Comments
Just_One_Hit t1_iwfju5n wrote
It looks like the Albuquerque tiny home village got rid of the 30-day sober before entry requirement, they're just required to be sober while living in the village now (source):
>Two of the major hurdles the village faced earlier on in filling the 30 homes were a lack of funding for staff and the requirement that people are already sober before they move in. Chavez says the 30-day sobriety policy is now no longer part of the vetting process; however, there are still rules residents need to follow. Applicants must be willing to take part in a harm reduction or recovery program and follow rules of no drug or alcohol use within the tiny home village.
Denver also has successful tiny home villages running for a half decade now (source). There's no magic sauce. People just need to have realistic expectations for harm reduction programs, and realize that housing first is the humane and fiscally responsible option.
Northstar1989 t1_iwfnzoe wrote
>30-day sober before entry
>housing first
This was the problem.
It's not really housing first if you start adding difficult requirements (staying sober an entire month while dealing with the extreme stress of homelessness and likely untreated mental illness is extremely hard and not exactly a low bar to entry for someone with an addiction) to even get the housing.
The whole point of Housing First is that by giving people a stable place to live, it becomes feasible to actually start dealing with problems like addiction (a difficult issue to tackle even for people who have never been homeless).
TremblingWilbury t1_iwftpau wrote
I can’t maintain 30 days sober and I own a triplex.
londonladse t1_iwg5gyd wrote
This. I couldn't even begin my sobreity journey until I had my own roof over my head.
mcslootypants t1_iwgzsoq wrote
Policy makers never heard of Maslow’s Hierarchy apparently.
Nothing can be accomplished until basic needs are met. Coping mechanisms (substance abuse) exist because those have been absent.
Or let’s put the cart before the horse and then blame the horse for being lazy! Genius.
Northstar1989 t1_iwjcyr3 wrote
Pretty spot-on.
'Cept I don't think they don't know better.
I suspect the malice and lack of understanding is intentional. A lot of politicians get elected through resentment-fueled politics nowadays.
mcslootypants t1_iwjkmhy wrote
You’re right, I was being generous assuming no mal-intent. They absolutely have access to mental/public health and policy experts.
Blaming individuals for moral failure rather than addressing systemic issues must be hella convenient though.
siggydude t1_iwhkfyq wrote
This is so encouraging to hear! I was part of the design for the Albuquerque Tiny Home Village and was really disheartened when I heard early on that they only had like 5 out the 30 tiny homes filled because of the requirements
[deleted] t1_iwp9tox wrote
[removed]
corsicanguppy t1_iwfj1ry wrote
You need that other hand, the support from a mental health outpatient service to assess and guide people toward whatever help they can get, so they can be built toward sobriety and some pharma help ... or advanced care options for the profound cases.
... which, in America, for a person without really good insurance, may not be bountiful; I understand.
Syndrome1986 t1_iwigfpx wrote
Hiring a licensed therapist to run the thing might be a good step. You have the services on retainer and onsite at least part of the time.
gregorydgraham t1_iwfcw2g wrote
The secret sauce is not having stupid restrictions and accepting that some unsightly things will occur
FeelDeAssTyson t1_iwfdas7 wrote
Stupid as in staying sober? Don't the staff and specialists who work there deserve a safe working environment?
gregorydgraham t1_iwfg7t9 wrote
Yep, its stupid to demand people with problems fix their problems BEFORE you offer support for their problems
Zergzapper t1_iwfi6j3 wrote
And the Finn's proved it, housing first assistance is incredibly helpful, imagine trying to get clean when every night you are sleeping in a different place where it's not really safe well how bout you take a drink or a hit and now that problem is much less stressful. It's literally keeping them using just to keep them from a stress breakdown on the street which is of course also not a good mental health solution. You get people off the street, an address to have mail and checks sent to, a place with a locking front door, they immediately feel safer and those stressors are no longer there and no it's easier to.get them help.
Northstar1989 t1_iwfoiv8 wrote
>imagine trying to get clean when every night you are sleeping in a different place where it's not really safe
Exactly this.
Asking homeless people with addictions to be completely, 100% clean for an entire month before providing them housing is horribly unrealistic, and grounded in a lack of empathy or understanding of what these peoples' experiences are like...
Vyzantinist t1_iwg9ebt wrote
> imagine trying to get clean when every night you are sleeping in a different place where it's not really safe well how bout you take a drink or a hit and now that problem is much less stressful. It's literally keeping them using just to keep them from a stress breakdown on the street which is of course also not a good mental health solution.
This so much. Normies really don't know how bleak and soul-crushing homelessness is. You'd have to be a lottery-odds level of person to get and/or stay sober when you're in that environment.
corsicanguppy t1_iwfj9yh wrote
> fix their problems BEFORE you offer support for their problems
Alcohol and homelessness are comorbid and complex but not the same problems; and they require separate, layered solutions.
Northstar1989 t1_iwfoe7f wrote
>they require separate, layered solutions.
Solutions which are extremely, extremely difficult to provide in a sufficiently reliable manner while a person is still living on the streets or in shelters.
gregorydgraham t1_iwfpmi6 wrote
Oh no! Things are hard! Guess we’ll just leave them too die
/s for the eradication of doubt
Northstar1989 t1_iwfob1s wrote
>Stupid as in staying sober?
Stupid because it's incredibly difficult for someone struggling with addiction to BECOME (not "stay" as you misleadingly and falsely claim) sober while out on the streets.
Experience proves it's extremely difficult for an addict to become sober even when they have never been homeless. Doing it while still living on the streets, for an entire month (not some more realistic, reasonable requirement, like a few days) is nigh-impossible.
Asking for near-impossible things as a prerequisite to providing someone help is wishful thinking at best, and malice fueled by resentment and pride at worst...
g_cheeks t1_iwfys0e wrote
Much better for them to be in a program that they must participate in while being homed. Having a safe place to sleep and your own space makes a HUGE difference and will assist with many of the occupants progression of getting back on their feet
Northstar1989 t1_iwjbp2e wrote
Exactly.
Make participation mandatory, but don't make it a prerequisite to get off the streets.
[deleted] t1_iwgu9jl wrote
[removed]
Northstar1989 t1_iwjbxjj wrote
This ain't about me bro.
[deleted] t1_iwh5bvz wrote
[removed]
Ryan7456 t1_iwfz63d wrote
Because every person who isn't sober is a violent psychopath.
SerendipitySue t1_iwfj4bk wrote
There are safety concerns for the other resident and staff and also the very facililities. Not unsightly..but dangerous.
So in Albuquerque they are selective. They also found some that qualified declined housing when they found it included participation in social services and minimal worl cleaning up the facilities. Last I read, they did get a few residents who were overjoyed.
The alburqerque project has no fed funding, so they could experiment with this model. As best as i recall.
[deleted] t1_iwfp24u wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwfde0v wrote
[removed]
corsicanguppy t1_iwfj6mp wrote
I don't think no restrictions worked well in the past. They may work better in tiny homes which are fully detached and have that added noise barrier of no shared walls, but that may be rare and doesn't seem to be definitely the case here.
gregorydgraham t1_iwfpig8 wrote
“I don’t think” - this is weak, you need to pump it up with “only an idiot thinks”
“Worked well” - this is an obvious weasel word (albeit a compound one), avoid slipperiness with “worked at all”.
“They may work better” - this is both weak and weaselly. Try “they only ever work”
“But that may be rare and doesn’t seem to be definitely the case here” - Ay caramba! Do you kiss your girlfriend with those lips? Even “but I don’t think so” would’ve been better
JonnyBugLifter t1_iwgpl2r wrote
I’d love to watch an HOA try and do there thing in that neighborhood.
MassiveFajiit t1_iwi6j62 wrote
> be sober for a month
> Magic sauce
Hmm
w3are138 t1_iwg1t2j wrote
That’s such a shame. I really believe in housing first without restrictions and definitely without the restriction of being sober for an entire month. People need to be housed first before they can address their other problems. It saddens me so much to imagine people being turned away just bc they’re suffering from addiction. We need to decriminalize drugs and really accept that addiction is a disease in this country, a medical condition that needs medical treatment. It needs to be treated the same as a broken leg or an ear infection. Removing the stigma and criminality would allow so many people to get the help they desperately need. It would save so many lives.
Weaselpiggy t1_iweifoi wrote
Didn’t Salt Lake City have a pretty progressive housing first policy a while back?
jhystad t1_iweiqpx wrote
It was and is the first of its kind. Many cities have used there paradigm as a model to combat homelessness in other cities.
Weaselpiggy t1_iwejant wrote
Yeah I am just doing a little reading on it and it sounds awesome. I hope the program continues and we can see data to support this humane policy. Reductions in hospitalizations, reductions in emergency service utilizations, I bet it’s fiscally better to house people even with the high costs of the program.
jhystad t1_iwejpdv wrote
Apparently, it's 1/2 the cost to house the homeless and offer them programs for addiction and mental health issues than ending up in hospital and jail where most eventually end up.
Weaselpiggy t1_iwel4jn wrote
That’s uplifting!
gregorydgraham t1_iwfcz1c wrote
Cost savings so uplifting right now!
lastdiggmigrant t1_iwg5y5n wrote
Sure, it was great, right up until Operation Rio Grande which just criminalized being homeless. After that, everything changed for the worse. The treatment of unhoused peoples in Salt Lake City is abhorrent. I am cautiously optimistic about this Tiny house vision, but what I have seen provokes serious skepticism.
nwahsaj t1_iwfxag7 wrote
Well it’s not working since there’s still a shit ton of homeless people here
jhystad t1_iwg0gjh wrote
In SLC?
corythegreatdeesnuts t1_iwhdb4z wrote
Oh yeah
Tenter5 t1_iwi3sut wrote
Don’t let slc fool you, they are pretty bad to homeless.
kaizerdouken t1_iwf2ygi wrote
What exactly constitutes “chronic homelessness”? Because homeless people are in a very different spot than drug addict homeless which you see a lot just staying homeless for years.
hogester79 t1_iwg1gp0 wrote
I literally raise money and build homes for the homeless, so hopefully I can add some insight (and I am not really from the sector - so I had to learn all these concepts too).
Essentially people who are chronically homeless have a range of issues that are keeping them from being stable enough in their lives to manage a property on their own. This can be due to chronic poverty - never learnt to read and write - neither did their parents etc, therefore no stable income, no stable structures when growing up, and so the cycle obviously continues. When you are in this position its also then more likely that when things go bad you end up homeless, and then with no skills or necessary experience to change your own circumstances, you just cycle further and further out of the traditional support systems. Hence "chronic".
E.g. How do you earn money when you don't own a phone, have a stable place to live and can't even really read or write - (or not very well), so this cycle just continues. Other times it is drugs, alcohol or mental health issues but it can also be from things like those fleeing family violence, those with disabilities.
I live in Melbourne, Australia, our current rental vacancies (city of over 5 Million people) is less than 1% and of all the properties available, at any one time, only 1 or 2 of those are actually classified as affordable (not costing more than 30% of your income). Our avg. House Price is over $1M and our Social Security is around $250 per week if you are on benefits. There are 2 places for rent in all of Melbourne for under $250 per week and both of those are student accommodation (essentially a single dorm room).
All of these factors impact their ability to remain stable (in the context of self management) so typically what happens is they just default back into homelessness as they have gotten to the point they know no other life and then don't know how to not be homeless. Sometimes even a roof over heads doesn't help unless service organisations are there to help.
Edit - grammar
Jahobes t1_iwhxadr wrote
Chronic homelessness really only happens to people with severe mental illness or drug addiction. If you lost your job and you now have nowhere to live you will not be homeless for long if at all.
There are just to many services and shelters to be chronically homeless without serious personal disabilities.
INFOborg t1_iwfqnca wrote
Good. People need homes to heal.
Just ask any neurophysiological scientist about what kind of space is required for states of homeostasis. All of them will tell you that you must feel safe and at rest in order for your body and mind to heal itself.
The street has no safe space. The shelters have no safe space. The jails have no safe space. So of course there is no healing while experiencing homelessness. Of course most are too beat up to hold down jobs. Of course there is self-medication with illegal substances. Homelessness is an unending parade of trauma as these individuals and families are shoved from one intolerable situation into another.
I don't care if some people fuck up their opportunities to live in public housing. The Housing First model allows for fuck ups, because a lot of clients eventually start getting it after a fuck up or two. They begin establishing better boundaries with their friends. They begin treating their spaces with more respect. They begin seeking more healthcare and therapy.
Not all of them. But you'd better fucking believe that there are a LOT of them that do. I have worked for 8 years serving the chronically homeless population in SLC. I have had 11 of my clients die in scattered site housing (apartments) with far more dignity than others who preferred the street. I have seen people finally be able to interview for, and keep jobs.
I have seen some people destroy their apartments, and turn them into meth centers and brothels. But those people are in the minority. Most of my clients were absolutely grateful, and treated their apartments like sacred space.
Please do not pretend to predict what will happen with these homes unless you have actual experience in that work. The population that experiences homelessness is just as complex and varied as any other socio-economic subset of this country.
Bearded_Hobbit t1_iwfrt1m wrote
Man can preach.....
Bearded_Hobbit t1_iwfrwo3 wrote
For real though. Bring some substance.
INFOborg t1_iwh6nap wrote
*shrug, experience is the only substance that matters.
Perhaps come back when you have some on this matter.
Bearded_Hobbit t1_iwilzxg wrote
*shrug, at least they are trying something.
IndigoRanger t1_iwertxn wrote
I keep wanting to see these kinds of projects succeed! There was one in my state where they were going to convert a campground and make a safer tent city situation, but it got smashed because it was perceived as insulting to the homeless and too small a step. A small step wasn’t worth it I guess. I think you have to think out of the box and across a spectrum of housing types to help lift people out of homelessness. There isn’t going to be one solution that fits everyone, or even a majority. Every state is different, every climate is different, and every city. And beyond that, every homeless person is different and has different needs. But personal safety and a chance to live in some kind of stability is the clear first step.
[deleted] t1_iwfca0s wrote
[removed]
Half_Man1 t1_iwj1hma wrote
They let perfection be the enemy of progress there it seems…
IndigoRanger t1_iwj3xtx wrote
They did. And I’m sure any plan will run into problems and issues, but that’s no reason not to try it! They also firmly believed that houses are the only real solution to homelessness, ignoring that some homeless people dislike the confines of solid walls, some don’t want or are incapable of dealing with normal homeownership maintenance, some aren’t in financial stability enough to manage a home that comes with monthly costs. Some would really benefit from small houses! There are other solutions out there for each of these situations, but we are unwilling to try small steps because we incorrectly perceive them to be half steps.
DNA2020 t1_iwgqwuh wrote
I don't like the idea of building a specific block of houses or apartments for homeless individuals. I think it would work better if they were spread out and integrated into established neighborhoods. Concentrating people together who have mental health issues and who struggle with addiction is a recipe for more of the same.
​
Edit: I assume the downvotes are from folks who promote segregation.
Phxlemonmuggle t1_iwhiib4 wrote
Nationally I've seen decent neighborhoods object to section 8 or affordable apartments being built close to "their" neighborhood. Meaning yeah build it but not over here. The same people never help find the other place. When people say NIMBY this is what I think of.
DNA2020 t1_iwhkpcs wrote
I'm not sure why folks are in favor of segregation.
Phxlemonmuggle t1_iwhu8um wrote
Because they view them (homeless people) as being different and a part of their group.
g_cheeks t1_iwfynjr wrote
Fuck yessssssss! Can we do this everywhere?
[deleted] t1_iwg435a wrote
[removed]
Martholomeow t1_iwho4ks wrote
When will we learn that putting all the poor people together in a separate community is a terrible idea? The housing projects in NYC are perfect example of why that’s a terrible idea, as they are filled with violent crime but we are stuck with them.
Better to give people housing payment assistance so they can live as part of the wider community.
Jahobes t1_iwhy4k7 wrote
That's a tough sell when drug dealers and needles start showing up at your neighborhood sand play box and playgrounds.
WittyWise777 t1_iwh6v4e wrote
Good idea only if they are sober living and provide mentoring to help people get back on their feet.
AutoModerator t1_iwebsoq wrote
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
hukep t1_iwfs0pa wrote
Homelessville.
[deleted] t1_iwgagsc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwh5zs8 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iwhazug wrote
[removed]
ZoulsGaming t1_iwhb44f wrote
I know it's not but I imagine small mushroom elf houses when I see the title.
Trucktub t1_iwhctcq wrote
Yeah, but you have to live in SLC
livewithluck t1_iwhlt8x wrote
Next, they need to address conserving the water that flows into the Great Salt Lake. So the dust won't make thousands of people sick.
johann_lex t1_iwho8hf wrote
Why not take empty churches(seeing how LDS population is dwindling) and convert classrooms into separate bedrooms? Churches already have kitchens and bathroom stalls, add showers and convert the parking lot(even just half) into a garden and it could be a community for those dealing with homelessness.
[deleted] t1_iwhsek2 wrote
[removed]
Sparkykun t1_iwhyzcl wrote
They don’t need smaller houses, they need a common living area for everyone
Twerking4theTweakend t1_iwi2gq5 wrote
Some sort of shelter... for those with less... homes...
Actually homeless shelters are super dangerous and theft is common. Independent housing fixes that.
Sparkykun t1_iwi3da9 wrote
Independent housing means someone will put trash everywhere. Theft in communal housing is actually called sharing
Twerking4theTweakend t1_iwi6xdn wrote
Lol... Where will they put trash in a tiny home? Under themselves? I imagine if the conditions in the home get bad, they open the side, firehose everything out, and start over.
Sparkykun t1_iwivtjm wrote
Yes, their home becomes a trash dump for certain people
Twerking4theTweakend t1_iwj60ce wrote
So they're only eligible for charity if they do their chores?
I get that people don't want to see donations abused or wasted, but part donating to other adults includes treating them like adults and not micromanaging or parenting them. For charity to make sense I think we have to assume that some people are just down on their luck and some luck in the other direction could pull them out.
If we're living in a meritocracy then charity makes no sense and people just reap what they sow. (hint: we don't live in a meritocracy, but our instincts and egos try to convince us otherwise, if we are successful)
Sparkykun t1_iwjv1xg wrote
Some people who have their own little homes just never take out the garbage, so they are just throwing all their trash on the floor, and pretty soon, the house becomes a garbage dump
Sparkykun t1_iwk2sth wrote
Money is how much money you give to how many people, so it cannot be equated to living necessities like housing and food, which means that there ought to be free housing and food for everyone
[deleted] t1_iwi7w1n wrote
[removed]
OneTraditional5575 t1_iwis78t wrote
So wonderful
dilaudid-coldshake t1_iwiyhfr wrote
Not trying to be an asshole, just being real. I’ve been in that situation and worse before. All those tiny houses are gonna be ashes in about 10 days
Alone_Wolfpack1992 t1_iwizmu7 wrote
I hope it works out
Reasonable_Debate t1_iwndh8t wrote
Maybe everyone should have a tiny house
APandChill t1_ixc7t0y wrote
As heartless as this sounds, my tax money shouldn’t be going to house drug addicts and lazy people. Let me help them if I want to, don’t force me to do it.
[deleted] t1_iwec7ex wrote
[removed]
Taintastic OP t1_iwere0p wrote
If that was the case I would not consider this uplifting, lol.
INFOborg t1_iwfobut wrote
Trust me, the church is only peripherally involved in homeless services in SLC.
hornybible t1_iwevllm wrote
It's the only catch in Utah
ItsPronouncedJithub t1_iwflanm wrote
One other catch. You have to live in Utah
hornybible t1_iwg4gpj wrote
If it's the only catch in Utah you prolly line there too
Dsgntn_The_thicknes t1_iwh2s56 wrote
That's going to get trashed by the gutter people so fast
techpriestyahuaa t1_iwhejsq wrote
Large portion of Mormons in Salt Lake, right? No, caveats in terms of housing insinuating it’ll be good for them to meet up with their group. If not then I’d like support the community.
Greazyone t1_iwhykuh wrote
The soilent green factory is just out of the picture view I'm sure. Mormon plots are so easy to snuff out if you know where to look.
bleucheeez t1_iwft5c4 wrote
And not for first-time homeless? Also why tiny homes and not trailers?
Rhetorical. I did not read the article. Don't feel obligated to answer if it's in there.
InternetWilliams t1_iwhenod wrote
"People experiencing chronic homelessness". Knock it off. The euphemism treadmill is getting out of control.
[deleted] t1_iwhu85a wrote
[removed]
thunder_struck85 t1_iwfgw6r wrote
Those will be trashed in no time.
Just_One_Hit t1_iwfkf57 wrote
Denver's have been running successfully for half a decade, so probably not.
DrClawizdead t1_iwfimyl wrote
Chronic homelessness? Just say homeless.
hogester79 t1_iwg1xnh wrote
its more nuanced than that. Like all things there are degrees of homelessness. Chronic being the extreme end.
Bearded_Hobbit t1_iwfo6xj wrote
Surprise, surprise. The Mormon's are livid about it.
Bearded_Hobbit t1_iwfrogn wrote
Shit..I forgot to check the bank. They make ton of money off of this.
Nigredo78 t1_iwg0lpi wrote
"instead of actual homes.. we the people of the fine city of cuntsville have decreed you all must live in shacks.. outside of any area that affects our property value"
chasidi t1_iwf58lk wrote
Chronic homelessness lol sounds like a disease.. but instead it doesn’t choose you, you choose it
mrwhi7e t1_iwffnnr wrote
Meh, ever been an addict? Good people get addicted and never get any help whatsoever. Offering those looking for help an option is a good start.
chasidi t1_iwggpm0 wrote
Ever had cancer? Cmon now you see my point
thunder_struck85 t1_iwfgubu wrote
Still a choice they made....
[deleted] t1_iwfh81m wrote
[removed]
Zergzapper t1_iwfidyu wrote
A choice between an abusive home and the street at 16 isn't really a choice, my buddy was thrown out on the street at 16 he didn't get a choice.
hogester79 t1_iwg1utj wrote
100% - its so much more complex than people think. Just give up the drugs or just get a job or just live on your own as a 16 year old cause your family home is broken.
Life is hard and not everyone wins but your statement is so on the money. There are millions of reasons why someone ends up homeless and can't change their circumstance and its not typically by choice.
INFOborg t1_iwfopml wrote
What group are you talking about? The people visible on the street?
What you describe only accounts for a percentage of people experiencing homelessness. Others include medical/financial disaster, job loss, chronic illness, mental illness, and teens getting kicked out for being LGBTQ.
Try volunteering at a local shelter for one month, and your perception of people in this situation will change drastically.
Keasar t1_iwfyiv9 wrote
People "choose" to be homeless? You honestly believe that?
SerendipitySue t1_iwem2km wrote
A tough tough population they are targeting. I know albuquerque could not fill their little village because it required being sober for a month, and required a bit of community work, like sweeping walks and cleaning common areas. They also refused clearly out of control people.
It will be interesting to see if Salt lake has discovered the magic sauce to get this population off the streets.