveoneggs 3y ago
  Addicts will choose the streets over housing to feed the addiction.
- TheCleric 3y ago
  For me it boils down to this, which is more successful: treating addiction without houselessness as a factor or treating it with houselessness as a factor? If it's the former, then you provide the home to increase efficacy.
  - bumby 3y ago
    I understand this point; I think where most people take issue is that it doesn't seem very effective. (or maybe it is, and people are just ignorant of the impact). And once you give people a benefit, it's exceedingly hard to take it away, potentially leaving society worse off than before.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      Where other than Finland is it being tried? What is systematically failing is to expect people to get clean before providing housing. It doesn't get people clean and it doesn't get people off the streets.
      - bumby 3y ago
        See my response to your comment below. It's the general case (where I live, at least) that people aren't required to be clean to get housing. But they are required to be part of a rehab program is a therapist/counselor/case worker has deemed addiction to be a contributing factor to their circumstances. They don't have to be clean in those cases, but working toward being cured of their addiction.
- duped 3y ago
  > Wouldn’t that look like a rule to be in a treatment program or be otherwise clean? It looks more like using permanent supportive housing as a way to get people into treatment programs and stick with them.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Don’t you think it makes sense to attack the root problem (addiction) as well as the “big symptoms”? Addiction very often isn’t the root problem, there may not even be a unique root problem. Addiction is a difficult to manage persistent condition that complicates, is conplicated by, reinforces, and co-occurs with other problems, which may be caused by it, may cause it, or may be linked by more distant causal connections or not, at root, commonly caused despite interacting and reinforcing each other once present. You need to deal with the complex situation presented, not try to solve a tricky and generally unsolvable chicken-and-egg problem that is usually irrelevant to the path forward.
  - bumby 3y ago
    Let me be clear: I’m not advocating an either-or solution. My point is that the complex problem must be treated as exactly that. To me, just focusing on giving people housing is the antithesis of treating it as a complex problem.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> One of the understandings behind "housing first" policies is that when you treat chronic homelessness as a public health problem, you need to attack the big symptoms first (being unhoused) before you can see the outcomes you want (being a productive member of society). That’s somewhat inaccurate; housing is attacked not because it is a big symptom, but because it (1) grratly complicates addressing the other problems, and (2) admits of a fairly direct solution. If we could just simply give people thr absence of addiction or mental health problems, that’d be a stronger contender for a first intervention where the problems are cooccurring, but factually we can’t so its not an option.
bumby 3y ago
(Devils advocate bc I don’t actually believe this but think it illustrates an important point): Why don’t we just give them money? Because, ultimately, housing need is there largely because they can’t afford housing right? So the deeper cause is a financial one. I suspect most people exist be onboard with this because they know it won’t solve the underlying problems. It’s also the same with simply giving “free” housing. Most people who deal in processes understand treating the root cause it paramount and should be their priority. Getting sidetracked by proximate causes is a good way to squander resources that can also tend to make things worse.
- felurx 3y ago
  One benefit of meeting basic needs (like housing, food, utilities) directly is that it's easier for the people who need it. Some others here have pointed out that many homeless people have something that keeps them from managing a household, and taking as much of that off their shoulders is helpful in that it allows them to build a life step-by-step, for example by focusing on mental and physical health first and at some point education, instead of having to adjust to a lot of stuff at once. Also, yeah, addictions are a thing. And I don't mean that as in "Oh, those people are so irresponsible! We can't trust them to spend their money right!". Addiction fucks you up (and/or is a result of the world fucking you up), and if what has been your only way to feel not-completely-terrible for a while is the other option, I don't think I can personally blame anyone who isn't able to take steps along a long and difficult road with uncertain outcomes, with their basic needs still not met. In short: Money is a tool that can be used to meet basic needs, but by itself it does not meet basic needs. Using it to do that is not easy, especially if you're not used to that, and double-especially if you're addicted to something as a result of your shitty living conditions. (I should note that I'm _not_ speaking from experience here. If someone who has some, ideally someone who has second-hand experience with many people, please correct me!)
- Fluorescence 3y ago
  You can follow GiveDirectly, currently run by Rory Stewart to see unconditional cash payments in action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveDirectly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveDirectly > Most people who deal in processes understand treating the root cause it paramount I think that over-simplifies this type of wicked problem where consequences become causes. For example, poverty and under-housing causes abusive childhoods, mental health and substance use issues. The challenge is not to identify a leaky pipe to stop a flood but to intervene in a complex dynamical system and convert doom cycles into virtuous upward spirals of improvement.

aedocw 3y ago

Some strings: Many/most shelters will not let you bring in a pet. If you've never had any hard times in your life and had a dog companion at the same time you might not understand, but for many people having that pet is the only thing sustaining their will to live day to day. Many/most shelters will not let you sleep with your companion, even if you're married. The comfort of another human is an easy thing to get used to, and can be devastating to go without. Generally though if you're running a shelter and taking in people with MH issues or other challenges this one makes some sense, you are always at risk bringing of in folks who can't respect boundaries and will want to have inappropriate intimacy in the open (for instance). All shelters have a strict limit on how many personal belongings you can bring in. If you have no house, but you do have a shopping cart full of possessions, what are you supposed to do with them?

bumby 3y ago
I think these are good examples and there are probably viable solutions to them. I’ve heard of the purple leash program that is looking to expand the number of shelters that allow pets for example. Thanks for elaborating!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
40yearoldman 3y ago
I can go see the the homeless. Pets are not keeping the masses of homeless out of shelters. Not being able to take drugs when ever the hell they feel like it is what keeps them out. The only thing that will fix this is if we change the laws. And those laws are going to feel weird at first. But we need to classify people who are homeless for more than 6 weeks as mentally ill. And at that point we force them into rehab facilities.
- bumby 3y ago
  We haven’t been able to involuntarily house the mentally ill for decades in the US, though. I fear this approach would just exacerbated a stigma around mental illness

itake 3y ago

In other forums, I’ve heard homeless complain they can’t bring their pets and would rather stay on the street than lose their best friend. From a public perspective, cleaning up and repairing pet damage seems an extra unnecessary cost that may hurt the next person that wants to live in the unit who may have allergies. In seattle, I’ve seen people in low income housing units complain their neighbors use drugs like marijuana, which they are extremely sensitive to. If you’re trying to get sober, having a neighbor using drugs makes it that much harder. Imho, most of these rules are normal “be nice to your neighbor”

pierat 3y ago
There's reasons why homeless members of society have dogs. And well, it ain't pretty. First, it's a deterrent to cops who fuck around. If they harass or arrest a homeless person with a dog, it's a whole lot more work that involves animal control.... So dogs are cop deterrent. Secondly, it's defense in some of the homeless camps. Dogs will defend their human.
- itake 3y ago
  I get it, but if they had housing, the excuses fall apart. Cops won’t bother them if they are in a shelter not causing issues. The housing would provide its own protections via securely locked doors and shelter staff. I’ve also seen enough police killing dog videos to question the first point.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    Wanting to be treated like a human is not excuses. As long as you want to treat homeless as of they're not people, why is it a surprise. many of them don't want to play along?
    - bumby 3y ago
      This is a terrible strawman. I haven't seen anyone here make a claim that homeless have no moral worth or being unworthy of respect. I think there's a case made for the opposite: expecting someone to be actively working towards self-sufficiency (if they're capable) is treating them with a modicum of decency and respect by not infantilizing them.

atdrummond 3y ago

Don’t expect much. They give “no strings attached” housing in SF and not only does it not help people get off drugs, it results in millions of dollars a year in expenses to pay for damages caused by the newly housed. I have been on the streets and an an opioid addict in medication assisted treatment. I have yet to meet a single addict who returned to normalcy without taking some stock of the damage they’ve caused and making amends to change their life. People who are given unearned housing with no restrictions continue to live their life in a way that harms not only themselves, but those around them. There’s a reason that the only countries where safe supply/legalization have worked (Portugal, Estonia, Switzerland, etc) continued to attack drug markets and sellers and set expectations around public assistance and behaviour from those receiving it. You cannot just give an addict a home and drugs and suddenly expect them to become upstanding, contributing members of society. (I won’t even delve into how the current California/West Coast paradigm is exceptionally dehumanizing as it presumes these people are only able to do one thing - consume money and drugs.)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

thrwaway99956 3y ago

I’m probably going to be homeless soon and based on the research I’ve done on the shelters near me, I’m going to try like hell not to forced into a shelter. For one, from what I’ve read, the conditions are squalid. So many reports of bed bugs, old moldy food, etc. I’ve heard family shelters and shelters for women are nicer, but I’m a single male. If I want to sleep with bugs and eat shit, I can do that myself while keeping away from volatile people and situations. And then there’s theft. Some of the rules regarding property and just the general environment seem to lead to a lot of theft. If I catch someone stealing my shit, I’m going to defend myself and my property, which I imagine a shelter won’t take too kindly to. Then there’s the fact that they seemed staffed with jaded, underpaid individuals who don’t give a shit about you and want to force their believes down your throat while the owners continuously suck down government money. They also seem to be very much first come first serve, some even charge you money to stay, so it’s not like it’s even a stable position.

vidarh 3y ago

Lack of ability to have pets. Lack of ability to drink or do drugs. Lack of safe storage options for property. Restrictions on visitors. If you don't let people treat their home as a home, it's not.

bumby 3y ago
It's not their home if they're not paying for it though, assuming you believe in property rights. Do you expect a hotel, for example, to condone you doing drugs on premises, to bring any manner of pets in, etc.?