it’s not that simple, the biggest argument is that the core of the problem that made someone homeless is still there.
if you made someone obese fit with swish-and-flick of a magic wand, they would end up fat again in a couple of years, because being fit is much more than just having muscles instead of fat.
I’m not saying that every homeless is in the same situation of course, but you have to fix the problem that let them spiral down before trying to fix the problem by just throwing money at it.
Housing first works vastly better than any other homelessness strategy we’ve implemented. Turns out, if you don’t have a safe place to rest and just live, you have a far harder time getting all the other issues resolved. Housing is the first step, not the end goal.
To add another layer of complexity, if all the most visible of the homeless - the crazy, the drug addicts, etc - were to vanish overnight, we would immediately stop caring about the remaining “good homeless” because they don’t impact our daily lives.
I think I’m missing something. How would offerring housing result in the visible homeless disappearing and not the invisible/“good” homeless? The housing is being offered to both, right?
I’m giving a hypothetical scenario that’s not directly related to the concept of offering housing.
My point was that we need solutions for both the visible and invisible homeless, though the current drive for solutions is almost entirely because of the visible homeless.
And I was saying that to illustrate the complexity of the situation.
Oh okay, thanks. Yeah, it sucks to think about, but homelessness in general would probably be talked about a whole lot less if not for people’s own discomfort with seeing it—and there are probably both good and bad reasons for that. I think there are situations where a homeless person makes people uncomfortable because of their own behavior, and there are others where people are uncomfortable with homeless people just because they think they make the neighborhood unattractive or whatever. Those are both obviously very different, but they both fit into the category of visible homeless people and ‘reasons the general public cares about homelessness’; that is, like you said, self interest.
I agree that there’d be a whole lot less conversation about it if the only homeless people were those living in shelters, couch-hopping, or otherwise removed from the public eye, even if it were still just as common and people were generally aware of it. Take out the personal stake, and people just would care as much.
Which is upsetting to me because the amount of genuine problems caused by homeless people (overall; I’m not implying that all or most homeless people actively cause problems) is virtually nothing when compared to the problems that homeless people themselves deal with. People care about the homeless, but not, for the most part, because they care about the homeless.
Ugh, this sucks. Sorry for the wall of text. Tl;dr, I’m not disagreeing with you at all, just thinking out loud (with way too many words, sorry again).
This is a non-issue. The solution IS that simple, actually. Give anyone who does want a home a home. If the others don’t want a home well that’s on them. Kinda throwing out the baby with the bathwater saying it’s not so easy because it won’t solve every problem for everyone.
I’ll agree that it requires immense public buy in, that’s part of why I’m as passionate and emphatic about it as I am. For sure it’s going to require some changing minds.
When I said non-issue, I’m talking from the perspective of societal problems. A person who wants housing and does not have it is an issue regardless of how. A person who does not want housing and does not have housing is a non-issue. They’re living in a way I don’t necessarily think is best, but they’re living how they want.
As far as bussing goes, that’s just a shit practice by a shit group. Not really relevant to the broader discussion of solving homelessness. That NIMBY attitude is definitely part of the public buy in that needs to be addressed.
People are homeless for many different reasons. Mental health and drug addiction are two big ones. Then there are the handicapped, those that can’t hold down a job. Those that lost everything they had. And even those that just want to be homeless.
People look at the homeless population though their own biases. Their framing is that people want a house.
We could try and give a house to every one of these people and they wouldn’t all take it. Some would destroy it and return to being homeless, either maliciously or as.a byproduct of their mental illness.
We should house the ones we can, feed the ones we can, and treat the health of the ones we can. Those that want rehab should get it, but I don’t think every drug addict out there wants to be cured. We should provide showers and clean clothes.
We need to remove the stigma from the homeless.
We need to make it easier for businesses to hire the homeless.
And we could do all that, and more. And we’d still have homeless. We will always have homeless. There is no holistic solution that will magically house everyone.
The people who don’t want houses aren’t the issue. They can choose not to have one, fine. That’s on them. Housing first has been very successful in certain European countries and cities. A safe place to live is the FIRST step to solving all of those issues, not the pot at the end of the life improvement rainbow.
Just getting people who DO want to offer the street dramatically improves mental health issues, substance abuse issues, lessens their strain on healthcare systems, lowers crime rate… it’s the obvious first step.
I wouldn’t want to be housed either, if it came with a laundry list of stipulations, requirements, and more or less complete destruction of autonomy. I doubt anyone would turn down a free, no-questions-asked place to call a home. Somewhere safe to rest and begin working on the issues naturally.
Housing first tends to more or less solve, or drastically reduce, homelessness and all the associated negative things - crime, substance abuse, medical issues, etc. Turns out it’s easier to get all the other things sorted and get back to society when you have the bare minimum left.
Sure there will probably be a very small percentage of people who just… don’t want to. They’re actually happy doing their thing, and that’s not really a problem. But I’d strongly doubt it’s less than a tenth of a percent of the current homeless population.
Then what’s the point of you saying some people don’t want houses? You said earlier you think they should have them, but you bring up that some don’t want them. Ok, we’re not talking about them. What point are you making?
I don’t know if you misspoke or if I’m just misreading it. I really hope you’re not making the “these people aren’t changing their circumstances so they must by definition be Happy in them” argument. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification because that’s a fuckin dumb argument lol
Because… getting housing often means losing the community support they get from other homeless. If you get a house, but lose your friends and support system and the people who (eg) go shopping for you, then how is that a win?
These people would happily be housed if it didn’t mean yanking them away from their community.
So the solution is to house entire homeless communities together and at the same time.
Single room apartments with communal cooking, recreation and bathing areas seem like the most cost effective and amicable solution. You could even convert old prisons so they aren’t dehumanizing.
Why would they lose their community? All their homeless friends also get free housing, probably in the same building or nearby. Their friends who did shopping and shit for them, there’s probably more reason than they’re homeless that they’re helping out. And if you’re referring to state or private institutions, there’s no reason not to keep those resources available.
Further, the former homeless now has more opportunities to form even better communities, and start standing on their own. It’s wins all the way around. Hell, it even ends up being CHEAPER for the average person, because crime tends to go down, medical expenses go down, etc.
That’s not how housing works. You answer the housing lottery, get in the queue, and eventually you get a house if you’re lucky. So when you look at a homeless community, it’s random who gets a house when.
Look up the podcast “according to need”. They talked with a bunch of homeless people and did a great analysis of the situation. It’s only like 5 or 6 episodes.
Right. That’s not how it works. Right now. There’s no reason it can’t work better. I could spitball ideas, but I’m not an expert, so anything I proposed would be full of holes. Off the top of my head, I could see initiatives to locate homeless communities, and building higher density dwellings somewhere central to them and the resources they’d need, with the intent to keep these communities as close as possible.
Housing first doesn’t have to interfere with any of that. A reasonable home will allow you to have a pet. They’ll need those support structures on the street or off, it wouldn’t make sense to cut them off. Anyone with a mental health issue is ONLY going to have a better time with a safe, private space they can call their own, and housing first means there’s no stipulation to getting off drugs, until you’re ready.
Redefine housing as the FIRST step and not the pot of gold at the end of the societal expectation rainbow, and you’ll get a lot further.
Typically that’s how the “housing first” schemes I’ve seen work. It would be political suicide for a group to condone drug use in their public housing, and financial suicide to allow dogs (insurance would drop them) for example.
It’s rarely as simple as “just do this simple thing and you solve this giant systemic problem”
Then that’s not housing first lol. Housing first means just that, housing FIRST. Before anything else. It’s worked in some countries, off the top of my head Finland. People don’t just get clean without safety, security, privacy, and dignity, and those things are practically impossible to achieve on the streets.
This is one of those things that, yeah, actually. If we did the obvious, simple, humanitarian thing it’d work out to be drastically better for like, everyone except maybe the most well-off. The problem, as you alluded to, isn’t one of practicality but of politics.
Yes it is absolutely the case as I have seen in the thirty years I have volunteered with homeless shelters.
Typically it is PTSD that sometimes leads to violent responses that makes these people want to be unhoused. We have a lot of vets in my country, The USA, who aren’t getting the mental health care they need. Some of these people are on the streets because they do not trust themselves around loved ones.
Yeah, actually, it is. Saying any significant fraction of the homeless population wants to be homeless is at BEST ignorant, and most likely a smoke screen to distract from the actual discussion. You’ve yet to provide any rebuttal than “I’ve seen homeless people who didn’t want housing!” And nothing supporting it.
Facts not every unhoused person wants to be housed. We need to address those issues as well if we want to confront the issue.
But just letting people have housing if they want would already massively help so many people.
The argument that because not all of them want a house so we shouldn’t do it, is literally just the perfect being the enemy of good.
it’s not that simple, the biggest argument is that the core of the problem that made someone homeless is still there.
if you made someone obese fit with swish-and-flick of a magic wand, they would end up fat again in a couple of years, because being fit is much more than just having muscles instead of fat.
I’m not saying that every homeless is in the same situation of course, but you have to fix the problem that let them spiral down before trying to fix the problem by just throwing money at it.
Edit: fixed the link, blame mobile
Housing first works vastly better than any other homelessness strategy we’ve implemented. Turns out, if you don’t have a safe place to rest and just live, you have a far harder time getting all the other issues resolved. Housing is the first step, not the end goal.
Hopefully I fixed the link, if not quick Google scholar search for housing first, first link
link is broken
Oof. Downside of Mobile I suppose. Let me see if I can fix it
I never said we shouldn’t do it. I said that some unhoused don’t want to be housed so the solution isn’t that simple.
To add another layer of complexity, if all the most visible of the homeless - the crazy, the drug addicts, etc - were to vanish overnight, we would immediately stop caring about the remaining “good homeless” because they don’t impact our daily lives.
I think I’m missing something. How would offerring housing result in the visible homeless disappearing and not the invisible/“good” homeless? The housing is being offered to both, right?
I’m giving a hypothetical scenario that’s not directly related to the concept of offering housing.
My point was that we need solutions for both the visible and invisible homeless, though the current drive for solutions is almost entirely because of the visible homeless.
And I was saying that to illustrate the complexity of the situation.
Oh okay, thanks. Yeah, it sucks to think about, but homelessness in general would probably be talked about a whole lot less if not for people’s own discomfort with seeing it—and there are probably both good and bad reasons for that. I think there are situations where a homeless person makes people uncomfortable because of their own behavior, and there are others where people are uncomfortable with homeless people just because they think they make the neighborhood unattractive or whatever. Those are both obviously very different, but they both fit into the category of visible homeless people and ‘reasons the general public cares about homelessness’; that is, like you said, self interest.
I agree that there’d be a whole lot less conversation about it if the only homeless people were those living in shelters, couch-hopping, or otherwise removed from the public eye, even if it were still just as common and people were generally aware of it. Take out the personal stake, and people just would care as much.
Which is upsetting to me because the amount of genuine problems caused by homeless people (overall; I’m not implying that all or most homeless people actively cause problems) is virtually nothing when compared to the problems that homeless people themselves deal with. People care about the homeless, but not, for the most part, because they care about the homeless.
Ugh, this sucks. Sorry for the wall of text. Tl;dr, I’m not disagreeing with you at all, just thinking out loud (with way too many words, sorry again).
I agree with everything, especially “ugh, this sucks”.
This is a non-issue. The solution IS that simple, actually. Give anyone who does want a home a home. If the others don’t want a home well that’s on them. Kinda throwing out the baby with the bathwater saying it’s not so easy because it won’t solve every problem for everyone.
Removed by mod
I’ll agree that it requires immense public buy in, that’s part of why I’m as passionate and emphatic about it as I am. For sure it’s going to require some changing minds.
When I said non-issue, I’m talking from the perspective of societal problems. A person who wants housing and does not have it is an issue regardless of how. A person who does not want housing and does not have housing is a non-issue. They’re living in a way I don’t necessarily think is best, but they’re living how they want.
As far as bussing goes, that’s just a shit practice by a shit group. Not really relevant to the broader discussion of solving homelessness. That NIMBY attitude is definitely part of the public buy in that needs to be addressed.
Removed by mod
Houses are only a small piece of the puzzle.
People are homeless for many different reasons. Mental health and drug addiction are two big ones. Then there are the handicapped, those that can’t hold down a job. Those that lost everything they had. And even those that just want to be homeless.
People look at the homeless population though their own biases. Their framing is that people want a house.
We could try and give a house to every one of these people and they wouldn’t all take it. Some would destroy it and return to being homeless, either maliciously or as.a byproduct of their mental illness.
We should house the ones we can, feed the ones we can, and treat the health of the ones we can. Those that want rehab should get it, but I don’t think every drug addict out there wants to be cured. We should provide showers and clean clothes.
We need to remove the stigma from the homeless.
We need to make it easier for businesses to hire the homeless.
And we could do all that, and more. And we’d still have homeless. We will always have homeless. There is no holistic solution that will magically house everyone.
The people who don’t want houses aren’t the issue. They can choose not to have one, fine. That’s on them. Housing first has been very successful in certain European countries and cities. A safe place to live is the FIRST step to solving all of those issues, not the pot at the end of the life improvement rainbow.
Just getting people who DO want to offer the street dramatically improves mental health issues, substance abuse issues, lessens their strain on healthcare systems, lowers crime rate… it’s the obvious first step.
I wouldn’t want to be housed either, if it came with a laundry list of stipulations, requirements, and more or less complete destruction of autonomy. I doubt anyone would turn down a free, no-questions-asked place to call a home. Somewhere safe to rest and begin working on the issues naturally.
Housing first tends to more or less solve, or drastically reduce, homelessness and all the associated negative things - crime, substance abuse, medical issues, etc. Turns out it’s easier to get all the other things sorted and get back to society when you have the bare minimum left.
Sure there will probably be a very small percentage of people who just… don’t want to. They’re actually happy doing their thing, and that’s not really a problem. But I’d strongly doubt it’s less than a tenth of a percent of the current homeless population.
Im not sure how large the number is only that in the decades I have volunteered with shelters that some exist.
Sure, some. And some people eat shit for fun, it’s a minority of a minority, and I’d put good money on that
Like I said I can’t say how big or small the number is. It isn’t the majority as most unhoused people are not chronically unhoused.
Then what’s the point of you saying some people don’t want houses? You said earlier you think they should have them, but you bring up that some don’t want them. Ok, we’re not talking about them. What point are you making?
Also by definition it’s 0% of the current homeless population who is unhappy being homeless.
I don’t know if you misspoke or if I’m just misreading it. I really hope you’re not making the “these people aren’t changing their circumstances so they must by definition be Happy in them” argument. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification because that’s a fuckin dumb argument lol
Because… getting housing often means losing the community support they get from other homeless. If you get a house, but lose your friends and support system and the people who (eg) go shopping for you, then how is that a win?
These people would happily be housed if it didn’t mean yanking them away from their community.
So the solution is to house entire homeless communities together and at the same time.
Single room apartments with communal cooking, recreation and bathing areas seem like the most cost effective and amicable solution. You could even convert old prisons so they aren’t dehumanizing.
Why would they lose their community? All their homeless friends also get free housing, probably in the same building or nearby. Their friends who did shopping and shit for them, there’s probably more reason than they’re homeless that they’re helping out. And if you’re referring to state or private institutions, there’s no reason not to keep those resources available.
Further, the former homeless now has more opportunities to form even better communities, and start standing on their own. It’s wins all the way around. Hell, it even ends up being CHEAPER for the average person, because crime tends to go down, medical expenses go down, etc.
That’s not how housing works. You answer the housing lottery, get in the queue, and eventually you get a house if you’re lucky. So when you look at a homeless community, it’s random who gets a house when.
Look up the podcast “according to need”. They talked with a bunch of homeless people and did a great analysis of the situation. It’s only like 5 or 6 episodes.
Right. That’s not how it works. Right now. There’s no reason it can’t work better. I could spitball ideas, but I’m not an expert, so anything I proposed would be full of holes. Off the top of my head, I could see initiatives to locate homeless communities, and building higher density dwellings somewhere central to them and the resources they’d need, with the intent to keep these communities as close as possible.
I’ll listen to that podcast for sure.
Oh yes. It’s the current approach that causes people to reject housing. I think those are some really good ideas for better options.
Is that really true? Answer that first.
Then, if so, answer this: why? That’s an important question.
Do they just enjoy sleeping outside and being pissed on? Somehow I doubt it.
In addition to what the other guy said:
not wanting to give up drugs
not wanting to give up pets
not wanting to give up the support structure (services, charities, other homeless) that they’ve spent a long time building up
straight up mental incapacity to live by themselves (schizophrenia, etc)
None of these are a simple desire to be unhoused.
Sure, but no one was talking about that.
None of those things are cookies.
None of those things are Hegelian dialectics.
We could do this all day but I don’t see the point.
Yes, they were. They were saying that for a majority, they simply don’t want a home.
Oh yeah? Quote it.
That is not even close to “for a majority, they simply don’t want a home”.
Housing first doesn’t have to interfere with any of that. A reasonable home will allow you to have a pet. They’ll need those support structures on the street or off, it wouldn’t make sense to cut them off. Anyone with a mental health issue is ONLY going to have a better time with a safe, private space they can call their own, and housing first means there’s no stipulation to getting off drugs, until you’re ready.
Redefine housing as the FIRST step and not the pot of gold at the end of the societal expectation rainbow, and you’ll get a lot further.
Yes, so we need to be offering more than just housing, but rather a whole package.
Yeah? I don’t think I, of anyone else, proposed only housing ever.
Typically that’s how the “housing first” schemes I’ve seen work. It would be political suicide for a group to condone drug use in their public housing, and financial suicide to allow dogs (insurance would drop them) for example.
It’s rarely as simple as “just do this simple thing and you solve this giant systemic problem”
Then that’s not housing first lol. Housing first means just that, housing FIRST. Before anything else. It’s worked in some countries, off the top of my head Finland. People don’t just get clean without safety, security, privacy, and dignity, and those things are practically impossible to achieve on the streets.
This is one of those things that, yeah, actually. If we did the obvious, simple, humanitarian thing it’d work out to be drastically better for like, everyone except maybe the most well-off. The problem, as you alluded to, isn’t one of practicality but of politics.
Yes it is absolutely the case as I have seen in the thirty years I have volunteered with homeless shelters.
Typically it is PTSD that sometimes leads to violent responses that makes these people want to be unhoused. We have a lot of vets in my country, The USA, who aren’t getting the mental health care they need. Some of these people are on the streets because they do not trust themselves around loved ones.
So, you get my point. It isn’t just a desire to be on the street because they think it’s cool and fun.
I never said it was
It’s what you imply when you say they don’t want a home.
No it isn’t. That’s bullshit you are adding on your own.
Yeah, actually, it is. Saying any significant fraction of the homeless population wants to be homeless is at BEST ignorant, and most likely a smoke screen to distract from the actual discussion. You’ve yet to provide any rebuttal than “I’ve seen homeless people who didn’t want housing!” And nothing supporting it.
No it’s bullshit you are adding.
Sure, it isn’t. “I don’t want to” doesn’t stand on its own. “I don’t want to live in a house” implies that they prefer living outside of one.
You commented “So, you get my point. It isn’t just a desire to be on the street because they think it’s cool and fun.”
And it is the second sentence that I was referring to when I stated "I never said it was "
There are unhoused people who do not want to live in a house.