3 ms·
Yeah, thats really gross and also wildly incorrect, having been unhoused in Chicago, multiple times, over a period of years and not in any way by choice. Few,
by dtornabene 3y ago
Yeah, thats really gross and also wildly incorrect, having been unhoused in Chicago, multiple times, over a period of years and not in any way by choice. Few, I would say vanishingly few people in those circumstance, are "unhoused by choice". And if this is in some way a gesture to the many many people who are mentally unwell, and were in housing until Rahm got in power, that is a grotesque use of the word "choice".
- tptacek 3y agoI don't deny at all that there are people in Chicago who are unhoused against their will. Presumably most of them are. It's my assumption when I see someone here living on the streets. But I pay attention to local government stuff, and I know for a fact that some of the people out on the streets here are choosing to stay on the street despite being directly offered long-term housing. Our politics about housing and homelessness are probably very similar, but "you will not find a single person in Chicago who is currently unhoused by choice" is simply false. There may not be anything useful to do with that information! It may have no public policy implications at all! But it's still not a good idea to try to build arguments out of premises that can be quickly falsified. The people I'm thinking about are not, like, schizophrenic and incapable of making the choices I'm talking about. I'm certainly no fan of Emanuel's. † (I edited this a bunch of little ways but also in one big way, to make it more clear that I'm not personally involved in any of the outreach stuff I'm talking about.)