3 ms·

https://ofhsoupkitchen.org/best-cities-to-be-homeless https://ofhsoupkitchen.org/best-cities-to-be-homeless 6 cities that have made substantial inroads on thei

https://ofhsoupkitchen.org/best-cities-to-be-homeless https://ofhsoupkitchen.org/best-cities-to-be-homeless 6 cities that have made substantial inroads on their homelessness problems. The way to do it seems to be to offer homeless people homes.

czhu12 2y ago
The title of this article is “6 Best Cities To Be Homeless in the US”. The article also says that two of them have made little to no progress with their homelessness (san Diego and Berkeley). And the others are still struggling with the problem. The article seems to answer the question of: where is it easiest to live on the street, as it mentions Berkeley and San Diego having good weather, therefore, being easier to live outside. The only success story seems to be Houston which famously has a low cost of living. I’m not sure this qualifies as a solution to the problem.
- throwup238 2y ago
  Housing First seems to be a success almost everywhere it is tried: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First Salt Lake City and Utah in general are the poster city/state for the program.
  - bradleyjg 2y ago
    I’ve been to Salt Lake City. They have street homeless.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      They also have a program that seems to be at least somewhat effective at helping them get out of that situation. The fact that it is less than 100% effective, or that some homeless may be unwilling to enter it, does not detract from the usefulness of the program.
      - bradleyjg 2y ago
        There’s been times and places in American history without visible street homeless. So I don’t think I’m setting an unreasonable bar for effective.
  - Rendello 2y ago
    I'm curious to know the difference in approach where it's is effective, and where it's not. I've heard nothing but good from HF with regards to places like Finland, but this CBC report from Ottawa is grim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QMJHp7KqTg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QMJHp7KqTg
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
This doesn’t work always, or even most of the time. There are populations of homeless people that refuse services and are homeless on purpose (for example to abuse drugs freely). I recall reading about situations like homeless people destroying shelter offered to them - for example stripping wiring or selling appliances to get cash to fuel addictions. There are some people that need mental health services and can’t survive even if offered shelter. That said, I do feel it is cheaper to subsidize housing directly than to fund the grift heavy homeless industrial complex that we find in cities like SF or Portland or Seattle, where lots of money is spent with no results.
- mmooss 2y ago
  In my experience, these are myths used to demonize people without homes and undermine programs to help them. Is there evidence that these issues are significant, or is it just something repeated on the Internet?
  - NicholasGurr 2y ago
    [flagged]

czhu12 2y ago

The title of this article is “6 Best Cities To Be Homeless in the US”. The article also says that two of them have made little to no progress with their homelessness (san Diego and Berkeley). And the others are still struggling with the problem. The article seems to answer the question of: where is it easiest to live on the street, as it mentions Berkeley and San Diego having good weather, therefore, being easier to live outside. The only success story seems to be Houston which famously has a low cost of living. I’m not sure this qualifies as a solution to the problem.

throwup238 2y ago
Housing First seems to be a success almost everywhere it is tried: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First Salt Lake City and Utah in general are the poster city/state for the program.
- bradleyjg 2y ago
  I’ve been to Salt Lake City. They have street homeless.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    They also have a program that seems to be at least somewhat effective at helping them get out of that situation. The fact that it is less than 100% effective, or that some homeless may be unwilling to enter it, does not detract from the usefulness of the program.
    - bradleyjg 2y ago
      There’s been times and places in American history without visible street homeless. So I don’t think I’m setting an unreasonable bar for effective.
- Rendello 2y ago
  I'm curious to know the difference in approach where it's is effective, and where it's not. I've heard nothing but good from HF with regards to places like Finland, but this CBC report from Ottawa is grim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QMJHp7KqTg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QMJHp7KqTg

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

This doesn’t work always, or even most of the time. There are populations of homeless people that refuse services and are homeless on purpose (for example to abuse drugs freely). I recall reading about situations like homeless people destroying shelter offered to them - for example stripping wiring or selling appliances to get cash to fuel addictions. There are some people that need mental health services and can’t survive even if offered shelter. That said, I do feel it is cheaper to subsidize housing directly than to fund the grift heavy homeless industrial complex that we find in cities like SF or Portland or Seattle, where lots of money is spent with no results.

mmooss 2y ago
In my experience, these are myths used to demonize people without homes and undermine programs to help them. Is there evidence that these issues are significant, or is it just something repeated on the Internet?
- NicholasGurr 2y ago
  [flagged]