6 ms·

> asking people who are used to rough and tumble life outside to then behave civilly indoors with zero tolerance seems…set for failure? This is what I'm saying

by Aunche 2y ago

> asking people who are used to rough and tumble life outside to then behave civilly indoors with zero tolerance seems…set for failure? This is what I'm saying the ranger is doing. Someone who gets extremely distressed by indoor living is not a good candidate taxpayer funded indoor living. On the other hand, that housing given to someone who is capable of navigating welfare bureaucracy on their own may actually enable someone who is at risk spiraling down a path of no return to turn their life around.

b112 2y ago
I've always wondered why such people don't live in a rural area. You could literally set aside parks for people wanting to live in this fashion, used to living in this fashion, but also provide facilities (bedding, small cabins, water supplies, washing machines, etc, etc). You'd need, I think, to have security guards on hand. Not to stop drug use, but instead to stop violence against other homeless, to intervene if medical attention is required, and so on. While the costs would be higher than some other solutions, it would be lower (I think) than paying for private housing. Of course, you'd have to force move people, and that's not going to happen. That is, unless you make squatting in a park a crime, and the result is "you're going to be incarcerated in this very nice outdoor place" the "jail". Maybe a medical order. My point is, I don't see an issue with some of your logic. Some people won't transition to inside living, or being close to others. But if you take people used to living in parks, move them to a park with cabins(tiny homes), and state run water/facilities, the cost might be the same, but they'd have a warm bed, etc.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  A few people might be cut out to be rural hermits, but most need other people to fuel their lifestyle with food, booze and drugs, etc. Hard to buy fent by stealing bicycles if you're in a remote park.
- ninalanyon 2y ago
  What everyone wants, and these people want more than most perhaps, is autonomy. Your idea might work so long as there are few rules that would cause people to be kicked out and so long as money is also provided. It probably won't work if people are forced into it because being forced into things is one of the reason they are in their situation already. More carrot and less stick, more compassion and less puritanism might have a chance of working.
- bombcar 2y ago
  The people who are capable of this do this on their own. The California high desert is full of variations of this in shacks and trailers across the nearly uninhabited expanse. The biggest problem is support, but if they can navigate enough to get government assistance they can survive for quite a long time.
- pkaeding 2y ago
  Your last idea reminds me of https://mlf.org/community-first/ https://mlf.org/community-first/ From what I hear, it is quite successful, giving their residents the dignity and autonomy they need to stand on their own.
  - b112 2y ago
    Neat. I was thinking more rural, but if this works, it works!
lazide 2y ago
The ranger is a hero. And hero’s are often toxic in long running scenarios for exactly the reason outlined - they are trying to make up for a systemic failure through self sacrifice, therefore enabling the underlying system failure.
- hnbad 2y ago
  This is needlessly cynical. The hero isn't toxic. The narrative of an individual effort in lieu of calling out the systemic issue is what's toxic. I don't see any way she could have better spent her energy contributing to systemic change whereas by doing what she does she literally improves the lives of others. Favoring narratives of individual heroes over narratives of systemic changes is a cultural problem. Whether it's Atlas Shrugged, the Odyssey or Harry Potter. It instills a learned helplessness and an artificial desire for a "strong man fix things" that can be very difficult to overcome. But it also atomizes and fractures society and benefits those with the most individual wealth and power. The ranger is a hero. What she is doing is good. But she shouldn't have to do it. And nobody should have to do so much. The article intentionally buries its lede: if this is what it takes to save one person, how can we save thousands? The implied answer is again helplessness: of course this isn't scalable so we can't. What she is doing is too much for one person, so we can't expect it of others. But the real answer is that literally none of this would be necessary if the system were actually built to help these people. Her work does not require a herculean effort because it is difficult. It requires so much effort because it is being made difficult. The right question isn't how can we scale this, the right question is how can we make it easy enough that we don't need her to be a hero. The question of scalability answers itself once you've removed the obstacles.
  - AStonesThrow 2y ago
    perhaps the pervasive narratives of systemic toxicity and chronic social issues that get us down? are those good for society? should we listen to those news stories all day? and believe that things are so awful that There Oughtta Be A Law And Reform? those who cried out to quote Tax The Rich unquote, were likewise upset by the tariffs being imposed which are taxes on the rich... a really uniform and effective one! taxing corporations by tariffs is much father reaching than taxing individuals. individual heroes. those who cannot interpret epic fantasy sagas as allegory or larger than Life metaphors are already helpless and they just need entertainment and some opiates.
hnbad 2y ago
> taxpayer funded I don't understand the reflexive nature many people present in jumping this kind of framing. Of course it's taxpayer funded. Everything is taxpayer funded. Even when it's not literally paid from taxes collected by the government, it's probably funded by people who pay taxes. The price you pay for your groceries funds not just the wholesale purchase of the goods you pay for but also the labor, facilities, equipment and resources used to purchase, deliver, store and sell those goods. Considering the total amount of taxes collected versus the revenue of the place you get your groceries, you probably contribute more of your income to operating that place than to any single service funded directly from taxes. The amount of those grocery expenses that goes directly into profits alone is probably still greater than that. Housing first specifically also literally is cheaper than the previous approach by reducing expenses for medical services, policing and incarceration. So "taxpayer funded" is neither a meaningful qualifier if taken literally nor do its implications stand up to scrutiny. The most common reason for using this phrase is an emotional appeal to selfishness. Your money is being spent without your say on services you don't benefit from. I find that framing morally appalling but even so, what is the alternative? What the US did before was more expensive. Not housing people means more health issues and ER visits. Throwing them in prison means housing and feeding them at a massive multiple of the cost of a housing first initiative. If you want to save costs without spending money on housing, I guess you could cut their access to medical services but then you might as well allow law enforcement to shoot them on sight as the outcome will be the same. > On the other hand, that housing given to someone who is capable of navigating welfare bureaucracy on their own What you're describing is triage, not housing the homeless. If your housing program is small enough that you have to engage in triage and turn people away, it's not addressing homelessness, it's addressing a fraction of the homeless population. It's better than nothing, sure, but it's not enough. Also triage means weighing the necessary resources for treatment against the likelihood of recovery and the likely extent of the recovery. You don't treat someone who can walk it off but you also don't treat someone who's in very poor health or too far gone to be saved without using a disproportionate amount of resources. Triage is not how you organize a hospital. Triage is how you respond to an overwhelming emergency situation without access to necessary resources. Triage is a last resort measure to reduce the number of people who will die, not a strategy for helping people survive and thrive. Homelessness is not a natural disaster, not a spontaneous pandemic. Homelessness is a longstanding social issue most often directly arising from poverty and lack of mental health support. If your concern is with the support being wasted on people with worse chances and not support being insufficiently funded for that kind of decision not having to be made, I think you might be overestimating your humanitarianism.

by Aunche 2y ago

b112 2y ago

I've always wondered why such people don't live in a rural area. You could literally set aside parks for people wanting to live in this fashion, used to living in this fashion, but also provide facilities (bedding, small cabins, water supplies, washing machines, etc, etc). You'd need, I think, to have security guards on hand. Not to stop drug use, but instead to stop violence against other homeless, to intervene if medical attention is required, and so on. While the costs would be higher than some other solutions, it would be lower (I think) than paying for private housing. Of course, you'd have to force move people, and that's not going to happen. That is, unless you make squatting in a park a crime, and the result is "you're going to be incarcerated in this very nice outdoor place" the "jail". Maybe a medical order. My point is, I don't see an issue with some of your logic. Some people won't transition to inside living, or being close to others. But if you take people used to living in parks, move them to a park with cabins(tiny homes), and state run water/facilities, the cost might be the same, but they'd have a warm bed, etc.

lupusreal 2y ago
A few people might be cut out to be rural hermits, but most need other people to fuel their lifestyle with food, booze and drugs, etc. Hard to buy fent by stealing bicycles if you're in a remote park.
ninalanyon 2y ago
What everyone wants, and these people want more than most perhaps, is autonomy. Your idea might work so long as there are few rules that would cause people to be kicked out and so long as money is also provided. It probably won't work if people are forced into it because being forced into things is one of the reason they are in their situation already. More carrot and less stick, more compassion and less puritanism might have a chance of working.
bombcar 2y ago
The people who are capable of this do this on their own. The California high desert is full of variations of this in shacks and trailers across the nearly uninhabited expanse. The biggest problem is support, but if they can navigate enough to get government assistance they can survive for quite a long time.
pkaeding 2y ago
Your last idea reminds me of https://mlf.org/community-first/ https://mlf.org/community-first/ From what I hear, it is quite successful, giving their residents the dignity and autonomy they need to stand on their own.
- b112 2y ago
  Neat. I was thinking more rural, but if this works, it works!

lazide 2y ago

The ranger is a hero. And hero’s are often toxic in long running scenarios for exactly the reason outlined - they are trying to make up for a systemic failure through self sacrifice, therefore enabling the underlying system failure.

hnbad 2y ago
This is needlessly cynical. The hero isn't toxic. The narrative of an individual effort in lieu of calling out the systemic issue is what's toxic. I don't see any way she could have better spent her energy contributing to systemic change whereas by doing what she does she literally improves the lives of others. Favoring narratives of individual heroes over narratives of systemic changes is a cultural problem. Whether it's Atlas Shrugged, the Odyssey or Harry Potter. It instills a learned helplessness and an artificial desire for a "strong man fix things" that can be very difficult to overcome. But it also atomizes and fractures society and benefits those with the most individual wealth and power. The ranger is a hero. What she is doing is good. But she shouldn't have to do it. And nobody should have to do so much. The article intentionally buries its lede: if this is what it takes to save one person, how can we save thousands? The implied answer is again helplessness: of course this isn't scalable so we can't. What she is doing is too much for one person, so we can't expect it of others. But the real answer is that literally none of this would be necessary if the system were actually built to help these people. Her work does not require a herculean effort because it is difficult. It requires so much effort because it is being made difficult. The right question isn't how can we scale this, the right question is how can we make it easy enough that we don't need her to be a hero. The question of scalability answers itself once you've removed the obstacles.
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  perhaps the pervasive narratives of systemic toxicity and chronic social issues that get us down? are those good for society? should we listen to those news stories all day? and believe that things are so awful that There Oughtta Be A Law And Reform? those who cried out to quote Tax The Rich unquote, were likewise upset by the tariffs being imposed which are taxes on the rich... a really uniform and effective one! taxing corporations by tariffs is much father reaching than taxing individuals. individual heroes. those who cannot interpret epic fantasy sagas as allegory or larger than Life metaphors are already helpless and they just need entertainment and some opiates.

hnbad 2y ago

> taxpayer funded I don't understand the reflexive nature many people present in jumping this kind of framing. Of course it's taxpayer funded. Everything is taxpayer funded. Even when it's not literally paid from taxes collected by the government, it's probably funded by people who pay taxes. The price you pay for your groceries funds not just the wholesale purchase of the goods you pay for but also the labor, facilities, equipment and resources used to purchase, deliver, store and sell those goods. Considering the total amount of taxes collected versus the revenue of the place you get your groceries, you probably contribute more of your income to operating that place than to any single service funded directly from taxes. The amount of those grocery expenses that goes directly into profits alone is probably still greater than that. Housing first specifically also literally is cheaper than the previous approach by reducing expenses for medical services, policing and incarceration. So "taxpayer funded" is neither a meaningful qualifier if taken literally nor do its implications stand up to scrutiny. The most common reason for using this phrase is an emotional appeal to selfishness. Your money is being spent without your say on services you don't benefit from. I find that framing morally appalling but even so, what is the alternative? What the US did before was more expensive. Not housing people means more health issues and ER visits. Throwing them in prison means housing and feeding them at a massive multiple of the cost of a housing first initiative. If you want to save costs without spending money on housing, I guess you could cut their access to medical services but then you might as well allow law enforcement to shoot them on sight as the outcome will be the same. > On the other hand, that housing given to someone who is capable of navigating welfare bureaucracy on their own What you're describing is triage, not housing the homeless. If your housing program is small enough that you have to engage in triage and turn people away, it's not addressing homelessness, it's addressing a fraction of the homeless population. It's better than nothing, sure, but it's not enough. Also triage means weighing the necessary resources for treatment against the likelihood of recovery and the likely extent of the recovery. You don't treat someone who can walk it off but you also don't treat someone who's in very poor health or too far gone to be saved without using a disproportionate amount of resources. Triage is not how you organize a hospital. Triage is how you respond to an overwhelming emergency situation without access to necessary resources. Triage is a last resort measure to reduce the number of people who will die, not a strategy for helping people survive and thrive. Homelessness is not a natural disaster, not a spontaneous pandemic. Homelessness is a longstanding social issue most often directly arising from poverty and lack of mental health support. If your concern is with the support being wasted on people with worse chances and not support being insufficiently funded for that kind of decision not having to be made, I think you might be overestimating your humanitarianism.