39 ms·

Oregon and Washington are similar. Zero accountability and zero metrics. That's on purpose. The vast majority of unsheltered homeless are now drug addicts and/

Oregon and Washington are similar. Zero accountability and zero metrics. That's on purpose. The vast majority of unsheltered homeless are now drug addicts and/or have serious mental health issues, and there's simply no way this can be fixed without harsh unpopular ("you want to hurt poors!") measures. But hey, drug overdoses provide a glut of kidneys and occasional hearts and lungs for transplantation: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/16/health/drug-overdoses-organ-transplants-study/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/16/health/drug-overdoses-organ-t... It's a trainwreck.

jrflowers 2y ago
I like “zero metrics” followed up by “vast majority”. It is like “the problem is that there is no data to support the thing that I’m about to say, which I am sure of regardless”
- cyberax 2y ago
  The "vast majority" comes from the studies done by third parties (UCLA, in this case). Link: https://www.capolicylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Health-Conditions-Among-Unsheltered-Adults-in-the-U.S..pdf https://www.capolicylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Healt...
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    This makes sense if you count 20% as a “vast majority” of a group. The singular use of “serious mental illness” in that pdf is this sentence. >In this study we use clinical service records from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health to estimate 20% of individuals participating in Street Outreach services had a clinical diagnosis of serious mental illness within the previous twelve years. Alternatively if you simply imagine that any and every counted incident of any mental health issue as being serious to the point of calling for mysterious unpopular “hurt the poors” policy, you do not even need a pdf to back that up. You can simply believe it in your heart like a matter of faith
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > This makes sense if you count 20% as a “vast majority” of a group. The singular use of “serious mental illness” in that pdf is this sentence. ??? Page 5 of the PDF, the graph near the bottom right of the page: "Mental health conditions: 78% of unsheltered homeless, substance abuse conditions: 75% of unsheltered homeless". I believe, this qualifies as "vast majority". And these are from before the fentanyl epidemic. > You can simply believe it in your heart like a matter of faith Quite clearly, you can't even read a PDF file with the executive summary.
      - jrflowers 2y ago
        This is a good point because “mental health condition” means “severe mental health condition”. People that live in houses can have mild anxiety or treatable depression, people that do not all have schizoaffective disorder and capgras syndrome. I agree on a skill disparity between us here. You have surpassed me by not only being able to read what is in the PDF, you are able to read things that aren’t in the PDF. For example on page 2 it says that stable housing is essential for ending homelessness and you have been able to extract additional meaning to conclude that it supports “harsh unpopular ‘hurt the poors’” policies. Of course someone could simply begin with being in favor of harsh, unpopular “hurt the poors” measures and then work backwards and read validation of that where there is none. That is fine! There is nothing wrong with having beliefs, it is part of the human condition. It is not uncommon to see a homeless person simply feel that life has not been harsh enough for them. There is no need to try to justify that feeling or invent a rationale in an attempt to enroll others into it, as this entire response is at its core disconnected from reason. The richness of the interiority of the human experience knows no bounds!
        cyberax 2y ago
        > This is a good point because “mental health condition” means “severe mental health condition”. Yes, and the union between them and the drug addicts is around 80%. Still qualifies for the "vast majority" characteristic. > For example on page 2 it says that stable housing is essential for ending homelessness What else can they say: "We need mandatory treatment"? Yeah, sure. I can quote you another example. Utah's "housing first" has 75%+ failure rate, most of people who were simply given housing, return to homelessness within 2 years.
resize2996 2y ago
Do you have any sources to back the claim that it is "on purpose"? What solutions are you proposing to help people with mental health issues that are untenable?
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Do you have any sources to back the claim that it is "on purpose"? Sigh. I can talk about KCRHA (King County Regional Homeless Authority) for a while. It had crossed the line between "incompetent" and "malicious" long ago. > What solutions are you proposing to help people with mental health issues that are untenable? Mandatory treatment.
  - x2tyfi 2y ago
    Give some examples then?
    - cyberax 2y ago
      Not doing anything about drugs. Like, nothing. All their policy is "housing first".
  - resize2996 2y ago
    What things has it done that are malicious? Medically, what would mandatory treatment look like?
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > What things has it done that are malicious? Ignoring the outcome of putting drug addicts together in housing without any rules. It becomes a magnet for drug dealers within milliseconds, ensuring that if you are not addicted to drugs, you WILL be pretty soon. > Medically, what would mandatory treatment look like? Locked facilities that provide medication-assisted withdrawal, and then attempt rehabilitation therapy.
      - 2y ago
koolala 2y ago
Wait, whats your fix. Not hurting people - what's your dream solution?
- cyberax 2y ago
  Drug tests and forced treatments. You start using drugs? You go to a rehab where you have to stay until you are sober for at least a few weeks. After that, mandatory drug tests for a couple of years. For people, who complete the rehab and demonstrate minimal capability: subsidized housing.
mjevans 2y ago
I'm not so sure about that... but as a starting point. * National problem scope needs National solution * Mental Health Institutions (need to be audited, but need to return) * Non-secular drug rehab and prevention * Jobs programs for those without * Workforce training for those that want it * Society integration programs, to help people 'get in' * Treating the unhoused as humans, with human rights There's a LOT of reasons, some of them interacting. Some of the unhoused are anarchists who'd prefer to be untracked so they can commit crimes; I've seen that on the local news way too often. However those are extreme cases that got regional news coverage. Many have drug addiction, traumatic life experiences, or other issues. They need help and evaluation and hopefully recovery. Some are just professional panhandlers conning people into giving handouts; which also make everyone who needs real help look bad. Maybe those people could get help if some major movie or TV drama setup kidnapping anyone on the street for crimes and followed what happened to them in a setting that wasn't the suck IRL is.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > There's a LOT of reasons, some of them interacting. Not really. It's now super-reductive, with basically two major causes that keep people getting into unsheltered homelessness: drugs and mental health issues. Any plan to combat homelessness must tackle these two issues. Now try my local homelessness graft agency's website: https://kcrha.org/data-overview/ https://kcrha.org/data-overview/ and look for their approach to mental health and drug abuse. > Some of the unhoused are anarchists who'd prefer to be untracked so they can commit crimes; I've seen that on the local news way too often. They are basically a rounding error at this point.
  - mjevans 2y ago
    You ignore literally the sentence after which states: "However those are extreme cases that got regional news coverage." Yes, they're a topic of sensationalism that helps to direct public anger at the groups rather than more systemic solutions which would help the victims and expose the criminals.

jrflowers 2y ago

I like “zero metrics” followed up by “vast majority”. It is like “the problem is that there is no data to support the thing that I’m about to say, which I am sure of regardless”

cyberax 2y ago
The "vast majority" comes from the studies done by third parties (UCLA, in this case). Link: https://www.capolicylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Health-Conditions-Among-Unsheltered-Adults-in-the-U.S..pdf https://www.capolicylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Healt...
- jrflowers 2y ago
  This makes sense if you count 20% as a “vast majority” of a group. The singular use of “serious mental illness” in that pdf is this sentence. >In this study we use clinical service records from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health to estimate 20% of individuals participating in Street Outreach services had a clinical diagnosis of serious mental illness within the previous twelve years. Alternatively if you simply imagine that any and every counted incident of any mental health issue as being serious to the point of calling for mysterious unpopular “hurt the poors” policy, you do not even need a pdf to back that up. You can simply believe it in your heart like a matter of faith
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > This makes sense if you count 20% as a “vast majority” of a group. The singular use of “serious mental illness” in that pdf is this sentence. ??? Page 5 of the PDF, the graph near the bottom right of the page: "Mental health conditions: 78% of unsheltered homeless, substance abuse conditions: 75% of unsheltered homeless". I believe, this qualifies as "vast majority". And these are from before the fentanyl epidemic. > You can simply believe it in your heart like a matter of faith Quite clearly, you can't even read a PDF file with the executive summary.
    - jrflowers 2y ago
      This is a good point because “mental health condition” means “severe mental health condition”. People that live in houses can have mild anxiety or treatable depression, people that do not all have schizoaffective disorder and capgras syndrome. I agree on a skill disparity between us here. You have surpassed me by not only being able to read what is in the PDF, you are able to read things that aren’t in the PDF. For example on page 2 it says that stable housing is essential for ending homelessness and you have been able to extract additional meaning to conclude that it supports “harsh unpopular ‘hurt the poors’” policies. Of course someone could simply begin with being in favor of harsh, unpopular “hurt the poors” measures and then work backwards and read validation of that where there is none. That is fine! There is nothing wrong with having beliefs, it is part of the human condition. It is not uncommon to see a homeless person simply feel that life has not been harsh enough for them. There is no need to try to justify that feeling or invent a rationale in an attempt to enroll others into it, as this entire response is at its core disconnected from reason. The richness of the interiority of the human experience knows no bounds!
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > This is a good point because “mental health condition” means “severe mental health condition”. Yes, and the union between them and the drug addicts is around 80%. Still qualifies for the "vast majority" characteristic. > For example on page 2 it says that stable housing is essential for ending homelessness What else can they say: "We need mandatory treatment"? Yeah, sure. I can quote you another example. Utah's "housing first" has 75%+ failure rate, most of people who were simply given housing, return to homelessness within 2 years.

resize2996 2y ago

Do you have any sources to back the claim that it is "on purpose"? What solutions are you proposing to help people with mental health issues that are untenable?

cyberax 2y ago
> Do you have any sources to back the claim that it is "on purpose"? Sigh. I can talk about KCRHA (King County Regional Homeless Authority) for a while. It had crossed the line between "incompetent" and "malicious" long ago. > What solutions are you proposing to help people with mental health issues that are untenable? Mandatory treatment.
- x2tyfi 2y ago
  Give some examples then?
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Not doing anything about drugs. Like, nothing. All their policy is "housing first".
- resize2996 2y ago
  What things has it done that are malicious? Medically, what would mandatory treatment look like?
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > What things has it done that are malicious? Ignoring the outcome of putting drug addicts together in housing without any rules. It becomes a magnet for drug dealers within milliseconds, ensuring that if you are not addicted to drugs, you WILL be pretty soon. > Medically, what would mandatory treatment look like? Locked facilities that provide medication-assisted withdrawal, and then attempt rehabilitation therapy.
    - 2y ago

koolala 2y ago

Wait, whats your fix. Not hurting people - what's your dream solution?

cyberax 2y ago
Drug tests and forced treatments. You start using drugs? You go to a rehab where you have to stay until you are sober for at least a few weeks. After that, mandatory drug tests for a couple of years. For people, who complete the rehab and demonstrate minimal capability: subsidized housing.

mjevans 2y ago

I'm not so sure about that... but as a starting point. * National problem scope needs National solution * Mental Health Institutions (need to be audited, but need to return) * Non-secular drug rehab and prevention * Jobs programs for those without * Workforce training for those that want it * Society integration programs, to help people 'get in' * Treating the unhoused as humans, with human rights There's a LOT of reasons, some of them interacting. Some of the unhoused are anarchists who'd prefer to be untracked so they can commit crimes; I've seen that on the local news way too often. However those are extreme cases that got regional news coverage. Many have drug addiction, traumatic life experiences, or other issues. They need help and evaluation and hopefully recovery. Some are just professional panhandlers conning people into giving handouts; which also make everyone who needs real help look bad. Maybe those people could get help if some major movie or TV drama setup kidnapping anyone on the street for crimes and followed what happened to them in a setting that wasn't the suck IRL is.

cyberax 2y ago
> There's a LOT of reasons, some of them interacting. Not really. It's now super-reductive, with basically two major causes that keep people getting into unsheltered homelessness: drugs and mental health issues. Any plan to combat homelessness must tackle these two issues. Now try my local homelessness graft agency's website: https://kcrha.org/data-overview/ https://kcrha.org/data-overview/ and look for their approach to mental health and drug abuse. > Some of the unhoused are anarchists who'd prefer to be untracked so they can commit crimes; I've seen that on the local news way too often. They are basically a rounding error at this point.
- mjevans 2y ago
  You ignore literally the sentence after which states: "However those are extreme cases that got regional news coverage." Yes, they're a topic of sensationalism that helps to direct public anger at the groups rather than more systemic solutions which would help the victims and expose the criminals.