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.
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.
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.
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.
There are countries and jurisdictions all over the world that have removed the need to participate in social programs in order to qualify for social housing. This is called “Housing First”. You know what happened in those places? Homelessness diminished significantly.
You claim there are people who would be uncooperative if they were given a home, and frankly I don’t believe you. If someone is given bare minimum accommodations with no strings attached, they will take it because the alternative is sleeping in the streets. Your friend who prefers the bohemian lifestyle doesn’t count. We’re talking about people who aren’t able to access housing due to economic or societal reasons, not people who simply choose not to access housing.
If someone is homeless and also an alcoholic, one of those problems has a very straightforward solution. It would be basically impossible for them to deal with their alcoholism while also homeless. Personally, I’d say someone still deserves a roof over their head even if they struggle with an illness like alcoholism.
We absolutely need to stop making access to housing contingent on participation in other social programs. It’s incredibly cruel to treat housing as the carrot (and the threat of homelessness as the stick) to motivate someone to fix their life. Shelter is a basic human right, not a bargaining chip.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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?
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.
There are countries and jurisdictions all over the world that have removed the need to participate in social programs in order to qualify for social housing. This is called “Housing First”. You know what happened in those places? Homelessness diminished significantly.
You claim there are people who would be uncooperative if they were given a home, and frankly I don’t believe you. If someone is given bare minimum accommodations with no strings attached, they will take it because the alternative is sleeping in the streets. Your friend who prefers the bohemian lifestyle doesn’t count. We’re talking about people who aren’t able to access housing due to economic or societal reasons, not people who simply choose not to access housing.
If someone is homeless and also an alcoholic, one of those problems has a very straightforward solution. It would be basically impossible for them to deal with their alcoholism while also homeless. Personally, I’d say someone still deserves a roof over their head even if they struggle with an illness like alcoholism.
We absolutely need to stop making access to housing contingent on participation in other social programs. It’s incredibly cruel to treat housing as the carrot (and the threat of homelessness as the stick) to motivate someone to fix their life. Shelter is a basic human right, not a bargaining chip.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Good points, but that doesn’t account for homeless in poor areas moving away.