Submitted by real_human__bean t3_115e0q7 in baltimore
Comments
Ms_Cranky_Pants t1_j91qo6h wrote
Yep. Also, the Point in Time count doesn’t even include everyone who meets the definition of “homelessness”. Including people whose living situation is unstable (couchsurfing, staying with family, etc.) or staying in a single room occupancy arrangement (those room rental situations really suck). It’s hard to determine how many people are in those situations, but important to acknowledge, they need access to resources too. “Housing” is the bare minimum, people need agency and some kind of quality of life.
cuzimmathug t1_j92z2wd wrote
It's also based on one night out of the entire year, specifically one of the coldest nights of the year, intentionally. The federal theory is that "people who CAN find a place to stay but choose not to during bearable weather will be staying somewhere on the coldest night" as if this somehow makes the count more accurate.
Anyway, if you and some friends scrape together enough money for a motel room on the night of the count, you are not considered homeless and will not be counted.
Source: coordinated the PIT count in the midwest. I have a lot of issues with it and am happy to pop off if anyones interested.
DONNIENARC0 t1_j94jhky wrote
How do they even go about contacting/measuring these people in the first place, coldest night of the year or not?
I would guess there’s practically no chance the overwhelming majortity of the homeless have reliable contact info, and having city agents canvass the entire city is a practical nonstarter
I guess it seems like every method I can think of for attempting to track homelessness would be horrible best.
cuzimmathug t1_j94uxua wrote
Yeah it is pretty complicated. Some of the bigger cities have lots of canvassers that deploy one night in sections of the city. We had a few volunteers and conducted the count over a few days, but would use the official count date as our point of reference. So the question would be "where are you staying tomorrow night?" or "where did you stay thursday night?" depending on the day.
Lots of cities know where the larger encampments are, though part of what determines a states funding is seeing the numbers go down from year to year. Because of this, lots of shady things take place. In Portland 2 years ago the police swept the local camp sites forcing people to move like 3 days before the count, making it exponentially harder to find and count those people.
CaptainObvious110 t1_j93mayy wrote
Those people do indeed need resources as well that's true. What I think needs to happen is that people are classified based on why they are homeless.
-
Loss of job or something else. They need a place to stay temporarily until they can get back on their feet. In the meantime they need to eat and have medical care.
-
People with mental illness that can be treated and they can hold down a job and just need some stability for the time being.
-
People with mental and or physical illnesses so severe that they honestly CANNOT hold down a job. As a result, they will always need to be provided with a place to live, food and medical care as well.
-
Likely there will always be at least a small group of chronically homeless that don't want to live in a traditional home or a shelter. Whether it's because of mental Illness or not I don't think you can force them to live somewhere if that's really not what they want to do.
CaptainObvious110 t1_j93ldrs wrote
How many chronically homeless folks would you say are in Baltimore City? Also, what is the conditions of the shelter you have experience with? Percentagewise how many of those chronically homeless are due to severe chronic mental illnesses that realistically won't allow them to work even if medicated?
sllewgh t1_j93mzfk wrote
>How many chronically homeless folks would you say are in Baltimore City?
I don't claim to have an accurate number.
>Also, what is the conditions of the shelter you have experience with?
I've been fortunate enough to not have to utilize city shelters. My knowledge comes from talking with dozens of people who have. No hot water, no hot food, no social distancing, no hand soap... a huge lack of basic needs. These conditions existed before the pandemic, but they got a lot worse. Three weeks into lockdown we were distributing masks at Our Daily Bread and the employees came out to get them, too. They said no one from the city had contacted them, they didn't have supplies, and we were the first ones to actually provide any help to them whatsoever in that time.
>Percentagewise how many of those chronically homeless are due to severe chronic mental illnesses that realistically won't allow them to work even if medicated?
I don't have that information. I doubt it's very high. I do know off the top of my head that the majority of homeless folks are employed, which indicates to me that low wages and poor housing affordability are significant systemic factors, and it's not just individual issues at play.
CaptainObvious110 t1_j93smnr wrote
Ok, thanks so much! So let's say that 75% of the homeless population could be in a stable environment. That knocks things down quite a bit for people that need complete permanent help.
That's a lot of people that could be working and providing for themselves eventually. Not nearly as bad as I was expecting it to be
sllewgh t1_j93unif wrote
Yeah, it's a common belief that most homeless folks are homeless because they have mental illness, drug addiction, or other issues besides a lack of housing. For sure these problems are much more prevalent in the homeless population than the general population, but as I said, systemic issues and housing affordability are huge factors. Fewer folks are aware of how many homeless people are working, but still unable to afford it.
The sort of widespread, visible, chronic homelessness we see today hasn't always existed in this country. Used to be that homelessness was something experienced by relatively few people and as a relatively short term problem. It really began to emerge in the 60s as public housing began to be dismantled. Since then, the HUD budget has been slashed by about 90%, and we've lost more units of public and subsidized housing than we currently have homeless people. There are many other factors as well, including the proliferation of addictive drugs in impoverished communities, the closing of sanitariums with no substitute, but the big one is that the market has failed to made housing affordable. We absolutely know how to solve this problem- we need to spend more money and make sure people have affordable housing, even if its not profitable to do so. There's just no political will to do it.
CaptainObvious110 t1_j93vui5 wrote
It's very sad that there is money that could solve this problem but that it's not being used for that purpose.
sllewgh t1_j93wg39 wrote
Agreed! Our system is cruel, it fails to meet people's needs, and it's in need of deep reform.
CaptainObvious110 t1_j98rj1q wrote
Yes it does. It's annoying to me that people that have the ability to make changes keep talking about it but don't ever really solve the problem. You don't have to do any studies, we know what the problem is, we know why it's that way and we know how to fix it. All that's left is actually doing it.
[deleted] t1_j91p82h wrote
[removed]
real_human__bean OP t1_j910ncy wrote
Is this true? I’m not a local, just a big cities nerd.
BaltimoreBadger23 t1_j9130fd wrote
I hadn't seen this news, but it's not surprising. Baltimore has a lot of vacant housing stock, so rehoming the homeless with federal support isn't super difficult if there's just a little will to do so (and the will to do so is usually what's lacking).
Morraine t1_j91f9yz wrote
The vast majority of those unoccupied homes should be condemned and are in no way a potential solution.
Ms_Cranky_Pants t1_j91r7q6 wrote
Some day I want to see all these people that suggest we do something with vacant housing try to rehab one and make it livable for human beings, let’s just see how it plays out and how much it ends up costing.
27thStreet t1_j92ap0k wrote
It cant even just be one house. So what if you renovate one rowhome if the ones on either side are crumbling? And, who cares if you renovate 3 rowhomes if the block is still full of blight?
Individual investors will never solve the vacant house problem.
Ms_Cranky_Pants t1_j92l8vr wrote
I appreciate what you’re saying, but I was being sarcastic.
prufrocked42 t1_j93m5bm wrote
They were just agreeing with and strengthening your point. The housing problems runs deep and has no good apparent solutions.
dickpickdan t1_j9224h5 wrote
Laughs in dollar home program
sllewgh t1_j91iuji wrote
There are seven vacant homes for every homeless person in Baltimore, so even if it's true the overwhelming majority should be condemned, it's still a viable part of the solution.
Morraine t1_j91wwks wrote
No, I’m sorry, but it really isn’t. People transitioning from homelessness, or conversely people on the brink of being homeless, need more than just a place to live - they need many supportive services. How will they pay for the electricity and water bills? Childcare? Food? You can’t just throw money at it by rehabbing a bunch of old, shitty row homes and expect anything other than them turning into crack dens.
dopkick t1_j91xwox wrote
Look man, don't let reality get in the way of a good circle jerk. It feels so good to know you have the answer. And to be able to point at a boogeyman. You injecting reality into the discussion is killing the outspoken confident white knight vibe.
sllewgh t1_j91zvn6 wrote
Now you're talking about something else entirely.
There is enough viable vacant housing stock to end homelessness, even accounting for the majority of vacants being in disrepair. You are correct that homelessness isn't the only problem a homeless person might be experiencing, but the solution to homelessness is still housing.
dopkick t1_j926keg wrote
Your entire mental process is fundamentally flawed. Homelessness is a complex, multi-faceted problem. You are viewing it with a narrow aperture as solely the absence of a stable housing situation. The reality, however, is that there is a lot more going on.
I would argue the housing situation is a symptom of the problem. The problem is often some combination of a myriad of mental health issues, drug addiction, disabilities, financial crisis, etc. That is what leads to people not having a home. All of that is homelessness, plus the housing situation.
Simply providing a house is not going to address these underlying issues. If you want to solve these root causes you are going to need to be able to provide a large number of services to people. Baltimore is not very good at public transportation, so now what?
And then you have to consider even the mundane, day to day things. How does someone with unreliable transportation (and potentially a disability preventing usage of the existing transportation) get groceries on the regular? Much of these vacants are smack dab in the middle of a food desert.
And then another problem rears its ugly head. Crime. These vacants are generally NOT in good neighborhoods. Dropping off a highly vulnerable population in the middle of crime-ridden areas is basically a recipe for a victim factory.
Once you start to inject reality into the problem it quickly becomes apparent that the fact of a home itself is just a small part of the equation.
sllewgh t1_j92rvpu wrote
I've already addressed this.
>You are correct that homelessness isn't the only problem a homeless person might be experiencing, but the solution to homelessness is still housing.
[deleted] t1_j91zgew wrote
[deleted]
dopkick t1_j91vmxy wrote
I truly do not understand this sub's absolute obsession with vacant and run down homes. There are many people here who think they are the panacea to ALL woes. In reality, they're expensive gut jobs at best. Many need to be totally demolished. I suspect a vast majority of people have not actually seen the blocks where vacants are plentiful, much less the actual houses.
Even if you could magically flip the houses on the cheap. You then have to deal with the crime, lack of transportation, crumbling infrastructure, and lack of nearby groceries/businesses. Not easy.
27thStreet t1_j92bcqk wrote
People just like the idea of solving two problems are once. It's not practical but it makes sense in people's brains that we have homeless people and peopleless homes...it should be easy-peazy to unite them.
Of course, that's not reality, but certainly you can see why the idea is popular.
dopkick t1_j92hh4t wrote
Absolutely.
One thing I've learned about these large scale problems (homelessness, food insecurity, crime, etc.) over the years is that there is no simple answer. There's always a bunch of complicating factors (mental health, political corruption, lack of infrastructure, religious beliefs, whatever) that prevent an answer from being realized. They may not be readily apparent, but once you dig in you find out that the problem is insanely complex. But you'll have legions of people who do not understand the problem at all looking for simple answers. And they're all too happy to authoritatively share those simple answers with you.
The_Waxies_Dargle t1_j91e65w wrote
> so rehoming the homeless with federal support isn't super difficult if there's just a little will to do so
Going to offer a hard disagree with pretty much all of this statement. Homelessness has so many causes and one size fits many solutions are almost always impossible to conceive and implement.
Compound that with the labyrinthian nature of securing federal funds and, well, I'd say "super difficult" is a good way to describe it.
Morraine t1_j91es6b wrote
Yeah, that comment is super uninformed. “Not super difficult”… lmao
Knoblord_McCheese t1_j91k3jr wrote
You left off the entire last part of his comment "lmfao."
dopkick t1_j91srj9 wrote
Everything I've read about the homeless problem lends toward it being extremely complicated. There are tons of reasons why people are homeless. There are tons of reasons why people may not be seeking help. There are tons of different services these people will need help with. Nothing is straightforward and like you said, a one size fits all approach is going to be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to implement.
Yet, there are plenty of people here who seem to think that the answer is simple. Just force these rich Texans who are gobbling up near-Ukraine warzone level townhomes to sell so we can slap some pinterest gray on the walls and put homeless people in them. Just conveniently ignore the myriad of mental health issues, lack of reliable transportation, them being sitting ducks for criminals, food deserts, etc. None of that is relevant, the answer is soooo simple and has a very convenient boogeyman that can be pointed at.
[deleted] t1_j91se9x wrote
[deleted]
Random-Cpl t1_j92up47 wrote
Short answer: no.
[deleted] t1_j91osrn wrote
[removed]
fboyisland t1_j91fnfi wrote
I hope this is true but idk. Anecdotally, I feel like I’ve seen an increase in homeless people in Mt Vernon recently- Right around Pratt library. There were always a few people by the bus stop but there are a lot more and the entire alley by My Sister’s Place is full of tents
[deleted] t1_j9277oi wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j91aa58 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j91q2d4 wrote
[deleted]
Sunshineal t1_j9436xt wrote
I'm glad it seems to be helping. There's people who still need housing snd drug abuse recovery assistance. For example, there's this serious tent city neighborhood near Dundalk at the corner of Holabird Ave and Dundalk. It's located around the corner from BD health which is a methadone clinic. These people need housing assistance and substance abuse counseling.
baller410610 t1_j91319q wrote
Homeless
shavedclean t1_j91jggj wrote
It's the euphemism treadmill. Personally, I can't stand "unhoused," and think it sounds worse than homeless. It sounds (to me) like dogs to be put in a kennel. Anyway, I'm sure this word will fall out of favor soon enough, a new one will be found, and people can feel "enlightened" and scold those who aren't on board with this big new important change in how we discuss problems. Progress.
sllewgh t1_j91sxh8 wrote
Thankfully some of us are working on ending homelessness and not just renaming it.
socatsucks t1_j92iuoa wrote
That’s awesome! What do you do? Is it your job or a volunteer thing?
sllewgh t1_j92rkpl wrote
Both! I work for a nonprofit focused on issues of poverty, and I've supported Housing our Neighbors, a homeless led group dedicated to ending homelessness and organizing the homeless. If you want to be involved in treating the causes of homelessness and not just the symptoms, that's the best group I know.
brownshoez t1_j91ydxd wrote
I agree that ‘unhoused’ sounds more de-humanizing to me and will be short-lived
socatsucks t1_j92ccbo wrote
That’s interesting. I feel the same about the term “African-American.” To me it seems like othering. Most black people I know were born in the USA, so they are simply Americans. But, I’m also very white, so I’ll call whoever whatever they want to be called.
real_human__bean OP t1_j92yjcq wrote
I had a teacher who was a minor figure in the civil rights movement. He HATED the term African-American, and demanded to be called a Negro.
​
​
"My family has been here longer than yours, and none of us have ever been to Africa. We're the most American there is."
​
Makes sense to me.
TheSpektrModule t1_j9a99tx wrote
Thank you for stating it more eloquently than I could.
jco23 t1_j916ckn wrote
Is that the politically correct term for homelessness?
tacsatduck t1_j91a55t wrote
visionzero81 t1_j919a0h wrote
Lipstick on a pig
socatsucks t1_j91bcbm wrote
Well, not really. I think it’s important to remember that a house is a specific type of building, where as a home can be defined in many ways. Even if you are sleeping in a tent under a bridge, while it’s not a house you could still consider it your home. So, unhoused is a more accurate term.
This difference in verbiage can also affect how we view actions taken against the unhoused. I think some people see a tent city get busted up and what they see are a bunch of squatters being removed from an area they are “trespassing” on. But, if you consider that encampment their home, which it 100% is, then it can be easier to empathize with those unhoused people.
I know “wokeness” and PC culture are annoying, but words can shape how we view the world, so sometimes it’s important to utilize terms like this to better describe the thing.
visionzero81 t1_j91c2sw wrote
Is this a term that was coined by polling the impacted community or is it a term created by white women to feel better about themselves for doing nothing? Similar to the word Latinx which a majority of people from South American descent hate.
bmore t1_j91csfp wrote
Was homeless a term developed after polling the impacted community?
socatsucks t1_j91ften wrote
Can’t really speak to that. I just look at it from a linguistics perspective and to me it makes more sense to use the term unhoused. Most people still say homeless, so I think you’ll be fine if you want to keep using that terminology. No one is out here caring about words that much, except on the internet. The real world has bigger shit to worry about.
Ambitious-Brick-7790 t1_j91m78s wrote
People get brought in to hr everyday over this word salad bullshit now a days. Fuck the oppression Olympics
socatsucks t1_j91u4p9 wrote
The term political correctness has existed since the early 1900’s, so this isn’t a nowadays thing. The past and the present are the same. People were mad about it back then too. 🤷🏻♂️
[deleted] t1_j929qqq wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j91qs4f wrote
[deleted]
CaptainObvious110 t1_j923vxo wrote
What if a person is genuinely content with where they live? Maybe they do live in a tent or somewhere we don't normally think of as being a home, but why is that so awful? If you don't have enough money to afford rent, does that automatically mean you should only live where other people tell you to?
Those other people being folks that have a traditional place to live and have plenty of money as well?
Not to say that a person should be able to put a tent or tents just anywhere of course but at the end of the day there should be places where they can go. It seems to me that there are those who have solved their problem and just want to be left alone.
So rather harass them, focus on those that want to change their situation instead.
You also have the issue of there being some in the homeless population that aren't capable of maintaining a household. Sure, it may sound nice to give their own apartment or a room somewhere but who's going to maintain it if they cannot?
Now if you have proper facilities where their medical and other needs can be met then ok. But this isn't some monolithic group and can't be treated as such as a result.
socatsucks t1_j9285ur wrote
Yeah. We are saying the same thing.
CaptainObvious110 t1_j931vrb wrote
Good. So we have people who are without traditional places to live of their own. What CAN be done about it and what WILL be done about it?
The problem is not a secret and there is an ability to fix it, sadly not much desire to change the status quo
israeljeff t1_j91c542 wrote
Saying "wokeness" and pc culture are annoying undercuts your whole (correct) argument.
sllewgh t1_j91j2g6 wrote
No it doesn't. Arguments undercut arguments, not feelings about buzzwords.
israeljeff t1_j91ndov wrote
Conceding to the other side's ridiculous points undercuts the argument.
sllewgh t1_j91ny3t wrote
Let me know when you're ready to say anything about why they're ridiculous, then.
israeljeff t1_j91ojy4 wrote
...ok?
Complaining about "wokeness" is an instant admission that you have no idea what wokeness is or what it means. If you're asserting that it's bad to notice inequality and injustice, that would imply you're on the side of inequality and injustice. I think that's a pretty stupid thing to do.
[deleted] t1_j91omkh wrote
[deleted]
sllewgh t1_j91oq2r wrote
Like I said, you need an argument, not just your feelings about words.
israeljeff t1_j91z5y9 wrote
It's not a feeling. The right uses "woke" as a catch all for anything they don't like, just like they did with pc in the 90s.
Use accurate terminology? Too woke.
Call people what they want to be called? Too woke.
Stop letting police get away with ignoring our rights? Woke.
...and so on.
sllewgh t1_j92ryyz wrote
Who cares? That doesn't impact whether the rest of their argument is right or wrong. It's totally irrelevant to what's actually being discussed here.
israeljeff t1_j92ykfz wrote
It only doesn't impact the argument if you're arguing in a vacuum and don't consider how your argument might work when actually trying to convince someone of your point of view rather than gaining fake internet points.
sllewgh t1_j93933o wrote
Didn't you yourself say that the argument was correct, but you're rejecting it anyway due to word choice?
israeljeff t1_j93e2r4 wrote
I'm not rejecting it, I agree with it, I said that. I just don't like the concession that wokeness is annoying.
sllewgh t1_j93fvfb wrote
So then you do agree it doesn't affect the argument. Great!
israeljeff t1_j93hoxt wrote
...no, because I already agreed with the argument.
What's the internet equivalent of talking slower? Bolding things? Would that help you?
CaptainObvious110 t1_j920g3j wrote
It's not about showing empathy or compassion for people who are disadvantaged though. Using flowery language doesn't change a person's conditions, no matter how well intentioned they may be but actual actions do.
Also, people express themselves differently and when you don't use "woke lingo" even if you mean the exact same thing by what you are saying people will still try to argue semantics instead of focusing on your actual message and that's a distraction from the actual issue.
israeljeff t1_j926ls4 wrote
If you use dismissive language about a group, the people you're trying to convince to help them will be dismissive. It's not complicated.
CaptainObvious110 t1_j931khs wrote
It's not complicated to see that you and and another person actually agree on something but that the actual discord is caused because that other person worded it differently than you
dopkick t1_j92femn wrote
> Using flowery language doesn't change a person's conditions, no matter how well intentioned they may be but actual actions do.
100% agreed with you man. This reminds me of a post on here that actually claimed people in West Baltimore have it bad because people on the internet say mean things about their neighborhoods, like calling them "bad."
I also sense a lot of "white savior" esque bullshit going on here - (see https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1152pbw/what_are_things_racist_people_do_that_they_dont/j8zmank/). A lot of folks harbor some massive narcissism and think the world revolves around their tiny slice of the universe. I bet homeless people don't give a shit what you call them if you can get them out of their situation. Results matter. Internet bullshit does not. Unless you're trying to promote your totally not narcissistic image on social media (people are).
The problem isn't "homeless" vs "unhoused" vs whatever. The problem is mental health issues. A healthcare system that is inaccessible. Mountains of process to get help. Clawing your way out of homelessness while the deck is stacked against you at every step. And on and on and on and on and on. That's the issue. This flowery language is white savior types who think they're the center of the universe and need to speak on everyone's behalf.
CaptainObvious110 t1_j92mzft wrote
Very well said. Oh and by the way... West Baltimore is any thing west of Charles St.
People fail to understand that Baltimore is quilt city and you have patches of good and patches of bad. This isn't to say that the people who live in each patch are all good or bad per se but that the area may be dangerous to be in especially if you aren't from there. Or it could be really nice neighborhood with plenty of amenities to enjoy.
Oh and if you think people are doing bad because you say mean things about their neighborhood. How do you account for a time when people referred to them by some really mean words and actually treated them as if they were less than human?
Arguing over semantics is a distraction from the real issues and sadly people get caught up in that all the time here
dopkick t1_j92omjj wrote
Honestly, I wish it was just a distraction. While it's definitely a distraction, I think it's also, quite unfortunately, a willful manifestation of massive amounts of narcissism. People want to make the issues that have little to nothing to do about them all about them. They want to be at the center of the universe and broadcast their stardom all over social media.
CaptainObvious110 t1_j932g40 wrote
Ding, ding, ding!! Who's more trustworthy? A person who helps you privately or a person that does good makes themselves look and feel better?
socatsucks t1_j91gd0n wrote
Whatever. I’m not trying to win debate class. Just offering a different point of view for our friend here.
The_Waxies_Dargle t1_j91dlk7 wrote
Can you suggest alternate, and equally or more accurate ways to describe what he's saying?
israeljeff t1_j91o0da wrote
The only thing I have an issue with is explaining why you'd want to use accurate or less hostile words, and then saying, in effect, that it's annoying to do so. It just undercuts the whole argument.
sllewgh t1_j91dqei wrote
Because this is based on the Point In Time count, this doesn't mean much. They survey folks in city shelters and public places they already happen to know homeless folks gather. It's not a very accurate number.
As someone who works with homeless folks on a regular basis, I haven't heard that things are getting any better. There was some success moving some people into permanent housing during COVID once we fought to finally get the city to stop leaving homeless folks to die in overcrowded shelters where social distancing was impossible. A disproportionate number of COVID deaths in the city were from homeless folks who couldn't protect themselves. As I recall, as of July 2020 when we got them to empty the shelters, around half the COVID deaths were among the homeless.
It's just as likely these numbers are the result of the conditions on the nights of the survey or the mass deaths of the homeless during COVID as it is the result of city action.