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.

[removed]

Didn’t Salt Lake City have a pretty progressive housing first policy a while back?

It was and is the first of its kind. Many cities have used there paradigm as a model to combat homelessness in other cities.

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.

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.

That’s uplifting!

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.

If that was the case I would not consider this uplifting, lol.

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.

It's the only catch in Utah

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.

Chronic homelessness lol sounds like a disease.. but instead it doesn’t choose you, you choose it

[removed]

The secret sauce is not having stupid restrictions and accepting that some unsightly things will occur

Cost savings so uplifting right now!

Stupid as in staying sober? Don't the staff and specialists who work there deserve a safe working environment?

[removed]

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.

Yep, its stupid to demand people with problems fix their problems BEFORE you offer support for their problems

Still a choice they made....

Those will be trashed in no time.

[removed]

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.

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.

Chronic homelessness? Just say homeless.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

Denver's have been running successfully for half a decade, so probably not.

One other catch. You have to live in Utah

>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).

Surprise, surprise. The Mormon's are livid about it.

>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...

Trust me, the church is only peripherally involved in homeless services in SLC.

>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.

>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...

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.

[removed]

“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

Oh no! Things are hard! Guess we’ll just leave them too die

/s for the eradication of doubt

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.

Shit..I forgot to check the bank. They make ton of money off of this.

Man can preach.....

For real though. Bring some substance.

Homelessville.

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.

I can’t maintain 30 days sober and I own a triplex.

Well it’s not working since there’s still a shit ton of homeless people here

People "choose" to be homeless? You honestly believe that?

Fuck yessssssss! Can we do this everywhere?

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

Because every person who isn't sober is a violent psychopath.

In SLC?

"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"

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

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.

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.

its more nuanced than that. Like all things there are degrees of homelessness. Chronic being the extreme end.

[removed]

If it's the only catch in Utah you prolly line there too

This. I couldn't even begin my sobreity journey until I had my own roof over my head.

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.

> 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.

[removed]

Ever had cancer? Cmon now you see my point

I’d love to watch an HOA try and do there thing in that neighborhood.

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.

[removed]

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.

That's going to get trashed by the gutter people so fast

[removed]

[deleted]

*shrug, experience is the only substance that matters.

Perhaps come back when you have some on this matter.

Good idea only if they are sober living and provide mentoring to help people get back on their feet.

[removed]

I know it's not but I imagine small mushroom elf houses when I see the title.

Yeah, but you have to live in SLC

Oh yeah

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.

"People experiencing chronic homelessness". Knock it off. The euphemism treadmill is getting out of control.

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.

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

I'm not sure why folks are in favor of segregation.

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/climate/salt-lake-city-climate-disaster.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DLDm4diO8RAo2J50qKfqNne5431jeWAdRALK5qT_hzy-ZDMglhShKhuYeJgtIFPyAx48qVb18B4qjsD_o-4CO4KS6wMvt-z7my-BzbOmO6D6zVzXVycAd6pcNhJkX523cN2qfHGuRw3NYu269yBYtoBmtVPFn8tPfpDRl7PdWAf0ucvlFwA7cFLGmVyd2M6LsAcxFQDkbERB5942U64NBaMLAHLfq1bk5gKIel3-JnWiE_J5ypBpYxW4HRi7xh1LfMohGHw8e9rO4kjkXOipVX7xtjJev0o9s4Ng&smid=em-share

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.

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.

[removed]

[removed]

Because they view them (homeless people) as being different and a part of their group.

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.

That's a tough sell when drug dealers and needles start showing up at your neighborhood sand play box and playgrounds.

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.

They don’t need smaller houses, they need a common living area for everyone

Some sort of shelter... for those with less... homes...

Actually homeless shelters are super dangerous and theft is common. Independent housing fixes that.

Independent housing means someone will put trash everywhere. Theft in communal housing is actually called sharing

Don’t let slc fool you, they are pretty bad to homeless.

> be sober for a month

> Magic sauce

Hmm

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.

[removed]

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.

*shrug, at least they are trying something.

So wonderful

Yes, their home becomes a trash dump for certain people

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

I hope it works out

They let perfection be the enemy of progress there it seems…

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.

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)

Exactly.

Make participation mandatory, but don't make it a prerequisite to get off the streets.

This ain't about me bro.

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.

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.

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

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

Maybe everyone should have a tiny house

[removed]

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.