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 feel like you are actively ignoring the fact that it’s not a visible solution. My problem isn’t so much the homeless person who seeks shelter and utilizes services offered as intended. I think they are the non-issue homeless you keep mentioning.
These programs need immense public buy-in because they establish housing for at risk people in their neighborhoods. The homeless I deal with most often aren’t taking peoples mail and things out of cars to achieve a housing goal. They also aren’t trying to scam cash out of the EBT cards for food and housing. The problem is that addicts will trade away anything you give them to meet their goals, even at the cost of housing and sustenance.
We can say “prioritize treatment,” but it’s already offered free in my area. We also just had another bus load of people dropped off in my city from Texas again… like giving people homes in an already densely populated area is a bit of a pipe dream while the area is also one of the most expensive in the nation.
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.
Well, the guy that doesn’t want housing and doesn’t have it but denies others the intended use of public spaces because they’ve converted them into their camp is actually an issue.
We have parks that people barely use because sections get overrun by homeless and our biking and running trails are filled with campgrounds where people are attacked or screamed at when people attempt to use them for their intended purpose. It’s hard to convince my city to build public spaces because of how existing spaces get used by the homeless.
As it stands, people in that position will be allowed to just keep committing crimes because they get protected from the law via being judgementproof.
Until we can stem the tide from bussing folks in, creating a free housing solution will not be sustainable as people keep arriving to partake in free housing with a relatively high minimum wage. If I was getting federal minimum wage somewhere and found out I could get free housing and $22/hour working at Panda Express, that’s a huge quality of life improvement.
Many of them “don’t want to be housed” because of all the strings attached to having housing. When you simply give people their own warm bed with a roof they’ll almost always use it.
The kind that makes you have incredibly violent responses when you are triggered. For some something simple like a motorcycle backfiring puts them right back into their war(s). That can get violent under the wrong circumstances.
These people who choose to be unhoused frequently have people and places they can live and choose not to be there. Perhaps I was unclear on that point. They are unhoused people but they do not have to be.
So like the kind of thing you’re way more likely to encounter on the streets, and way less likely to be able to safely regulate without somewhere safe and private to go?
Sure, but risk mitigation is still a thing. You really think more people suffering PTSD flashbacks, especially to the point of aggression, are going to be better off in the streets than their own home?
What if I told you, unlike putting them in prisons, we’re not forcing people into houses, and just saying “here’s housing of you want it”? Would you change your tune? Because I think that’s what we’re talking about.
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.
It’s really easy for businesses to hire the homeless. They just don’t want to. What we need to do is give them incentives to hire them.
Also, if we’re going to house people we need to just do it. Just give them shelter period. No strings attached. At least for a while until other programs can get them on their feet. I’ve watched people try to navigate the system to get a real roof over their heads the “right way” and it feels like it’s just set up for them to inevitably fail. They have to jump through hoops, sometimes in really dehumanizing ways, and can lose it all again far too easily. The half assed nonsense we’ve mostly got going now is just fodder for small minded people to point at and say “see, they don’t even want help!”
Yea. Those that want it, give it to them. Making it contingent on being clean from drugs or whatever doesn’t work.
There never will be a one size fits all trick to lifting someone out of being homeless. If someone wants to be lifted up, we should do whatever we can do help them.
I’m just saying that there will never be a complete solve to homelessness. But we can solve homelessness for those that WANT to not be homeless.
I don’t think any realistic discussion about homelessness should be concerned with the minority of a minority of people who actively choose to be homeless. They’re already happy enough as they are, or are simply too far removed from society that, as long as they’re not causing actual problems, there IS no problem. Talking about people choosing to be homeless is almost a smoke screen to distract from actually talking about the problem.
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.
Shelter is the biggest part of the problem. Everything else is just a smokescreen or a social service that would indeed be needed after they are housed.
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.
The dogs homeless vets own a lot of the time. Sometimes they’re service dogs but often they’re pets. They often stay on the streets so they’re not separated from them.
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.
I feel like you are actively ignoring the fact that it’s not a visible solution. My problem isn’t so much the homeless person who seeks shelter and utilizes services offered as intended. I think they are the non-issue homeless you keep mentioning.
These programs need immense public buy-in because they establish housing for at risk people in their neighborhoods. The homeless I deal with most often aren’t taking peoples mail and things out of cars to achieve a housing goal. They also aren’t trying to scam cash out of the EBT cards for food and housing. The problem is that addicts will trade away anything you give them to meet their goals, even at the cost of housing and sustenance.
We can say “prioritize treatment,” but it’s already offered free in my area. We also just had another bus load of people dropped off in my city from Texas again… like giving people homes in an already densely populated area is a bit of a pipe dream while the area is also one of the most expensive in the nation.
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.
Well, the guy that doesn’t want housing and doesn’t have it but denies others the intended use of public spaces because they’ve converted them into their camp is actually an issue.
We have parks that people barely use because sections get overrun by homeless and our biking and running trails are filled with campgrounds where people are attacked or screamed at when people attempt to use them for their intended purpose. It’s hard to convince my city to build public spaces because of how existing spaces get used by the homeless.
As it stands, people in that position will be allowed to just keep committing crimes because they get protected from the law via being judgementproof.
Until we can stem the tide from bussing folks in, creating a free housing solution will not be sustainable as people keep arriving to partake in free housing with a relatively high minimum wage. If I was getting federal minimum wage somewhere and found out I could get free housing and $22/hour working at Panda Express, that’s a huge quality of life improvement.
Many of them “don’t want to be housed” because of all the strings attached to having housing. When you simply give people their own warm bed with a roof they’ll almost always use it.
Many don’t want to be housed because of extreme mental illness or PTSD.
What type of ptsd makes you not want to live indoors
Escape route. Indoors too closed off. I dunno.
That’s some S tier talking-out-of-your-ass bullshit
The kind that makes you have incredibly violent responses when you are triggered. For some something simple like a motorcycle backfiring puts them right back into their war(s). That can get violent under the wrong circumstances.
And this relates to having a warm bed to sleep in… how?
Because most of these people live with other people whom they normally do not want to hurt.
Homeless people… “live with” other people… Something doesn’t add up, here.
Unless you’re counting the people walking by on the street as “housemates”.
These people who choose to be unhoused frequently have people and places they can live and choose not to be there. Perhaps I was unclear on that point. They are unhoused people but they do not have to be.
So like the kind of thing you’re way more likely to encounter on the streets, and way less likely to be able to safely regulate without somewhere safe and private to go?
That’s going to entirely depend on the person
Sure, but risk mitigation is still a thing. You really think more people suffering PTSD flashbacks, especially to the point of aggression, are going to be better off in the streets than their own home?
What if I told you, unlike putting them in prisons, we’re not forcing people into houses, and just saying “here’s housing of you want it”? Would you change your tune? Because I think that’s what we’re talking about.
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.
It’s really easy for businesses to hire the homeless. They just don’t want to. What we need to do is give them incentives to hire them.
Also, if we’re going to house people we need to just do it. Just give them shelter period. No strings attached. At least for a while until other programs can get them on their feet. I’ve watched people try to navigate the system to get a real roof over their heads the “right way” and it feels like it’s just set up for them to inevitably fail. They have to jump through hoops, sometimes in really dehumanizing ways, and can lose it all again far too easily. The half assed nonsense we’ve mostly got going now is just fodder for small minded people to point at and say “see, they don’t even want help!”
Yea. Those that want it, give it to them. Making it contingent on being clean from drugs or whatever doesn’t work.
There never will be a one size fits all trick to lifting someone out of being homeless. If someone wants to be lifted up, we should do whatever we can do help them.
I’m just saying that there will never be a complete solve to homelessness. But we can solve homelessness for those that WANT to not be homeless.
I don’t think any realistic discussion about homelessness should be concerned with the minority of a minority of people who actively choose to be homeless. They’re already happy enough as they are, or are simply too far removed from society that, as long as they’re not causing actual problems, there IS no problem. Talking about people choosing to be homeless is almost a smoke screen to distract from actually talking about the problem.
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.
Shelter is the biggest part of the problem. Everything else is just a smokescreen or a social service that would indeed be needed after they are housed.
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.
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.
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.
They can be given an apartment where they live alone with their doggos though.
What dogs are you talking about?
The dogs homeless vets own a lot of the time. Sometimes they’re service dogs but often they’re pets. They often stay on the streets so they’re not separated from them.