3 ms·

There are really two distinct homelessness problems: 1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistanc

There are really two distinct homelessness problems: 1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistance to get back on their feet. These people live out of their cars and are largely invisible. 2. The chronically homeless. These are drug users who infest public spaces and are highly visible and disruptive. When laypeople talk about “homelessness”, they typically mean 2 as it’s more visible and disruptive to them.

mmooss 2y ago
> There are really two distinct homelessness problems: > 1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistance to get back on their feet. These people live out of their cars and are largely invisible. > 2. The chronically homeless. These are drug users who infest public spaces and are highly visible and disruptive. What is that based on? Do you have any data to support these categories as something real? It sounds a lot like, '1) people I like; and 2) people I hate.' It's wrong to discuss human beings like animals, and as if they exist to please or displease you, and as if they can be treated like animals. They are people with their own experiences, like you, sensations and emotions and lives, who matter just as much as you do and belong in public spaces just as much. I've spent lots of time in major cities; chronically homeless people are among the least disruptive, and I've talked to many and know a few people in that situation; people on opioids are in their own worlds, often in a dream.
- in-pursuit 2y ago
  I'd recommend a quick Google search for "types of homelessness" or "chronic homelessness" before proffering any personal attacks.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    If you are making the claim, it's up to you to support it. I'm not doing your research.
    - in-pursuit 2y ago
      I'm not asking you to do research, I'm asking you to look up definitions you don't understand. There's a difference.
davidw 2y ago
This is a good point, but part of what the article is saying is that where housing is cheap, some of even those "at the margins of society" people with some drug problems can maybe stay housed. Which means fixing the drug part of their problems is easier than if they're moving around on the streets.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  Ya, but isn’t that complete BS? I lived in Vicksburg MS, and while housing is definitely cheap, it’s not free, and you can’t really survive there if you can’t make any money at all. So you either die or move.
  - davidw 2y ago
    It's kind of helpful to think of the world in percentages, rather than "1 or 0, black or white". Some people with drug problems are able to hold down some minimum wage work or part time jobs or something that brings in money. In Mississippi, that might be enough to keep you housed. In Los Angeles, it's not. Also you're more likely to be able to stay with a friend or relative with some extra space if housing isn't so tight: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-housing-shortages-cause-homelessness/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-housing-shortages-cause...
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Yes, that’s totally true! I think this is a much more interesting problem when we get rid of the drug addiction component. It is just sad that drug addiction is consuming all of our social resources that could otherwise go into solving housing problems. A lot of kids from Vicksburg also move to LA and don’t make it because of housing costs, so they move elsewhere. But should they have made it? Should LA be affordable enough for everyone who wants to live there to live there? If not, but we want to subsidize housing for some segment of the American population to live in LA, how do we prioritize? If yes, how much housing do we need to build to satisfy all American and international demand to live in LA?
xboxnolifes 2y ago
The second category isn't just drug users. It's also people who are not mentally capable of keeping up the routine of decisions that keep them off the streets. Opposite of the "temporarily unhoused" category, they tend to be "temporarily housed".

mmooss 2y ago

> There are really two distinct homelessness problems: > 1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistance to get back on their feet. These people live out of their cars and are largely invisible. > 2. The chronically homeless. These are drug users who infest public spaces and are highly visible and disruptive. What is that based on? Do you have any data to support these categories as something real? It sounds a lot like, '1) people I like; and 2) people I hate.' It's wrong to discuss human beings like animals, and as if they exist to please or displease you, and as if they can be treated like animals. They are people with their own experiences, like you, sensations and emotions and lives, who matter just as much as you do and belong in public spaces just as much. I've spent lots of time in major cities; chronically homeless people are among the least disruptive, and I've talked to many and know a few people in that situation; people on opioids are in their own worlds, often in a dream.

in-pursuit 2y ago
I'd recommend a quick Google search for "types of homelessness" or "chronic homelessness" before proffering any personal attacks.
- mmooss 2y ago
  If you are making the claim, it's up to you to support it. I'm not doing your research.
  - in-pursuit 2y ago
    I'm not asking you to do research, I'm asking you to look up definitions you don't understand. There's a difference.

davidw 2y ago

This is a good point, but part of what the article is saying is that where housing is cheap, some of even those "at the margins of society" people with some drug problems can maybe stay housed. Which means fixing the drug part of their problems is easier than if they're moving around on the streets.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
Ya, but isn’t that complete BS? I lived in Vicksburg MS, and while housing is definitely cheap, it’s not free, and you can’t really survive there if you can’t make any money at all. So you either die or move.
- davidw 2y ago
  It's kind of helpful to think of the world in percentages, rather than "1 or 0, black or white". Some people with drug problems are able to hold down some minimum wage work or part time jobs or something that brings in money. In Mississippi, that might be enough to keep you housed. In Los Angeles, it's not. Also you're more likely to be able to stay with a friend or relative with some extra space if housing isn't so tight: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-housing-shortages-cause-homelessness/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-housing-shortages-cause...
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Yes, that’s totally true! I think this is a much more interesting problem when we get rid of the drug addiction component. It is just sad that drug addiction is consuming all of our social resources that could otherwise go into solving housing problems. A lot of kids from Vicksburg also move to LA and don’t make it because of housing costs, so they move elsewhere. But should they have made it? Should LA be affordable enough for everyone who wants to live there to live there? If not, but we want to subsidize housing for some segment of the American population to live in LA, how do we prioritize? If yes, how much housing do we need to build to satisfy all American and international demand to live in LA?

xboxnolifes 2y ago

The second category isn't just drug users. It's also people who are not mentally capable of keeping up the routine of decisions that keep them off the streets. Opposite of the "temporarily unhoused" category, they tend to be "temporarily housed".