4 ms·

I live in a city with a large number of unhoused people. I think I would use unlimited resources to buy and renovate old buildings[1] downtown to build housing,

I live in a city with a large number of unhoused people. I think I would use unlimited resources to buy and renovate old buildings[1] downtown to build housing, and fund support services on-site to help people escape homelessness and addiction. I would want to solve this because unhoused people are suffering, and downtown (as a neighborhood) has been sort of hollowed out by business choosing to leave for practical reasons (WFH) and because of the perception of "too many" unhoused people. I love downtown, it's just not a pleasant place to spend time, especially at night. I do not have the resources nor the political acumen for these kinds of initiatives, and I think it would take a great deal of resources to not only buy the land but demolish or renovate the buildings. It would create a lot of jobs (construction at first) but I think there's a large amount of activation energy required to get started. [1]: https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/legal-action-taken-against-owner-of-california-theatre/509-27b417a3-bd76-47b4-bd6f-33eb63eee529 https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/legal-action-taken-a...

AStonesThrow 1y ago
But why would you do that when you are guaranteed to fail? It's very twee of people to believe that solving homelessness is a matter of resource allocation, or if we were all just more philanthropic, or if only there were more services and we could get to people where they're at. But it's never a matter of these things. Being homeless has many advantages, many perks, and indeed there are non-negligible percentages of homeless people who prefer to be that way. And if you try to talk them out of it, they will resist. And there are also non-negligible percentages of homeless people who don't know how to be anything but, and when it becomes a way of life for them, they are technically feral, and it is simply a monumental effort to change them into "housed people" who can actually manage a stable household. That's a big ask for so many people, including those who do not struggle with mental health and addiction issues. The root causes of homelessness are manifold and varied. There may be a dozen identifiable root causes here; are you going to attack all of them equally? Even your unlimited resources cannot. You need to work with a willing population here. Many homeless people are simply unwilling. Many others are not so selfish that they wouldn't share those resources with others, and that's a huge problem. Section 8 regularly chases people out after they've let in undesirable guests. SNAP has to close out people who are sharing their food resources. If you've got unlimited resources, then who's going to tell you that you need to allocate them judiciously to get the best impact? One huge reason that people are out on the streets is because, 50 years ago, they may have been institutionalized. And that can't be done presently, so they are held by "virtual restraints" such as drugs and clinics. And so, if you really wanted to get people off the streets, would you ramp up imprisonment and incarceration? Would you lower the standards, to institutionalize people who cannot care for themselves? What sort of mass labor camps and imprisonment looks attractive to you at this point, Mr. Unlimited Resources? Would you also pay for the trains to cart them off to wherever they are designated? It doesn't feel so good to "get people off the streets" when your realistic alternatives have an unsavory edge to them.
- _luiza_ 1y ago
  The "choice" to be homeless sort of confuses adaptation with preference. People don't _choose_ trauma responses; brains develop survival mechanisms that self-reinforce when lacking intervention. Complex problems require layered solutions, but difficulty is not equal to impossibility. Also, not trying kinda makes us a tiny bit more evil. Homelessness is tractable when we understand that basic/fundamental needs precede behavior change ^^
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    > Homelessness is tractable when we understand that basic/fundamental needs precede behavior change ^^ Unfortunately, and it breaks my heart to conclude that, some people can't be brought back to socialization. I'm talking from first-person experience living in the streets for a while.
    - fuzzfactor 1y ago
      That is a realistic attitude. I think problems like this can be best informed by those who have interacted with very different kinds of homelessness on its own terms. But there are so many people already where actual bare-bones housing is so inadequate, and it's been that way for so long, that desperation can only increase. More & more of whom are working for a living but that's just not quite enough to maintain domestic life as much as it used to be. There is just no substitute for more housing in the most generous way. OTOH whether it's somebody who's penniless, or a rock star on endless tour, or anything in between, if they are not congruent with domestic life, or domestic life is not suitable for them, this is not where domestic housing effort is helpful. Depending on need or desperation, other kinds of help which can make a bigger positive impact is where effort should be concentrated. Accelerated transition from homeless to a domestic environment should turn into a successfully beaten path with stronger force enabling it, but is most sensible only for those who are most suitable. Actual "socialization" may still be too high a bar for some of those who thrive domestically otherwise, but the reverse can also be true.
    - didgetmaster 1y ago

AStonesThrow 1y ago

But why would you do that when you are guaranteed to fail? It's very twee of people to believe that solving homelessness is a matter of resource allocation, or if we were all just more philanthropic, or if only there were more services and we could get to people where they're at. But it's never a matter of these things. Being homeless has many advantages, many perks, and indeed there are non-negligible percentages of homeless people who prefer to be that way. And if you try to talk them out of it, they will resist. And there are also non-negligible percentages of homeless people who don't know how to be anything but, and when it becomes a way of life for them, they are technically feral, and it is simply a monumental effort to change them into "housed people" who can actually manage a stable household. That's a big ask for so many people, including those who do not struggle with mental health and addiction issues. The root causes of homelessness are manifold and varied. There may be a dozen identifiable root causes here; are you going to attack all of them equally? Even your unlimited resources cannot. You need to work with a willing population here. Many homeless people are simply unwilling. Many others are not so selfish that they wouldn't share those resources with others, and that's a huge problem. Section 8 regularly chases people out after they've let in undesirable guests. SNAP has to close out people who are sharing their food resources. If you've got unlimited resources, then who's going to tell you that you need to allocate them judiciously to get the best impact? One huge reason that people are out on the streets is because, 50 years ago, they may have been institutionalized. And that can't be done presently, so they are held by "virtual restraints" such as drugs and clinics. And so, if you really wanted to get people off the streets, would you ramp up imprisonment and incarceration? Would you lower the standards, to institutionalize people who cannot care for themselves? What sort of mass labor camps and imprisonment looks attractive to you at this point, Mr. Unlimited Resources? Would you also pay for the trains to cart them off to wherever they are designated? It doesn't feel so good to "get people off the streets" when your realistic alternatives have an unsavory edge to them.

_luiza_ 1y ago
The "choice" to be homeless sort of confuses adaptation with preference. People don't _choose_ trauma responses; brains develop survival mechanisms that self-reinforce when lacking intervention. Complex problems require layered solutions, but difficulty is not equal to impossibility. Also, not trying kinda makes us a tiny bit more evil. Homelessness is tractable when we understand that basic/fundamental needs precede behavior change ^^
- owebmaster 1y ago
  > Homelessness is tractable when we understand that basic/fundamental needs precede behavior change ^^ Unfortunately, and it breaks my heart to conclude that, some people can't be brought back to socialization. I'm talking from first-person experience living in the streets for a while.
  - fuzzfactor 1y ago
    That is a realistic attitude. I think problems like this can be best informed by those who have interacted with very different kinds of homelessness on its own terms. But there are so many people already where actual bare-bones housing is so inadequate, and it's been that way for so long, that desperation can only increase. More & more of whom are working for a living but that's just not quite enough to maintain domestic life as much as it used to be. There is just no substitute for more housing in the most generous way. OTOH whether it's somebody who's penniless, or a rock star on endless tour, or anything in between, if they are not congruent with domestic life, or domestic life is not suitable for them, this is not where domestic housing effort is helpful. Depending on need or desperation, other kinds of help which can make a bigger positive impact is where effort should be concentrated. Accelerated transition from homeless to a domestic environment should turn into a successfully beaten path with stronger force enabling it, but is most sensible only for those who are most suitable. Actual "socialization" may still be too high a bar for some of those who thrive domestically otherwise, but the reverse can also be true.
  - didgetmaster 1y ago