Do you think the homeless situation in west coast cities will ever get better?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I actually think the situations in SF and LA are slightly exaggerated, because they both have ultra-concentrated, highly visible skid rows. Yeah, Skid Row in downtown LA, and Tenderloin in SF are awful, but outside those areas, it doesn't seem worse than Seattle, Portland and San Diego.

It's especially pronounced in SF because you have Union Square, the showplace neighborhood, and two blocks west is a hellish zombieland. But if you live in, say, Marina, or Pacific Heights, I don't think there's an unusual problem with homeless.

I agree with this. Every time these threads come up it sounds extremely exaggerated and insular. Yes, there are tent cities on the West Coast, but no it's not substantially worse in L.A. or S.F. than in cities elsewhere of similar caliber.

Even the Tenderloin doesn't seem that bad to me. Yes, it's sketchy relative to the rest of SF, but I have walked through it plenty of times (during the day) and not felt bothered. Skid Row in L.A. is a bit more sketchy to me, and it's not a place I'd make a habit of walking around alone, but you can live an entire lifetime in L.A. without ever having to set foot in that part of the city.

[pj3000]

I think "normal" people should just start setting up tents and canopies and kegs of beer and bbqs in public parks, beaches, and golf courses, and have raging parties that go for days. Trash the fuck out of those places and then move on to the next public piece of property.

Give the city no option... if they choose address the illegal wild tent parties in, and trashing of, public parks, beaches, and golf courses, then they'll have to address the whacked out homeless tent parties on public streets and sidewalks.

[Encolpius]

It’s less complicated than most of you are making it out to be. Homelessness IS primarily a housing issue. By far the most successful programs addressing chronic homelessness are Housing First programs like the one SLC implemented under Gov. Huntsman. We don’t need to institutionalize everyone; we do need to house them. Offering counseling and drug treatment to people living on the streets is not very effective. Give a drug addict with mental issues a safe place to live, though, and all his other problems become more manageable. People in supported housing tend overwhelmingly to stay in housing and not end up in jail or emergency rooms. There’s years of convincing statistical evidence on this.

It’s expensive to house the indigent and should be primarily federally funded; on the other hand, there are significant savings in public health and criminal justice. Part of Defund the Police is diverting police and prison spending to building housing. It works when we do it.

[kodak black]

Hopefully it gets worse and housing prices crash so I can afford a home.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

It’s less complicated than most of you are making it out to be. Homelessness IS primarily a housing issue. By far the most successful programs addressing chronic homelessness are Housing First programs like the one SLC implemented under Gov. Huntsman. We don’t need to institutionalize everyone; we do need to house them. Offering counseling and drug treatment to people living on the streets is not very effective. Give a drug addict with mental issues a safe place to live, though, and all his other problems become more manageable. People in supported housing tend overwhelmingly to stay in housing and not end up in jail or emergency rooms. There’s years of convincing statistical evidence on this.

It’s expensive to house the indigent and should be primarily federally funded; on the other hand, there are significant savings in public health and criminal justice. Part of Defund the Police is diverting police and prison spending to building housing. It works when we do it.

Sure, but housing first as you mention is really a mental health intervention, not an intervention in housing markets. It is expensive, but as you say, much cheaper than institutionalization, and combined with outpatient care may be enough to help most unhoused people.

But you know, there's a chance some person who doesn't "deserve it' will get a free place to stay, so it will never happen in the US.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

It’s less complicated than most of you are making it out to be. Homelessness IS primarily a housing issue.

If homelessness is a housing issue, then why do communities with free housing on demand have homelessness?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

It’s less complicated than most of you are making it out to be. Homelessness IS primarily a housing issue. By far the most successful programs addressing chronic homelessness are Housing First programs like the one SLC implemented under Gov. Huntsman. We don’t need to institutionalize everyone; we do need to house them. Offering counseling and drug treatment to people living on the streets is not very effective. Give a drug addict with mental issues a safe place to live, though, and all his other problems become more manageable. People in supported housing tend overwhelmingly to stay in housing and not end up in jail or emergency rooms. There’s years of convincing statistical evidence on this.

It’s expensive to house the indigent and should be primarily federally funded; on the other hand, there are significant savings in public health and criminal justice. Part of Defund the Police is diverting police and prison spending to building housing. It works when we do it.

A significant issue with just building more housing in an urban environment for the homeless/mentally ill/drug addicted is that the location of that housing is still in an urban environment with all of the trappings contained therein. It does work for some people, but for many others, they are far too weak for the surrounding pressures present in the city.

This is precisely why the rural state hospital model of a century ago worked. Not only were people taken out of the environment in which they could not function, they had purpose and contributed to society in the form of agricultural or light industrial work. Now obviously, there was a also long history of involuntary psychiatric treatment and brutality associated with these institutions, but with modern-day counseling and treatment knowledge, I think the model could work without locking people up and sending them to the "funny farm".

Some people simply cannot function within the bounds of civil society... and we do an extreme disservice to them by locking them up in prison or by drugging them up with meds and putting them in some type of halfway house/group home (which is basically putting them "back on the streets"). Just a case the other day of a formerly homeless, mentally ill guy who was living in a treatment home who slit a girl's throat outside a Walgreens because she wouldn't give him money.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If homelessness is a housing issue, then why do communities with free housing on demand have homelessness?

Which communities do you mean? A shelter bed is not housing.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

Which communities do you mean? A shelter bed is not housing.

NYC has govt. provided housing (not shelter) on demand. I believe it's the only city with such a standing court order. NYC still has homeless.

If your theory were correct, NYC would have no homeless. In fact the homeless situation hasn't improved since the court order went into effect. Anyone who can prove they have no place to live, and who agrees to abide by the rules, receives city-funded housing.

[bossabreezes]

Homelessness is generally related to substance abuse disorders and other mental illness. Housing might play a small fraction of a role in the equation but, but it falls way behind drugs and mental illness in causation.

Treatment centers provide housing and could solve the problem, but unfortunately politics has labeled treatment of addicts as inhumane and living in squalor outside as compassionate.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I agree with this. Every time these threads come up it sounds extremely exaggerated and insular. Yes, there are tent cities on the West Coast, but no it's not substantially worse in L.A. or S.F. than in cities elsewhere of similar caliber.

Even the Tenderloin doesn't seem that bad to me. Yes, it's sketchy relative to the rest of SF, but I have walked through it plenty of times (during the day) and not felt bothered. Skid Row in L.A. is a bit more sketchy to me, and it's not a place I'd make a habit of walking around alone, but you can live an entire lifetime in L.A. without ever having to set foot in that part of the city.

Exactly. People act like residents need to deal with skid row all the time. We know its there and it sucks but it's not part of our daily lives.
The arts district is right next door and the homeless haven't stopped that area from blowing up.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by Crawford

NYC has govt. provided housing (not shelter) on demand. I believe it's the only city with such a standing court order. NYC still has homeless.

If your theory were correct, NYC would have no homeless. In fact the homeless situation hasn't improved since the court order went into effect. Anyone who can prove they have no place to live, and who agrees to abide by the rules, receives city-funded housing.

No, NYC has a right to shelter, not a right to housing. As you’ve hinted, shelters have a lot of rules (perhaps understandably, yet you or I would probably find them onerous). Many who are severely mentally ill cannot possibly manage to abide by them. One rule is no drugs: anyone who’s drug addicted will break that one. Some others prefer not to put up with them; perhaps they find rough sleeping more tolerable. (You know the saying ‘beggars can’t be choosers?’ It ain’t true: homeless people can be some of the stubbornest bastards around, based on the very small sample group of homeless people I’ve gotten to know — mostly as an undergraduate; probably I was less of an asshole then).

But common sense suggests (and research confirms) that it’s very hard for them to turn their lives around or manage their issues when they’re sleeping in subway tunnels or huddled in doorways. And even a shelter bed does not offer the stability or psychological well-being that permanent housing does. The best hope for helping these folks is to give them housing first, and social services along with housing and not as a precondition of it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

No, NYC has a right to shelter, not a right to housing.

No, NYC has court-mandated right to housing. But we still have homeless.

Obviously they don't automatically hand you the keys to an apartment. You first have to accept temporary shelter, then you have to be processed to see if you qualify, then you eventually get permanent housing, which is free if you have no earned income, 30% of income otherwise.

And yeah, it might take a year or more. And you have to follow the rules along the way. If you have relatives nearby you can bet they're gonna try and get you to voluntarily move in with them. They even buy you furniture for your relatives' place, because it's a lot cheaper than city housing. But you're entitled to housing if you meet the rules.

Originally Posted by Encolpius

But common sense suggests (and research confirms) that it’s very hard for them to turn their lives around or manage their issues when they’re sleeping in subway tunnels or huddled in doorways. And even a shelter bed does not offer the stability or psychological well-being that permanent housing does. The best hope for helping these folks is to give them housing first, and social services along with housing and not as a precondition of it.

Again, there will never be a scenario, anywhere on earth, where a homeless dude will just be offered keys to an apartment, no questions asked. They first have to be sheltered. This doesn't mean a cot on the floor in a gym full of homeless, it usually means temporary single-room occupancy housing, with services. And the permanent housing is, in most cases, supportive housing, with in-house services.

A huge share of those who request city housing are young women, often with children, who want a city apartment because they no longer want to live with family. Obviously the city cannot just furnish permanent housing for everyone following every family fight. The dude on the street muttering to himself needs differing services, and his problem isn't directly housing-related.

[muppet]

Basically the homelessness issue is what happens when govt retracts, and takes away the housing and services that combat homelessness. One of the more obvious signs of the Trump era. It also doesn't help that the top 1% own 43% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 40% (130 million people) share 1% of the wealth (or the bottom 80% sharing 7%). That is however inline with late stage capitalism, and a norm for the world in general now, we just have to get used to it -that's just how capitalism ends up, it capitalises unendingly until there's nothing left but a pyramid scheme of debt, over a few winners but mostly losers.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...essness-agency

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by muppet

Basically the homelessness issue is what happens when govt retracts, and takes away the housing and services that combat homelessness. One of the more obvious signs of the Trump era. It also doesn't help that the top 1% own 43% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 40% (130 million people) share 1% of the wealth (or the bottom 80% sharing 7%). That is however inline with late stage capitalism, and a norm for the world in general now, we just have to get used to it -that's just how capitalism ends up, it capitalises unedningly until there's nothing left but a pyramid scheme of debt, over a few winners but mostly losers.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...essness-agency

Having skim-read through this thread, I'm glad someone finally touched upon this; I was gonna mention it myself, but homelessness is directly related to poverty. The US using the capitalist model for healthcare, obviously medical attention for mental (as well as physical) health is gonna be for people fortunate enough to be able to afford it or go into debt for it.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Obviously they don't automatically hand you the keys to an apartment. You first have to accept temporary shelter, then you have to be processed to see if you qualify, then you eventually get permanent housing, which is free if you have no earned income, 30% of income otherwise.

And yeah, it might take a year or more. And you have to follow the rules along the way.

So in answer to your own question, this is why NYC still has some homeless sleeping on the streets (but thousands more in shelters and subsidized housing).

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, there will never be a scenario, anywhere on earth, where a homeless dude will just be offered keys to an apartment, no questions asked. They first have to be sheltered.

Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness; Here’s How

Under a previous anti-homelessness model, Kim Evans would've had to prove he was sober and drug-free before he could get housing and take that warm bath. Or he might have just stayed homeless.

Under Utah's Housing First approach, he'll get housed with few questions asked.

Housing First

[The North One]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I agree with this. Every time these threads come up it sounds extremely exaggerated and insular.

You and Crawford seem to be obsessed with minimizing the homeless crisis in this country and I'm not totally sure why. Are you that much of a shill for the establishment system? You're flat out attacking residents of Los Angeles for speaking about the issue.

It's not exaggerated, it's horrific and it's getting worse. It's not just people who are mentally ill or addicted to drugs, it's moms and families who lost their jobs, can't afford basic housing and are now out on the streets. I know it feels nice to pretend we've all divorced from the possibility of being homeless but the truth is we're not and that especially seems so in California. I mean how many more tent cities and people sleeping in the streets do you have to see?

Gaslighting people to believe it's not a problem is honestly kind of a shitty thing to do on your part.

[pj3000]

People who live in an area where they willingly pay extremely obscene and totally unnecessary amounts of money in rent or mortgage are a part of the homeless problem.

You wanna live in an incredibly expensive city? Well, that utter lack of affordability also buys you some of the homeless problem. Enjoy!

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by pj3000

You wanna live in an incredibly expensive city? Well, that utter lack of affordability also buys you some of the homeless problem. Enjoy!

SF doesn't have a homeless problem because it's expensive. I don't think there's any causal relationship.

SF has a homeless problem because great weather + great benefits + govt. doesn't use punitive measures. If SF were as cheap as Cleveland there would be no reduction in homeless. There might, even long-term, be an increase, because the billions spent annually on supportive housing would probably evaporate with the tax base.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by The North One

You and Crawford seem to be obsessed with minimizing the homeless crisis in this country and I'm not totally sure why. Are you that much of a shill for the establishment system? You're flat out attacking residents of Los Angeles for speaking about the issue.

It's not exaggerated, it's horrific and it's getting worse. It's not just people who are mentally ill or addicted to drugs, it's moms and families who lost their jobs, can't afford basic housing and are now out on the streets. I know it feels nice to pretend we've all divorced from the possibility of being homeless but the truth is we're not and that especially seems so in California. I mean how many more tent cities and people sleeping in the streets do you have to see?

Gaslighting people to believe it's not a problem is honestly kind of a shitty thing to do on your part.

You said half of downtown was tents. You lied.
You exgerrated. I don't even know why you're posting about something you clearly know nothing about.

Maybe I should say half of Detroit is abandoned .