The LA Times writes about homelessness today:
The Los Angeles mayoral primary has seen candidates throwing big numbers around concerning how much shelter they’d like to see built for homeless people. Rick Caruso wants 30,000 new beds in his first year in office, Rep. Karen Bass says 15,000 new beds in hers and Councilman Joe Buscaino wants 9,000 new beds within 36 months, to name a few of the candidates’ publicized ideas.
....The question is, if these beds are built, will homeless people use them? New research from the Rand Corp. suggests that the type of shelters that could end up being the centerpiece of multiple candidates’ homeless plans is not homeless people’s preferred destination....“There seems to be very low appetite among people to move into group shelters, which seems to be a key part of the landscape of a lot of mayoral proposals,” said the study’s lead writer.
No kidding. There surely isn't a single person operating in the homeless biz who doesn't know that group shelters are losers. Here instead is Kevin's Plan, which has the virtue of being something that would work. The downside—well, you can probably guess that. Here it is:
- Build about 30-40,000 simple family apartments meant for people who genuinely have short-term needs. These would come with rules, but not onerous ones: Kids have to go to school, you have to keep the place tolerably clean, etc.
- Build about, oh, 100-150,000 efficiency apartments in a few hundred buildings spread throughout the county. These would be small studios: bed, table, sink, kitchenette, toilet. Think old-school YMCA. Common showers would be available on each floor. Aside from destroying the property, there are no rules to speak of. You can come and go as you please. You can smoke, drink, take drugs, have visitors, whatever. The only real rule, maybe, would be an assigned hour each week that you have to leave your room to allow it to be cleaned. Light security would patrol the building and make sure that tenants don't harass nearby pedestrians and businesses.
- Finally, add a dozen big common shelters with cots. These would be intended for emergency use. Efficiency apartments would be available to anyone who wants one.
- If I had my way, the efficiency apartments and the common shelters would include a cafeteria that provides simple food. Cereal for breakfast. Sandwiches for lunch. Various kinds of heatable trays for dinner. Anyone should feel free to eat on the premises or not, as they wish.
- Other: include here all usual blather about help for the mentally ill, drug addicts, alcoholics, and so forth. I think that most of this doesn't work, but I'm happy to give it a try.
- Once this was done, we could reasonably make tent living on city streets illegal.
This would cost a lot of money, but we have a lot of money. The main problem, of course, is that no one would want any of these buildings across the street from where they live, and every single one would spend endless years in court trying to get built. Other than that, though, it would be great.
Bring back boarding homes???
I'm guessing the proposed plans for group shelters also means that the clients have to leave each day and they can not store their stuff at the shelter.
NIMBYism always wins.
Which is why the ultimate solution is abolition of the NIMBY veto. There's no law of physics that says a municipality should be able to block the construction of housing.
The law of political survival, though, is very clear that making a neighborhood take homeless shelters is just about the surest way to make sure that you don't get re-elected.
NIMBYism has strong political support. That's certainly true.
Every neighborhood should have shelters.
No - the shelters where clients have to leave for the day are generally those that are multi-function buildings, e.g. churches or community centers.
Built-for-the-purpose shelters don't usually make clients leave for the day. Those that still do that are by far the exception rather than the norm, for at least the last 5 years.
I live in central LA, just a few blocks from the Grove mall.
This Sunday - 3 days ago - I went to a closed-streets cycling event in South Pasadena. To get there I rode my bike to the Wilshire/Western subway stop, took the subway to Union Station, switched to the light rail there, and took that to South Pasadena. Door to door it's about an hour.
I've done this Sunday subway-to-the-bike ride before and the subway usually has a number of homeless people in it, which is understandable. It's relatively safe and warm.
This time it felt really nightmarish. Waiting in the light rail car to head to South Pasadena, a man came crawling -- yes, crawling -- out of the elevator to get into my light rail car. He was shirtless, with shorts mostly falling off, and weighed about 275 I'd say. As he entered the light rail car he hopped up to standing, and at that point I was able to see why he preferred crawling: he was missing one leg. He sat down and proceeded to speak a stream of statements which were mostly expletives.
On the way back a few hours later, at Union Station, I entered a subway car and immediately saw that the space usually set aside for bicycles or wheelchairs was taken up by a homeless man changing his clothes. He struggled with his pants and appeared unable to buckle his belt despite trying for many minutes. After a while he sat down and started smoking a cigarette.
In the past, I have urged many friends in LA to give a try to the subway and bus to get around and not have to worry about parking. After this experience, I feel I can no longer make that recommendation.
The experience made me feel that the short term crisis is so acute that we need group shelters that are attractive enough -- with heat, showers, and some basic food -- to lure people away from living in public transportation. A few weeks ago I went down to the central library in downtown LA and had a similar experience. The place is essentially a homeless shelter. Really sad to see public spaces made so unapproachable in this way.
I would rather police do their job and keep these people out. Any place they go becomes chaotic and toxic, especially if you concentrate them in one place. I also have a hard time believing they will stay in one locale just because there is a bed there for them
There's something called the Constitution. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. The right answer is to make society work properly.
We had a minor (in relation to CA) homeless problem here in Tampa. Several years ago they passed some laws that made it illegal to panhandle and illegal to sleep on public sidewalks and benches. (Can't recall the exact language but it was something to that effect.) This was obviously sweeping the problem under the rug but it had an instant impact and has been extremely popular.
I'm not a lawyer or an expert on this in any way, but I believe LA has very similar laws against sleeping outside and camping. I guess it's a problem of social contagion. The problem has just gotten out ahead of the ability to clean it up, absent a big coordinated effort. The LA Times had a story the other day about LA's new no-camping ordinance saying it wasn't being enforced. It wasn't super clear about why, but you could guess that the ultimate reason is that people just move to the next block. Seems there's some question about whether it's legal to enforce it at all unless you are sending people to at least temporary housing.
When I think about the situation in public transportation and the library I think you can draw a lot of knowledge about how this works. Homeless people like the fact that those places are warm, safe, and allow them freedom of movement. Probably any solution is going to have to take account of those wishes. In other words, a solution that doesn't provide those things won't attract people to make use of them. And since it's a free country, you can't just pick people up and cart them out to the desert.
Yes, those laws are illegal, though.
The federal courts have ruled that no, the law cannot bind someone from doing something they cannot avoid doing.
If there are no beds, you cannot require them not to sleep in the streets.
We’ll, it’s the law here. Guess no one has bothered challenging it.
How do you define "having society work properly".
I see no way for mentally ill people to be managed in any manner. You either lock them up or let them do as they please. There isn't a middle ground because you're not dealing with rational individuals.
So, if the police keep these people out, where do they go? They do not just magically disappear because you want them to.
While most people are compassionate, they're primary concern is their own quality of life in their city. The plight of the homeless is a much lower priority.
**their
Which is not an answer to my question. Where do they go?
If you're talking about my specific example, I think a lot of them went to St. Petersburg. But I don't really know for sure.
Ideally in a part of the city that is unoccupied by normal people I think. It’s sort of crippling to live as a single woman in a city where you know your chances of sexual harassment are high at all times. Just funnel them somewhere uninhabited and if they leave to panhandle bring them back
'Normal'?
Wow, you're not normal.
Sorry, you’ve caught me on my most extreme position. Having spent time near the homeless while living in a city with a serious homeless problem for a few years, I will not budge
People who don’t interact with them much tend to take a view I’d call a modern equivalent of “the noble savage”. This is a convenient narrative but does not match the facts on the ground. In reality they’re essentially an underclass for whom minor crimes don’t apply, since they don’t care about jail and won’t pay a fine or even show up to court. Spend more time near them and you’ll see. Half are crazy and drug addled, the other half drug addled and on their way to crazy
Not people I want in my neighborhood or anyones for that matter
Do not feed the troll.
Yeah, you’re the person who got upset with me for saying that you don’t choose your belief system
I’m glad you show ideological consistency at least in your intolerance of other people’s opinions
... And you did it again. Tell me, precisely, troll what my belief system is and how I can't change that the smallest particle. And while you're doing that, explain how hundreds of thousands of people fleeing an intolerant belief system are still in the unchangeble iron grip of a 'belief system'.
Finally, pointing out your idiocy _with examples_ isn't the same thing at all as being 'upset' with you. Now fuck off, you wiggy slice.
One aspect of city life is that there isn't anywhere that's unoccupied.
People who are forbidden to sleep in the go to homeless shelters or find shelter with relatives. They don't like those alternatives as well because there is less personal freedom. People who are forbidden to panhandle find pickup work, eat at food kitchens, and engage in less substance abuse. Again, they are less free, but everyone else is happier. Vote with your feet as to the municipality you want.
You imagine there are beds for them, but the opt for the street.
You imagine there are jobs for them, but opt to panhandle.
Why is it always the posters who show the most bigotry are also those who imagine there are opportunities that if they just whip homeless people more, they'll find?
Humans are motivated by incentives. The homeless are not immune to this. By not banning panhandling you are implicitly endorsing it. Why is it necessary to allow homeless to harass people for cash?
It’s not necessary. Panhandling is against the law in Tampa.
Which still doesn't answer the question of where do you take them. If panhandling is illegal and they get arrested and put in jail for it, that means that you are using the penal system as your solution to homelessness. Aside from any ethical considerations, that's REALLY expensive. Are you prepared to pay the much higher taxes that would be required to use this as a solution?
Our taxes didn't go up and I'm not aware of any mass incarcerations or arrests for panhandling. I think many of them migrated to other towns but i really don't know. I just now there's pretty much no panhandling at all now when several years ago there were panhandlers at every intersection.
Some significant fraction of homelessness undoubtedly traces back to de-institutionalization, decades ago. It was a very popular movement: liberals saw it as giving people greater freedom; conservatives loved the cost savings. Not enough thought was given to what would replace institutional treatment. Lots of people fell through the cracks. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html
Yeah, lots of single room occupancy apartments are what are needed. I bike past this place on the way to work -- https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/19/145477493/a-permanent-home-that-allows-drinking-helps-homeless-drink-less (old article). Canada - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/26/homeless-shelter-ottawa-gives-wine-to-alcoholics
It is sad but it is the reality. Better to have people suffer in safe secure housing than in the street and on trains and buses.
So depressing. Are we really set on making an underclass of Americans which live off the dole for no reason except failing to function in society? I can understand this if our unemployment rate was like 20% and we are really in crisis mode, but it’s not and we’re not
You can reasonably say we do have a homelessness crisis but this dystopian shit can’t be the answer. I understand state sponsored housing when you have a strong state that has a big stick that can make you show up for work, but for a country where we profess our love for freedom why are we so against giving people the freedom to fail miserably of their own accord
I just don’t get why you should get something for contributing nothing. It seems unfair. And I don’t like where this road leads
Everyone will admit building more roads and parking incentivizes more driving. But more homeless shelters (or apartments I suppose Kevin wants) leads to less homelessness? Making something easier to tolerate means more people will tolerate it
I know I’m probably cruel. This is just a bad direction for our country
The state homes for the mentally ill, which basically warehoused patients were emptied out in the '70's. They were supposed to be replaced by halfway houses. That never really happened.
A lot of the homeless have untreated mental illnesses. Arresting them won't get them the help they need. Incarcerating them costs a lot more than an halfway house. But a halfway house if much more expensive then leaving them on the street--or giving them a bus ticket to a big city....
Okay, so what's your plan? Or do you think that, if you want it badly enough, they'll just vanish?
Give the homeless help if they are actively looking for a job, attending treatment for mental illness, and fighting drug addiction
If not their life should really really suck. Funnel them into industrial areas of the city which are otherwise uninhabited. Destroy their piles of garbage when they start putting it in the sidewalk. Give them a ride outside city limits if they harass passerby
you've heard of the constitution? do you think it only applies to "nice" people? maybe we can set up shelters like we do for stray animals, give them X amount of time to straighten out their lives, find work and a home outside the camp. if they don't meet the deadline, euthanize them. sound good?
I only have a problem with the disruptive homeless. If someone is harassing people on the street, you’re saying that is constitutionally protected behavior? How about leaving piles of trash on public ground?
Nobody said euthanasia except you. This isn’t the movies dude, not everything is Nazi Germany, all I want is to be able to conduct myself in a public space without being accosted by a schizophrenic methhead over a perceived slight. If the homeless don’t get the free rein that they’d like then I have a hard time caring. There have to be limits on acceptable public behavior
Industrial parts of a city aren't uninhabited.
None of Kevin's suggestions sound cruel to me. What's cruel about studio apartments? People pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for them in New York City.
Homeless people generally cannot possibly get a job because they don't have an address, have no where to sleep or change clothes, or bathe.
The group showers idea, while a reasonable cost saver, is probably illegal pretty much everywhere, however.
No, I said that I am cruel
But some cruelty is necessary. There is a labor shortage going on right now, they’ll basically hire anyone with a pulse. I’ll grant that being smelly and unkempt is a problem at the margins but almost all the time homeless are unemployable because they are seriously unstable people. Someone you wouldn’t trust not to attack a customer or even show up to work. But frankly most are content staying on the street, living off scraps and doing drugs. It’s not sustainable for the government to fund those choices
You have yet to lay out a plan that has any connection to reality. There are no uninhabited parts of these cities in which to dump them off. There isn't any way to prevent them from just wandering back to where they can get food and that they prefer, unless you are prepared to pay a lot more in taxes to incarcerate them.
As I said, your whole plan seems to be that if you wish hard enough, the homeless will just disappear.
The homeless people we tend to notice (not the ones who double up with friends and family if they hit a rough patch) are generally non compos mentis. As someone noted above we used to warehouse such people in mental institutions. For various reasons, including expense and also real abuses in the commitment process, that fell out of favor. These are generally not the kinds of people who can support themselves. What do you propose we do with them? If you say "nothing" then you get the problem we have now.
So you'd rather them die on your lawn?
Disgusting.
My question for you:
Our policy on homeless has gotten remarkably softer through the decades. We are still becoming richer than ever across the board. Given the proliferation of policies you want compared to say, the 80’s, why has the homeless crisis gotten so much worse instead of better?
Meaning, we went halfway to where you want and it has been nothing but negative in terms of results. How will this next batch of homeless initiatives work any differently?
One of the considerations for a significant portion of the homeless population is toughness. It's unfortunate but true that there are people who, for various reasons, will do things that damage their dwellings, like punching or kicking walls, spilling food and beverages, etc. Ordinary wood frame buildings with drywall for interior wall panelling are easily damaged.
Out here in a rural area, there was a project to build log houses because they are extremely damage resistant; punching standard drywall tends to create holes, where punching a log wall tends to create damaged fists. In urban areas, I would suggest poured concrete structures with vinyl or tile floors (tile in warmer climates like California, vinyl where tile would be too cold).
It's a good plan, but most every plan falls short when it comes to three issues:
1) Zoning
2) Neighborhood association power
3) Costs and time in fighting 1 and 2.
In a socialist economy, homelessness will be unnecessary. Most of a post-capitalism homeless will need reeducation for the tribe.
This sort of claim is every bit as unhelpful as the opposite claims that every homeless person is in fact a Mensa candidate, and that mental illness and drug abuse have no relevance to the problem.
It's well known that (in spite of the official line) there was plenty of homelessness in the USSR, mostly the same as in the US, ie junkies and drunks, though with fewer mentally ill as the USSR didn't have the same "liberators" as the US who felt these people would be better off fending for themselves on the street than being helped: https://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0519/ehome.html
After WWIi, yes. But after 1958, no. The authoritarian state had the camps.
Of course the reason people don't want these structures (of any form, group homes, apartments, cots) built near them is the fact that exactly the people you would expect make it impossible to solve any problem that might occur as a result of these structures. If, after the structure is built, it's discovered that it becomes a magnet for the drug trade, or that alcoholics are now roaming the streets nearby and harassing locals, there will be ZERO that the locals can do about it. Some "Friends of the Homeless" organization will make sure that nothing happens via the courts, and that every person who complains is painted as a Nazi.
And so we get the situation we get -- reasonable people, for very good reasons, head off the problem at the very start.
In a sane world, the tradeoff would be that the housing gets built BUT it is understood that it will policed effectively, and that complaints and crimes will be resolved promptly. But certain groups have made very sure that we do not live in such a sane world.
This is just demagoguery. Some "friends of the homeless" organization making sure nothing happens, via the courts? Please cite examples because this isn't what happens. You assume that organizations that house and shelter people have far more resources than they actually do.
So, where should they go?
People who justify not letting them live in any neighborhood never seem to have an answer for that.
Carve out some industrial part of the city and build a Hooverville. I don’t care where they go just get them away from normal people
You have a very strange idea of what the industrial parts of a modern large city are like.
I think the trick really is to not build specially designated buildings for the homeless. Cities are full of poor people who have places to live. Find a way to get the homeless into ordinary low rent or subsidized housing.
Very, very often homeless people are seriously dysfunctional-- and again, I am not including people who double up with friends and family when they lose a job or have some other calamity visit their lives. The addicted and mentally ill homeless are problems for poor people too. There's something ugly in the notion we should saddle the poor with them as near neighbors.
We don't have enough of that housing, though. The waitlists are decades long.
Not counting people paying more than a third of their income in market-rate housing.
Ahh, yes, citations of problems but never any actual evidence.
This isn't a bad plan as far as the housing piece is concerned - homelessness can be literally solved by throwing money at it. It's literally just a problem of "are you willing to fund enough housing AND shelter?" Yes, and shelter. Shelters are a crucial piece of the continuum of care, but you need enough shelter beds and enough funding for those beds so that clients are able to move out to more stable housing within 30 days (ideally). In places like LA, Seattle, and NYC, with enormous numbers of people who are literally homeless (in emergency shelter or on the street, for the most part), you need enormous numbers of emergency shelter beds.
But you also need enormous numbers of housing for them to move into. A minority of this group will need permanent supportive housing, but most just need to get back on their feet and get reconnected to mainstream services and jobs. That's it. This is the population that would be most helped by things like 30K SROs/efficiencies/dorm-style housing or modest apartments.
But you also can't have rules beyond just having to follow what's in your lease (you can't have a rule that kids have to go to school as part of the housing; you can have rules about keeping the unit in a safe condition).
And you're still dead wrong about wraparound services not making a difference. Wraparound services in shelter move people into housing every single day, and wraparound services in supportive housing keeps people housed at high rates - in my county, over 98% of tenants in permanent supportive housing remain in housing year over year because of these services. Your "argument" (feeling, really) that these services don't mean much is callous as well as wrong.
Oh, and even if we had all of that such that homelessness could be rare, brief, and non-recurring for all of these folks... you still shouldn't criminalize being homeless on the street. That's cartoonishly wrong.
Okay, I'll bite. Why can't you have rules about sending kids to school .etc?
Because of equal access housing laws. They could claim homeschool or whatever.
Because Fair Housing. You can't reasonably tie non-housing things to a housing agreement (e.g., a lease) just because of someone's previous status (note: it's still legal if you do it the right way and with enough caveats/legalese, but that doesn't make it right).
"A minority of this group will need permanent supportive housing, but most just need to get back on their feet and get reconnected to mainstream services and jobs. That's it."
Evidence for this claim?
I make a counter-claim, that *most* of these people are junkies/drunks by choice and/or mentally ill, and cannot reconnect to mainstream services and jobs.
My claim has the evidence of what I see every day in downtown LA. What evidence does your claim have?
His claim feels nicer to him when he says it out loud. Even if it’s not true
Gee, Idunno, literally the studies about the demographics of the population that is homeless: common estimates are that 40% of the population that is homeless has a capital-D disability, as in the thing that would qualify you for SSI/SSDI (serious mental illness, physical/medical condition, substance use disorder, etc.). A subset of these folks are mostly functional and independent and just need to be connected with the right housing, which may involve actually getting them access to SSI/SSDI first (these are called mainstream resources).
The majority of people who are homeless are homeless for economic reasons, not social/physical/medical/mental health reasons.
Beyond just simple googling for this (which you can do on your own time, thanks), I literally work in housing and homeless data all day every day, for the last 10 years.
But here you go, from the US Interagency Commission on Homelessness (USICH), this summary of aspects of the federal strategic plan to address homelessness, which is based on actual local and national data: https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Prevention-Diversion-Rapid-Exit-July-2019.pdf
"A focus on rapid exit approaches is built upon the recognition that many people who experience homelessness can effectively resolve their own homelessness
independently or with very limited help. "
This is why Kevin's "if we just build a bunch of housing to put them in, it would work" DOES make sense for this set of folks.
The narrative that people who are homeless are homeless because they're "junkies/drunks by choice and/or mentally ill, and cannot reconnect to mainstream services and jobs" is ignorant at best. Stop buying into it and go look at the actual numbers and the impact of supportive services.
There's a reason why the continuum I work in, which houses thousands of people annually, successfully keeps 97% of those people housed year-over-year. The vast majority of those people don't need intensive services, they just need help to get back on their feet and then they're on their way in society again. Which is how it should be.
You can derive any result you want by deliberately misinterpreting what other people are saying.
There is *a* definition of homelessness which is as expansive as possible and includes anyone who has ever spent one day in between houses. If you use such a definition you can create all sorts of wonderful sob stories about vast numbers of children, families, people who got their lives back together, blah blah.
But that is NOT the population that is considered problematic. The problematic population are the "hard core" homeless. No-one gives a fsck about some well-mannered quiet individual sleeping one night on the street; what people are upset about is individuals of clearly erratic and unstable behavior, engaging in frequent harassment and petty theft, with bizarre sanitary habits and so on.
Even marxists were realistic enough to admit the actual existence of lumpenproletariat and social parasites. But not the brave new world of the American left.
I lived for 10 years 1,000 feet from a homeless encampment under the 405 freeway in Los Angeles. In the last 4 years there have been 3 shootings. This group of homeless are criminals, mentally ill, and drug addicts.
I helped with the security cameras of the apartment and in one week one person trespassed 8 times. Once to steal a bicycle. We have her wheeling it out through the lobby. Subsequent trespass - when I was present - I followed and got high resolution pictures of her and the tent in the camp that she went to. Called the police. But since the apartment only had perimeter cameras, we didn't have footage of her *in the act of stealing the bike.* We said, why not search the camp? They said it required a warrant; apartment management dropped the issue.
On a subsequent trespass, she was chased out and then walked down the street pulling the handle of every car she passed. She's not the only one seen doing that.
I know people living on the other side of the freeway who have children under 10. They get accosted by drug addicts every so often. No body feels safe.
There are homeless that deserve support and a chance, but not these people. Homeless advocates refuse to distinguish between "meritorious" homeless* and these anti-social vagrants. The encampment is a 24/7 crime scene.
I've seen the pathetic outreach by homeless advocates. You know what? They bring sandwiches and leave as fast as they can. They don't engage these people.
If there was a solution to the homeless problem it would have been implemented by now. There isn't because of the character of the homeless. They are not good citizens. They defecate on the sidewalk. Take down the tents and make them move somewhere else. Give them a bus ticket to Phoenix.
I like Karen Bass but Rick Caruso has shown the hardest edge on the homeless. He will win the mayoral race because of that.
Upthread DFPaul gave a good description of what one encounters in the traffic corridors.
* e.g. lost job, medical expenses, escaping domestic violence or abusive parents.
I note a distinct lack of any plan in your comment. What do you think should be done?
Simply pointing out the reality of the situation is a start.
FAR too many people still deny the existence of actual problems, still want to pretend that the existence of an unproblematic (and temporary) homeless population somehow means that the permanent (and very problematic) hardcore homeless do not exist as a social problem.
That isn't a homelessness problem. That's an enforcement problem. You can get a warrant. You can set up cameras in the street.
You just declared that everyone in the camp is a thief because... one trespassed?
Where are they supposed to defecate?
How are they supposed to be good citizens? Because it sounds like you suck.
I hate the people who say “oh you’re for **[x]**, what have you done for **[x]** lately?” so I won’t say that
But honestly, what is the extent of your experience with street homeless? Generally, they conform to a pattern of behavior that includes petty crime, vandalism, and harassment. Very similar to a prototypical “junkie”, perhaps because the homeless do tend to have substance abuse problems
Is your honest opinion that every homeless is just waiting for an apartment and a steady job? Because my experience tells me they will trash the place and quit their job and be back where they are very quickly. Then what? Do it over again?
I would like to add maybe a somewhat unique perspective... First, Kevin can build all the free or beautiful housing he wants....but until there is a viable solution to the liability issue...nothing at all should be built.
The state and localities will be sued out of existence until Sacramento passes a law and it is tested in the courts that builder, security, (whatever there is), city county and state are held harmless for any injury that occurrences on these premises.
No one talks about this issue, this failing of Kevin's thinking...there is a 100% percent foreseeability of injury in any such setting, which will be many and severe.
Lawyers will be salivating at the rich payouts....and this isn't being anti-lawyer, why shouldn't they take advantage (or protect) the poor people forced through whatever circumstances to live in such inherently unsafe housing, (safer than the street by a 1,000%...), but if the state built it, the state is responsible and absent some protective legislative acts, the state is responsible under current l;aw.
Builders and municipalities would be insane to build without protective legislation.
Best Wishes, Traveller...(btw, if Mr Drum or anyone has a different answer to this, I'd love to hear it, otherwise I am with Mr Decker and name99 on the homelessness issue).
...liability problem?
We should have more homelessness until what?
Grand Ol` Perverters need more votes .
Bring back old timey sailing ships and gather the homeless up into colonial-era press gangs to man these ships. Boom solved!
I worked with the mentally ill and without massive services, none of this works. And then it works- barely. Treating the severely mentally ill is a challenge like no other. One thing I did learn is that at some point they do need to be locked up and that is a very difficult legal process.
We essentially emptied the hospitals and dumped into...nothingness. Once they were hidden and now they are seen. And people don't like that. Our treatment of them is just another example of how e are decidedly NOT a Christian nation in any sense of the word.
"...just another example of how e are decidedly NOT a Christian nation in any sense of the word."
Well, there's a silver lining!
THIS. It's not the same thing of course, but when my mother entered the steep part of the curve for dementia (Alzheimer's, actually), we had to move her into a home; she was dangerous and had physically assaulted several aids in the course of their daily duties. Plus, she was a danger to herself.
Yes, treating/caring for the mentally ill takes a lot of money. And a lot of personal fortitude on the part of the aids/nurses. I know I don't have the right stuff for this sort of thing.
I agree with the the fundamental premise but think Kevin is too generous. My first couple of years in uni, all I had was a 120 or 200 Sqft room (single or double occupancy) with a kitchen and bathroom down the hall which was shared with a dozen similar rooms. It was done that way because kitchenettes and toilets in each room massively increase the cost of construction and make it more difficult to keep vermin free. Also let's keep in mind what we are competing with here, which is a tent on the street.
In fact I would reuse most of the model my university had for housing students. Because students much like the unhoused are not a monolithic group, people could choose dorms or sections of dorms which were: unisex, single sex, noise limited, anarchic, or substance free. It wasn't perfect but it worked well enough.
In Vallejo, they bought several hotels to house the homeless during pandemic and it seems to be that a hotel room sufficiently overcomes the group shelter issue, but I disagree about allowing drug and alcohol use on the property. A large amount of homeless are problem drug users and potential for violence or criminal acts would rise and give homeless people another reason to refuse housing
...And what encourages people to not abuse substances by testing them and searching and kicking them out for having used legal substances?
Without reading all the comments on this thread, isn't some of what Kevin is wanting to put into motion something that lots of other cities have tried in the past, building lots of low-cost housing where a high density of low income residents can obtain a roof over their heads, oh yeah...I believe they were called Projects, and as most folks are aware, they did not seem to work out as well as many city governments were hoping they would as a solution to those struggling to find a home due to having low wage jobs, or barely taking home a monthly/weekly/bi-weekly income.
Okay, maybe now that lead ingestion by many of the folks who would end up in these low/no income projects has mostly not been an issue the past 20-30 years, less potential psychos would inhabit modern day projects which would help them from quickly becoming dense pockets of high crime and drug use, but many Projects were torn down and their destruction cheered by low income/middle class and wealthy folks for a reason.
Of course, it really was a different time/era when many of these Projects were first built, so perhaps now is the time to revisit this type of assistance to those in need of a home.
Also, lets just say that these proposed projects are able to cut through the red tape and get past some of the NIMBY attitude to move forward, it is no secret a lot of homeless have mental health issues (I still see more individual folks with clear signs of mental health issues where I live than homeless families on the street), and that is another issue that requires a long-term solution to help alleviate the issue.
Even if lots of billionaires could be convinced to pony up and help throw money at these construction projects, someone has to figure out how to help many of the folks who would end up in these homes/shelters over the course of a long period of time. Again, even if we gave tons of now homeless folks FREE access to these homes for life, there are other costs besides rent that we also need to think about when it comes to a long-term solution to the homelessness problem in many states.
Having said all of the above, simply ignoring the problem or politicians kicking the can down the road so other politicians who are not them have to work to fix the issue, well, that is not quite working out either given how many homeless tent cities have come into existence the past few years.
I give credit and a huge and sincere kudos to Kevin for his thoughtful consideration and suggestions as to how we might work to tackle the homelessness issue.
No, Kevin didn't say 'throw them into poorly maintained special neighborhoods without the ability to have reliable utilities.' That's what 'the projects were'.
If you think any of that is true, you should check out the history of Cabrini–Green Homes. Then come back and talk to us about the oh-so-helpful-and-caring cities, communities, etc. and how they addressed the probblem; not that mental model of what you think happened.
Don’t feed the troll everyone
Oooh! I've acquired my very own gibbering mad nutbag stalker! That sort of thing was common back USENET days, not so much any more.
It's not a troll when the person is pointing out facts.
Facts that are inconvenient for you, perhaps, but very much relevant facts.
A lot of homeless people do have jobs. They just don't pay enough to cover the cost of housing. Many others are caught in a cycle of mental health issues being aggravated by the stresses of homelessness, and would be able to hold down jobs if the issue of their homelessness was resolved, and some small supports provided.
But there are also the cases that are simply so complex and serious that there is no easy fix. Unfortunately, it only takes one or two homeless people harassing others or stealing from neighbors to make the entire situation untenable.
I have known people who were homeless for a time. One is a very productive homeowner now. A local nonprofit provided housing, which let her have enough stability to maintain a job and build up her bank account enough to move into an apartment. Others need support throughout their lives, but do no harm to anyone else. They are not noisy, messy, or criminal in any way.
As downtowns empty of office space, it may make sense to add small apartment-style housing for the homeless. The public transportation networks are already good in those locations. Homeless families (especially women with small children) tend to be more popular with the neighbors.
Mike Lindell created his on social media platform which he named Frank,
https://www.businessinsider.com/an-inside-look-at-mypillow-ceo-mike-lindells-frank-social-2022-4
Just having a roof over your head and a safe place to put your stuff generally halves substance abuse. And it makes it alot easier for the mentally ill to take their meds and make their appointments.
The big problem with group shelters is their onerous rules: most are designed so you cannot search for work, you can't keep work, you can't keep vehicles, and of course, your stuff isn't safe. Nearly none have laundry, either. And they usually require people to be clean and substance-free which is nearly impossible.
Just being homeless even if you have a job implores substance abuse. There's long nights and days where you're cold, alone, paranoid that someone will assault you, that some misfortune will happen. It's nearly impossible to sleep in those conditions. They don't have any place to calm down, wind down, be safe and relax. So of course they abuse substances to get through those hours, Almost everyone would.
Crissa-
What comes first? Getting "clean" or getting shelter?
Many employers have drug screens as part of the employment process, others do it then and randomly during their career. Drug use requires money so if you test positive you're out of a LOT of jobs that handle cash. Yet these very same places are so commonplace you could walk to several of them from many locations. These include supermarkets and fast food locations. No one wants to "worry" that their register drawers will be off on a nightly basis - so a positive drug screen results in no cash handling jobs which is very limiting.
The entire situation is awkward for both victim and potential employer or potential housing provider. Who should make the first move?
One quick note, speaking as someone who's volunteered with programs focused on getting homeless into shelters: some people are very worried about their safety living in shelters near others who may not be sober, etc. If the 100k or so efficiencies skip rules to encourage as many people as possible to use them, you'll see vulnerable groups opt out.
Of course, if LA were to build sufficient housing for the homeless population, they'd build the capability to solve this problem. Some housing designated drug free, some no questions, etc.
Mr. Drum seems to be under the impression homeless people don’t pair up and that families can’t be homeless.