Having an economy which creates the need for people to live in homeless camps violates human rights, says me
You’re assuming that the problem is purely economic.
Homelessness is not a one-cause problem.
The only difference between a homeless person and a person is a home. If we provided housing first then it would make it easier to tackle other social and economic problems.
One big thing I’d mention is that, shockingly, housing costs have a massive impact on homeless rates, independent of other factors that you might think would be more relevant. West Virginia and Mississippi are hardly bastions of economic prosperity or developed social services, and yet, they have some of the lowest rates of homelessness in the country, while California and New York are giant economies with huge social safety nets, and also huge homeless populations.
Why? Because the core reason someone becomes homeless is that they can’t afford a home, and even if someone’s life is completely unraveling, rummaging up $500 for an apartment in West Virginia is still much much easier than getting the $3000 that the same apartment would cost in New York City. As we’ve seen rent prices explode in HCOL cities, you see subsequent increases in homelessness. This isn’t complicated.
More direct interventions have their place for sure, but the single biggest thing we could do is actually build some god damn housing and not let Karen and Steve veto it because they think the parking lot it’d be replacing has historic significance as a pretense for not liking change or “urban” renters around.
I wholeheartedly agree. The only way to solve homelessness is to ensure that there are enough homes for everyone who needs a home, and that homes are abundant enough that the prices are reasonable and stable.
Weren’t they busing the homeless from HCoL areas to LCoL areas so they could leverage the more accessible housing market.
How’d that work?
Good points, but that doesn’t account for homeless in poor areas moving away.
The only difference between a homeless person and a person is a home.
By definition, yes.
I work with organizations to help the homeless in our area, and many of them simply refuse help.
You can put in a ton of effort to help a homeless youth, asking only that they apply themselves to the programs offered. Then you find out a week later that they didn’t want to participate and are back on the streets. The problem is not a lack of a home.
Addicts are even harder to care for, even when you give them housing. You can’t force someone into getting help, or staying sober. If that cycle continues, you haven’t really solved any problems, other than making it more comfortable to get high or drunk.
The solution to homelessness, provided that support is given, relies heavily on personal responsibility and effort.
The biggest challenge is getting someone to accept help and follow through with their obligations. I’ve seen some amazing success stories come from this happening (hell, our current mayor was homeless!).
Sounds like these programs are tying housing to participation in some kind of obligation. That’s not what I was saying. If you want to end homelessness, take the homeless people and put them in homes. Don’t make it so they need to prove something about themselves. Housing first.
Sounds like these programs are tying housing to participation in some kind of obligation.
The programs are designed to make sure that effort is put in so that these people can be helped. I.e. get a job, get more education or training, be self-supporting, etc.
If you want to end homelessness, take the homeless people and put them in homes. Don’t make it so they need to prove something about themselves. Housing first.
Literally a stupid idea.
You can home them, then what? If they don’t have the skills or desire to self-support themselves, what problem have you solved?
If a homed person can’t procure food, or get a job, or stay sober, you haven’t solved anything.
You can home them, then what? If they don’t have the skills or desire to self-support themselves, what problem have you solved?
The problem that they were sleeping in the streets like animals?
Are you really saying people need to prove that they deserve the basic dignity of shelter?
If a homed person can’t procure food, or get a job, or stay sober, you haven’t solved anything.
Well there’s no chance that they will ever solve those problems if they are too worried about dying of exposure in their sleep.
The problem that they were sleeping in the streets like animals?
That is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.
To illustrate: There are people who quite literally live out of their backpack and travel the world as a way of life, with every possession they own being carried with them. They don’t have a home, other than their tent, yet they are more than self-sufficient.
I met one of them last summer. The guy had been through a nasty divorce, lost everything to his wife, and had no home to go back to. He was travelling across Canada by bike, with all his earthly belongings on his bike. The guy was super happy and more free than you and I, yet, he had no fixed address. There are a ton of people just like him, yet they aren’t what you’d consider “homeless” despite being homeless.
People can be housed and still “live like animals” without addressing the other issues they face (i.e mental health, addiction, criminal history, lack of education, an abusive partner, etc.). I don’t want that for anyone, and I want them to get out of that way of living.
Are you really saying people need to prove that they deserve the basic dignity of shelter?
No, that’s not what I said at all.
I’m saying that unless someone can participate in the support systems around them, they won’t be able to move forward and be self-sufficient. These programs can only help someone who accepts the help, and follows through with taking the steps needed to better their situation.
Some people simply don’t want the help and/or are unwilling to commit to the programs offered. What else can society do for them without forcing these people to do something they don’t agree to?
Well there’s no chance that they will ever solve those problems if they are too worried about dying of exposure in their sleep.
That’s not the real issue, though.
There are homeless even in places where the weather is beautiful all year round, and nobody is worried about dying from exposure. They are homeless for the same reasons that someone who is worried about exposure would be, and simply putting them in housing does not address those reasons.
We have to treat homeless people like actual human beings, not cattle. We should be providing them affordable housing, a basic income, identify the reasons why they are homeless, and offer tools to address those reasons.
All of those components are critical. If we can’t do it simultaneously, then we will fail and they will remain homeless.
But as I mentioned already, their cooperation is not only important, but necessary to ensure their success. Without it, our efforts will go nowhere, no matter how many resources we throw at the problem.
I work with organizations to help the homeless in our area, and many of them simply refuse help.
I’ve worked with unhoused people (and been unhoused myself). The only time I’ve known unhoused people reject help is that they often haven’t been offered the help they want instead of the help you want to give.
If you haven’t asked them what they want, just told them what you’ll provide, it isn’t helping them … it’s just making you feel better.
Unfortunately, when you’re dealing with people who have severe mental illness or substance abuse (a large portion of the homeless population around here, unfortunately), they might be able to tell you what they want, but can’t understand what they need.
I’ve had some refuse food or care kits, and that wouldn’t make sense to someone on the outside. I’ve even witnessed someone who took food at a temporary outreach event, then apparently didn’t like what they received and threw it on the ground.
It’s not easy to provide help to someone in those circumstances.
Technically correct, but kinda besides the point… We don’t want people to no longer be technically homeless, we want to help them.
For the vast majority of homeless people simply giving them a home, or even some cash is all they need and they take it from there.
For the entrenched? Many will refuse or be unable to use whatever housing you provide (unless it’s built like a prison cell but who the hell wants to live in that?). Sure, they’ll technically not be homeless anymore because they “have” a home now, but they’ll still be sleeping outside/living the exact same if that’s what they choose.
So yes, for the vast majority of homeless people the only thing that makes them homeless is that they don’t have a home, but it’s disingenuous to ignore the rest who that doesn’t apply to.
Even for those few that it would not help, simply reducing the scale of the problem would make it easier for those few that remain to access other social supports if they need them.
The bottom line is that there should be no strings attached to social housing. If someone needs a home, we give them a home. After that solves the problem of homelessness, we can start addressing other issues like addictions, mental illness, etc. because those other problems are pretty much unsolvable if someone doesn’t have a roof over their head.
You’re missing the point that giving everyone a home doesn’t solve the problem of homelessness… It gets you close probably (so we could totally do it and some sort of financial support too), but it’s naive to think that gets you all the way.
Unfortunately there also need to be at least some strings attached to social housing too… There are people who are too violent or destructive to live that way.
The best results are housing first/financial aid first, but with a pre filter to weed out those few who are the more entrenched/troubled that this approach doesn’t work for. Of course, those few are also many of the people that are the most “visibly” homeless and what the public pictures when they imagine the problem which becomes a funding issue as a successful program won’t have the visible results people expect.
It’s a bit of a catch-22, unfortunately. Homeless camps are not exactly safe places to live. Fire codes and zoning laws are not arbitrary things, they exist for reasons.
I would find it reasonable to require that the government has to have someplace for those homeless people to go before dismantling their camps, though.
The political problem is that voters who are paying rent tend to be annoyed by the government giving people apartments for free.
Housing first as a model is legitimate and works (at least more than doing nothing or maintaining terrible shelters forever), but the political resentment it builds is a real problem that no amount of finger-wagging makes go away.
Maybe something like these “tinyshelters” would be a good compromise - they’re safer and more comfortable than ramshackle tent-and-cardboard encampments, but they’re still far short of what I’d call a “free apartment.”
Is it any less dangerous than exposure though?
That’s a false dichotomy.
Running a regime that generates homeless is not tho!
The court has no ability to invoke systemic change, they can only speak on / rule on the topic at hand.
This is civics 101
Did the court make that statement in OP?
As intended.
Yeah, build them next to politicians/elites houses and watch the full force of the law remove them.
Good. Next step is SCoC to finalize it so cities can stop condemning unhoused to death.
Allowing people to overstress an environment that has not been built to allow for the resources they need is allowing a group to condemn themselves to water and sanitation issues. 200 people in a once-manicured park without water or power or washrooms is less than ideal.
What are we owed by the government? Housing the homeless saves more money elsewhere, but what happens when they keep hoarding shared communal space for their own semi-permanent exclusive use?
We need to provide homes, yes. We need to ask them whether they want a home and a leg back up into society. It has to be clear that returning to an area with no fresh water and available sanitation is not an option. Are we building shacks in the woods where density is low enough that a single person won’t stress the environment?
I find your hand-wringing over water and sanitation issues to be disingenuous. Obviously the city can provide freshwater and Porta potty’s so that’s not really an issue.
They are not “hoarding”, they are gathering together for survival. You are confusing the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society with corporations and the wealthy who are hoarding housing. They are in communal space because that’s all they have, they have no where else, they have to exist in communal space. If the tent communities are smashed the people don’t suddenly disappear, they simply disperse into the neighbourhoods making them even more more vulnerable.
What’s this nonsense about building shacks in the woods? Do they have support systems there? Where is the food supposed to come from, what about medical care?
