5 ms·

> (Also, even in the best case where you successfully treat somebody, I’m afraid that “1995 - 2024: psychotic homeless person” doesn’t look good on a resume, so

> (Also, even in the best case where you successfully treat somebody, I’m afraid that “1995 - 2024: psychotic homeless person” doesn’t look good on a resume, so they probably won’t be getting high-powered jobs. Meanwhile, cheap apartments in SF are $1000/month. So the connection between “no longer psychotic” and “no longer homeless on the street” is tenuous unless you also have some plan to provide free housing.) I mean, there is so much overlooked here, I'm truly confused by this post. The housing cost is very clearly related to the issues of homelessness. Of course it's not the only thing, but it's a significant factor. Fix housing, provide housing for the mentally ill. Voila! You no longer have mentally ill homeless people. Like, of course the system which doesn't support people until they're able to stand on their own legs results in people repeatedly falling over. Fixing the mental illness epidemic is another problem, one which may require better policy around housing, food, mental health services, and taxation of the wealthy. Even then we may not have the tools to 'fix' all the people who've been broken by the current system, during the lifetime, because the human brain is so complex. But if we fix these issues, the next generation wouldn't have so many mentally ill homeless people in the first place, and we'd have better tools in place to treat people before their mental illness spirals to the point where it's beyond our current mental health care industry's capability to treat.

loa_in_ 2y ago
I believe that consensus is that we have all the economic capacity we need. If we can get by without helping those people, why would we? Obviously I do not share this worldview and me myself border on homelessness for past years, but the world is a world of financial incentives and there is none big enough to do that.
- alan-hn 2y ago
  Perhaps the issue then is the structure of capitalism
hoseja 2y ago
Voilà! Now you have mentally ill destroying houses.
inglor_cz 2y ago
"Fix housing, provide housing for the mentally ill." This sounds so simple. So how would that work in practice? Step 1, every mentally ill homeless person in SF gets free housing (free, because they often have no income - if you make them pay even a small rent, many will drop out). Steps 2 to N? Homeless people from the entire rest of the world will have incentive to get free housing in SF. Even in the US proper there is enough of them to swamp the system of one city, and the city which starts with the policy first will receive a stream of outsiders, given one-way bus tickets from their original locations. At that moment, you cannot avoid introducing barriers for newcomers, because the system is too open to exploitation. And "newcomers" include both people from afar and locals who suddenly turn up at the office and say "well, I am mentally ill and I want a free apartment".
- aninteger 2y ago
  As a country we're already trying this in NYC with the migrants. Some are given homes in shelters and others in local hotels. I believe some receive a small stipend (according to Newsweek a family of four can receive $1400). It's not a perfect system, but it's better than leaving them homeless. Maybe it's the model we need to follow for our own homeless.
  - hattmall 2y ago
    The big difference is the migrants aren't mentally ill. That's the actual issue, the bulk of homeless people have an issue that makes them much more difficult to house. Where I live we have cheap housing. $35 a month housing projects. Then we even have loads of "Human Service Homes" or halfway houses for people that need more help. They get food, clean clothes and transportation provided daily. They even have planned outings like bowling or they get $20 to go shop at a thrift store. Some people make it work, but the housing projects tend to have lots of drug addicts that are functional but would prefer to spend their money on drugs instead of housing but the low price point keeps them mostly off the street. Of course they frequently get too high and cause issues. The large concentration of addicts also leads to gangs being present which causes other issues. So overall it's just not a great environment. The DHS homes are dispersed throughout the community. A high amount of drug addicts but also more mentally unstable. They frequently leave the houses, often times entering other people's property. They will cause scenes and messes in the yards, many of them are sex offender. Sometimes they wander off and can't be found. Nothing like wondering where the schizophrenic person nextdoor might pop up. And at least once or twice a year someone gets killed or seriously injured by a halfway House resident. Then on top of that we still have a few homeless people that are so disconnected from reality they just won't go indoors. So to me the biggest issue is that even if you provide housing WHERE can you put it because most people simply don't want to live in close proximity to the mentally ill / drug addicts.
whywhywhywhy 2y ago
The terms “homeless” or “unhoused” are disingenuous and disguise the core issues of the situation and also wrongly make it seem like providing housing will solve it. > and taxation of the wealthy Why would this help anything? The services you describe are paid for through inflation not taxes.

loa_in_ 2y ago

I believe that consensus is that we have all the economic capacity we need. If we can get by without helping those people, why would we? Obviously I do not share this worldview and me myself border on homelessness for past years, but the world is a world of financial incentives and there is none big enough to do that.

alan-hn 2y ago
Perhaps the issue then is the structure of capitalism

hoseja 2y ago

Voilà! Now you have mentally ill destroying houses.

inglor_cz 2y ago

"Fix housing, provide housing for the mentally ill." This sounds so simple. So how would that work in practice? Step 1, every mentally ill homeless person in SF gets free housing (free, because they often have no income - if you make them pay even a small rent, many will drop out). Steps 2 to N? Homeless people from the entire rest of the world will have incentive to get free housing in SF. Even in the US proper there is enough of them to swamp the system of one city, and the city which starts with the policy first will receive a stream of outsiders, given one-way bus tickets from their original locations. At that moment, you cannot avoid introducing barriers for newcomers, because the system is too open to exploitation. And "newcomers" include both people from afar and locals who suddenly turn up at the office and say "well, I am mentally ill and I want a free apartment".

aninteger 2y ago
As a country we're already trying this in NYC with the migrants. Some are given homes in shelters and others in local hotels. I believe some receive a small stipend (according to Newsweek a family of four can receive $1400). It's not a perfect system, but it's better than leaving them homeless. Maybe it's the model we need to follow for our own homeless.
- hattmall 2y ago
  The big difference is the migrants aren't mentally ill. That's the actual issue, the bulk of homeless people have an issue that makes them much more difficult to house. Where I live we have cheap housing. $35 a month housing projects. Then we even have loads of "Human Service Homes" or halfway houses for people that need more help. They get food, clean clothes and transportation provided daily. They even have planned outings like bowling or they get $20 to go shop at a thrift store. Some people make it work, but the housing projects tend to have lots of drug addicts that are functional but would prefer to spend their money on drugs instead of housing but the low price point keeps them mostly off the street. Of course they frequently get too high and cause issues. The large concentration of addicts also leads to gangs being present which causes other issues. So overall it's just not a great environment. The DHS homes are dispersed throughout the community. A high amount of drug addicts but also more mentally unstable. They frequently leave the houses, often times entering other people's property. They will cause scenes and messes in the yards, many of them are sex offender. Sometimes they wander off and can't be found. Nothing like wondering where the schizophrenic person nextdoor might pop up. And at least once or twice a year someone gets killed or seriously injured by a halfway House resident. Then on top of that we still have a few homeless people that are so disconnected from reality they just won't go indoors. So to me the biggest issue is that even if you provide housing WHERE can you put it because most people simply don't want to live in close proximity to the mentally ill / drug addicts.

whywhywhywhy 2y ago

The terms “homeless” or “unhoused” are disingenuous and disguise the core issues of the situation and also wrongly make it seem like providing housing will solve it. > and taxation of the wealthy Why would this help anything? The services you describe are paid for through inflation not taxes.