3 ms·

My impression is the "bold new thinking" you are describing was just "hey, we don't have the funds to actually address this issue; and the police sweeps are jus

My impression is the "bold new thinking" you are describing was just "hey, we don't have the funds to actually address this issue; and the police sweeps are just kicking the can down the road and make things a lot worse for those sweeped - perhaps we should pause those sweeps?" It's a "kick-the-can-down-the-road" solution either way. Can you enumerate other strategies that are part of the bold new thinking? My estimation, the real bold new thinking are things like universal housing, UBI, and/or even more basic things like expanding shelters & making those reliable and safe places to be. All of these things require funds, and seemingly West Coast Americans don't want to pay for it. And so, the can is kicked. I'm aware of a few things that were attempted in Seattle. Notably 'tiny-home-communities', which had some success. Though the rising land value where they were built displaced those communities and they were never rebuilt [1]. Which goes to my point, the real "bold" thinking was hardly ever truly attempted anywhere. Pausing sweeps is just kicking the can down the road, and I don't think many people were pretending that was an actual "bold solution." Arguably just a best of worst-options. Though, while we differ in our perceptions of what has been attempted, and how sincerely those efforts were made - we agree on solutions. The solutions require serious efforts from a very empowered local community (which would imply state funding to support those efforts). [1] https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/what-happened-to-south-lake-unions-only-tiny-home-village https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/what-happened-to-south-lak...

tracker1 2y ago
A lot of homeless won't go into shelters for multiple reasons, including the fact that many are less safe than staying with somewhat known communities outside the shelters. The other is not being able to keep their drugs. I've seen many homeless that refuse to seek appropriate medical care for open wounds (including gun shots) because they don't feel they can stay clean through the care they need. The level of addiction is crazy. I think a lot of people should volunteer a few times with a feed the homeless or similar charity and actually talk to some of these people before suggesting definitive answers. Most solutions simply won't work with the strings often attached.
- scruple 2y ago
  One of my BILs is frequently homeless and refuses shelters because they have rules, curfews, etc., that, when he's manic, he won't abide by. I've been around tent cities and encampments in SoCal pretty often over the last ~16 years, but not as much these last few years since we had children. My anecdotes are that they're overwhelmingly filled with people just like him.
  - tracker1 2y ago
    That's largely been my observance as well. My SO has done a lot of feed the homeless work, and my best friend runs a medic/first-aid program to treat homeless. I haven't gone much, because it frankly breaks my heart to see. It's tough to even write about. I don't think shipping people all over the country is a good solution... I do think that building a lot of cheap housing (the projected costs someone mentioned, like $1.4m per dwelling seems insane). Modular construction designs should be possible to deliver 1br or studio homes with a 3/4 bath and kitchenette for under $150k each relatively easily, including transport and final assembly. It is really hard for me to understand that level of addiction or dissociation, but I've definitely seen it.
    - frumper 2y ago
      My city took 4 years after approval and 2 grants totaling $1.5M to build four 500 sq ft tiny homes for temporary housing. One of the biggest roadblocks was where to build them. From a local article, the residents selected for these homes will be required to pay rent and keep the units in a livable condition. So for a local government that had the money in hand, it has built 4 highly contested tiny homes after 4 years that the people moving in will have to pay rent on. This, proclaimed by the mayor, will really help get people off the streets in our city. It feels like la la land.
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  The shelters around me are Christian and refuse to house queer people. They also split up families and won't take people with pets. In effect, these are fake shelter beds being operated tax free and enriching the operators with tax money despite not following civil rights law.
mrandish 2y ago
> Though, while we differ in our perceptions of what has been attempted, and how sincerely those efforts were made - we agree on solutions. The solutions require serious efforts from a very empowered local community (which would imply state funding to support those efforts). I live in Northern California in the middle of ground zero for this issue. Ten years ago I would have agreed fully with what you wrote. But since then I've been paying very close attention to how this has all unfolded at the state, regional and local levels. I also happen to have a lot of social contacts who work at the city and country levels in the agencies directly responsible for dealing with homelessness, ranging from social workers to funding agencies to law enforcement. Based on what I've seen in my community, in the media and what my friends who are directly involved have told me privately (which is more frank and somewhat different than what their agencies say publicly), my opinion has changed. Most fundamentally, I now understand that "homelessness" shouldn't ever be thought of as a single issue because there are vastly different kinds with different causes, consequences, costs and possibility of remedies. Most of the serious societal problems related to homelessness come from the particular subset which are chronically unhoused and treatment resistant, primarily due to chronic substance abuse and mental illness. Sadly, for many of this type, there are no consistently effective solutions - and no amount of funding can reliably solve it at scale - because any lasting solution requires first solving the underlying chronic addiction and/or mental illness. Unfortunately, these are wickedly complex, deeply individual problems and lasting solutions require making difficult "no win, lesser of evils" choices more related to morality than politics. Respecting an individual's right of self-determination can quickly conflict with their right to choose self-destruction. I now understand that there ARE no "good solutions" to this type of chronic homelessness. Even if you or I were anointed "king of the world" and given virtually unlimited funding, at best, things might be a little better but the fundamental underlying causes would still remain unsolved. All solutions which might make a substantial, long-term improvement on chronic addiction and mental illness at scale involve moral positions I could not personally enforce on other people, such as forced treatment, conditionally withholding treatment or actively enabling essentially "slow-motion suicide" (as a social worker friend of mine called it).
- seadan83 2y ago
  Thank you for the discussion. I think there is a lot to be said for housing-first answers that could help many people, but won't necessarily help everyone. You raise good points that context matters. One thing I've thought of since this conversation started is the lacking context. Specifically that most homeless people are not living in the streets. Cars, hotels, friends - those are the most used resources for those that lose their housing. Clearly thing like effective drug treatment are not going to help a family that just failed to pay rent, the person that is now sleeping in their car for the first time. The needed answers are varied. My point is that without money behind those answers, it's a non-solution. Except, I have learned in this discussion how far from sufficient that is. Which is to say, backing programs with real funding is necessary but not sufficient to arrive to a solution.

tracker1 2y ago

A lot of homeless won't go into shelters for multiple reasons, including the fact that many are less safe than staying with somewhat known communities outside the shelters. The other is not being able to keep their drugs. I've seen many homeless that refuse to seek appropriate medical care for open wounds (including gun shots) because they don't feel they can stay clean through the care they need. The level of addiction is crazy. I think a lot of people should volunteer a few times with a feed the homeless or similar charity and actually talk to some of these people before suggesting definitive answers. Most solutions simply won't work with the strings often attached.

scruple 2y ago
One of my BILs is frequently homeless and refuses shelters because they have rules, curfews, etc., that, when he's manic, he won't abide by. I've been around tent cities and encampments in SoCal pretty often over the last ~16 years, but not as much these last few years since we had children. My anecdotes are that they're overwhelmingly filled with people just like him.
- tracker1 2y ago
  That's largely been my observance as well. My SO has done a lot of feed the homeless work, and my best friend runs a medic/first-aid program to treat homeless. I haven't gone much, because it frankly breaks my heart to see. It's tough to even write about. I don't think shipping people all over the country is a good solution... I do think that building a lot of cheap housing (the projected costs someone mentioned, like $1.4m per dwelling seems insane). Modular construction designs should be possible to deliver 1br or studio homes with a 3/4 bath and kitchenette for under $150k each relatively easily, including transport and final assembly. It is really hard for me to understand that level of addiction or dissociation, but I've definitely seen it.
  - frumper 2y ago
    My city took 4 years after approval and 2 grants totaling $1.5M to build four 500 sq ft tiny homes for temporary housing. One of the biggest roadblocks was where to build them. From a local article, the residents selected for these homes will be required to pay rent and keep the units in a livable condition. So for a local government that had the money in hand, it has built 4 highly contested tiny homes after 4 years that the people moving in will have to pay rent on. This, proclaimed by the mayor, will really help get people off the streets in our city. It feels like la la land.
SauciestGNU 2y ago
The shelters around me are Christian and refuse to house queer people. They also split up families and won't take people with pets. In effect, these are fake shelter beds being operated tax free and enriching the operators with tax money despite not following civil rights law.

mrandish 2y ago

> Though, while we differ in our perceptions of what has been attempted, and how sincerely those efforts were made - we agree on solutions. The solutions require serious efforts from a very empowered local community (which would imply state funding to support those efforts). I live in Northern California in the middle of ground zero for this issue. Ten years ago I would have agreed fully with what you wrote. But since then I've been paying very close attention to how this has all unfolded at the state, regional and local levels. I also happen to have a lot of social contacts who work at the city and country levels in the agencies directly responsible for dealing with homelessness, ranging from social workers to funding agencies to law enforcement. Based on what I've seen in my community, in the media and what my friends who are directly involved have told me privately (which is more frank and somewhat different than what their agencies say publicly), my opinion has changed. Most fundamentally, I now understand that "homelessness" shouldn't ever be thought of as a single issue because there are vastly different kinds with different causes, consequences, costs and possibility of remedies. Most of the serious societal problems related to homelessness come from the particular subset which are chronically unhoused and treatment resistant, primarily due to chronic substance abuse and mental illness. Sadly, for many of this type, there are no consistently effective solutions - and no amount of funding can reliably solve it at scale - because any lasting solution requires first solving the underlying chronic addiction and/or mental illness. Unfortunately, these are wickedly complex, deeply individual problems and lasting solutions require making difficult "no win, lesser of evils" choices more related to morality than politics. Respecting an individual's right of self-determination can quickly conflict with their right to choose self-destruction. I now understand that there ARE no "good solutions" to this type of chronic homelessness. Even if you or I were anointed "king of the world" and given virtually unlimited funding, at best, things might be a little better but the fundamental underlying causes would still remain unsolved. All solutions which might make a substantial, long-term improvement on chronic addiction and mental illness at scale involve moral positions I could not personally enforce on other people, such as forced treatment, conditionally withholding treatment or actively enabling essentially "slow-motion suicide" (as a social worker friend of mine called it).

seadan83 2y ago
Thank you for the discussion. I think there is a lot to be said for housing-first answers that could help many people, but won't necessarily help everyone. You raise good points that context matters. One thing I've thought of since this conversation started is the lacking context. Specifically that most homeless people are not living in the streets. Cars, hotels, friends - those are the most used resources for those that lose their housing. Clearly thing like effective drug treatment are not going to help a family that just failed to pay rent, the person that is now sleeping in their car for the first time. The needed answers are varied. My point is that without money behind those answers, it's a non-solution. Except, I have learned in this discussion how far from sufficient that is. Which is to say, backing programs with real funding is necessary but not sufficient to arrive to a solution.