[deleted] t1_iumahfh wrote
Reply to comment by Helpful-Substance685 in Homeless People in Lancaster CA Are Being Forced to Live in the Desert by xCeladon
[removed]
Helpful-Substance685 t1_iumbnfb wrote
How the people who live in it feel about the issue is complicated not the solutions. The solutions you presented are simple and straight forward but they are not being implemented and my neighborhood is still functioning like hell on earth.
I vote and I am voting for any and every candidate who says they will fix this issue but when I see shit like this article about how Los Angeles is spending $1,000,000.00 (per fucking unit!) to build low income housing then my patience in those easy, straight forward solutions starts to dry up.
I'm living in it and if you aren't then you don't understand how your feelings about homelessness can become complicated.
Edited: Last paragraph because it wasn't a fair argument to make.
IamHere-4U t1_iumza68 wrote
If I am not mistaken, hasn't housing first basically saved money that would be spent on ambulances, hospital visits, shelters, jail visits, etc. that would be spent on homeless people?
I know in Seattle, for example, housing first ultimately cost taxpayers less money. It also saved money in North Carolina. I can try to look into more studies from the United States on cost reduction as it relates to housing first interventions, but it has certainly saved money in other nations it has been piloted in. I can continue doing research on this if you want exact figures, but it seems that a lot of the data is still being interpreted in many pilots.
> article about how Los Angeles is spending $1,000,000.00 (per fucking unit!)
I am not going to make a case for housing in this particular instance, or weigh in on if $1,000,000 is worth it, because, frankly, I am not equipped to discuss what the reasonable cost for a housing unit should be in LA.
However, what I do find in a lot of these discussions is that the money spent on an intervention is discussed in isolation. Articles will always emphasize how much money is spent in a given intervention, and not how much is spent otherwise, and in turn, saved via the intervention. This is why I am EXTREMELY skeptical when people push back against housing first.
jschubart t1_iun1zr7 wrote
My county has bought up hotels to house homeless. They own seven or so which can host over 700 people. While great, it is still only a fairly small chunk of our roughly 40k homeless.
People are fairly sick of seeing so much homelessness and think a shelter bed fixes the problem and if a homeless person rejects that bed, they simply want to be homeless. A shelter bed is a very temporary solution. Shelters are often run by religious organizations that can have pretty strict requirements (be in line at a specific time to get a bed and be out at a certain time) and can be hostile to some group's lifestyles (can't be with your partner, hostility to the LGBTQ community, etc). They also are not super secure for your stuff and can be violent. It is not too surprising that only a little over half get a shelter bed after a sweep (although it is never stated whether the beds are rejected or there just is not capacity).
It sucks. Often one city will offer some small amount of services and then homeless sweeps by nearby cities drive the homeless to the city offering services. We also get people sent here from other states via one way bus tickets.
The_Yarichin_Bitch t1_iunvy0q wrote
They are also worse abuse situations than living on the streets most, if not all, times.
The_Yarichin_Bitch t1_iunvrq6 wrote
That is less money than building structures to deter the homeless, cleanup, and arrests/ambulances.....
[deleted] t1_iumq75r wrote
[removed]
Helpful-Substance685 t1_iumtoym wrote
Agree on most of your points but it's not a million per building. It's a million per (1) unit in that building. So a 30 unit building is 30 million.
30 mil to house 30-120 people is corruption. It's flagrant misuse of tax funding. BUT to your point, if funded and implemented properly then yes these are the solutions long term.
I think what you miss here is that everyone living in these areas knows what the answer is but nothing is being done while LA spends a million per unit to SLOWLY build as little housing and mental health infrastructure as possible. I am tired of living like this while my votes and tax dollars are screaming for solutions. You come live like this for 2+ years and then tell me how much time you're willing to spend in the muck and mire while those vaporous "solutions" are being pitched by people who are not affected by it.
Zerole00 t1_iume0bj wrote
Housing's just a symptom, a lot of the homeless have underlying addiction and mental issues that need to be addressed otherwise even if you give them an apartment they'll just wreck it. I think we need to bring back mental hospitals until they reach a point where they can transition to actually living on their own.
Source: I have a friend that's a social worker and another that manages our city's low income housing program
IamHere-4U t1_iumzzu2 wrote
>Housing's just a symptom, a lot of the homeless have underlying addiction and mental issues that need to be addressed otherwise even if you give them an apartment they'll just wreck it.
The problem is that a lot of these articles that talk about things such as homeless people tearing copper out of walls and selling them to get drugs, for example, are purely anecdotal. Do these things happen? Yes. Does everyone involved in housing first become a functioning, working member of society? No.
What focusing on these instances totally misses is the bigger picture... how much money is saved in housing first interventions? How much is homelessness, and pathologies related to homelessness, reduced overall? For these questions, we need hard quantitative data, not qualitative case instances.
So far, the data that I have looked at has implied housing first (a) saves taxpayer money, (b) reduces significantly, with housed individuals less likely to return to the streets, and (c) reduces health pathologies, including addiction, that are related to homelessness. This is the discussion we should be having.... in other words, what does the data say?
[deleted] t1_iungpd5 wrote
[removed]
jschubart t1_iun2jpb wrote
Housing (or lack of) can absolutely be a cause of drug use too. Sleeping on concrete every night and not getting any sleep because you are worried about being assaulted can leave many looking for anything to ease their pain or stress.
Housing should be the start of getting people back on track. That, at the very least, makes it easier to provide services to them because you know where you can contact them.
bubblegumdrops t1_iumf9qu wrote
Oh yeah, forcing people into indefinite confinement would do wonders for their mental health. What about the mental health problems caused by being homeless and abused by those in power? You think those are going to resolve in a bedlam house?
Zerole00 t1_iumfmrl wrote
They're definitely not getting better out in the streets, at least in a confined room they don't have to worry about being robbed / killed / raped. It's not the ideal solution, but it's better than them being in danger and bringing down neighborhoods.
[deleted] t1_iumjclp wrote
[removed]
Bison256 t1_iumobcu wrote
So you prefer they rot on the street, victimizing those around them?
IamHere-4U t1_iun04tc wrote
This is a false dichotomy. I prefer housing over homelessness or institutionalization, and there is an amassing body of evidence that favors the efficacy of housing first interventions.
Bison256 t1_iun25n2 wrote
So when they ripe the housing up, or turn it into a drug and prostitution den the what you going do. You live on a Fantasyland.
IamHere-4U t1_iunc5p7 wrote
au contraire, u/Bison256. The quantitative evidence from housing first interventions suggests otherwise. In Seattle, a housing first intervention saved taxpayers over $4 million within a single year of operation. It also led to reduced alcohol consumption amongst rehoused people. In Charlotte, housing first had saved the county $2.4 million. Outside of the US, housing first has led to a decline in homlessness by 35% in Helsinki. 80% of homeless families in Brno, Czech Republic were able to sustain their flats after two years. Housing first has also been successful in reducing homelessness in Canada. The evidence in favor of housing first suggest that (a) once you put a roof over people's heads, pro-social behaviors are selected for, with decreases in crime, addiction, etc. as people are more eager to utilize social services, (b) taxpayer fees on shelters, jails, and hospitals are reduced, and (c) homelessness is reduced overall, with few people returning to the street.
>So when they ripe the housing up, or turn it into a drug and prostitution den the what you going do. You live on a Fantasyland.
Okay, so you are talking in hypotheticals. I am talking in hard data, and quantitative evidence. So, tell me, who is that is living in a fantasyland?
Bison256 t1_iundiag wrote
You realize Finland institutionalizes the mentally ill, yes?
IamHere-4U t1_iundwhb wrote
Many countries do, but Finland is more stringent around the circumstances that one can actually be institutionalized. And, no, it's not the case that the majority of homeless people were institutionalized. Most were re-housed. Your point here is moot.
Bison256 t1_iunewpr wrote
The people you see everyday on the street are mentally ill. That's who we are talking about here. A normal person doesnt scream randomly or attack people for no reason.
IamHere-4U t1_iunf8co wrote
>The people you see everyday on the street are mentally ill. That's who we are talking about here. A normal person doesnt scream randomly or attack people for no reason.
And 30% of Americans suffer from depression alone. There is a range of mental illnesses, some of which fully incapacitate people and some of which don't. Additionally, the impacts of mental illness are exacerbated by homelessness. Not everyone who is mentally ill screams randomly or attacks others. This is a gross exaggeration. Plenty of mentally ill people are productive, non-violent members of society.
Bison256 t1_iunfzrc wrote
I see you haven't seen or read the situation in the West coast cities or NYC.
IamHere-4U t1_iungo2a wrote
What about the study I linked from Seattle, a city on the West Coast? You know, the study I linked using statistical data? It doesn't seem like you have read anything about the impacts of housing first interventions outside of op-eds with frivolous anecdotes. Until you bring in hard, quantitative data, you aren't making a compelling point.
Bison256 t1_iunil6v wrote
IamHere-4U t1_iuniuqi wrote
Okay, so you linked a reddit comment section? Are these experts on housing who had conducted evidence-based, statistical research on the subject, or just residents who think they know everything about homelessness because they live in Seattle? If it is the latter, I am not interested.
[deleted] t1_iuorki5 wrote
[deleted]
ForwardYak8823 t1_iuos5y5 wrote
Janitors at union station in LA say they need protection from being attacked while they try to work. You dont give a damn about helping people who clean up shit, get paid shit and have to go to go work everyday and get harrassed and some assaulted and treated like shit.
As fellow janitor I stand with them.
IamHere-4U t1_iupburq wrote
And by housing homeless people and giving them shelter and security, you keep them off the streets! In turn, they'd be less likely to commit acts of violence. This is the idea behind housing first... essentially, by housing the homeless, most are going to have happier, healthier lives and, in turn, be more tolerable to be around.
ForwardYak8823 t1_iupldl2 wrote
I am going be honest I have no idea how my comment ended up in a discussion between the 2 of you.
But how long is housing first going take? And who are the contractors receiving taxpayer's money?
Bison256 t1_iunhpiu wrote
Yeah they're doing a great job
IamHere-4U t1_iunio32 wrote
Everything you have listed is an op-ed, a news article opinion piece, not an actual study. It's all anecdotal data, nothing that is indicative of larger trends. As I have already discussed, this can all be dismissed on these pretenses, as it wasn't up to par with my terms of evidence that I had already laid out. Additionally, none of the links refer to housing first interventions in any capacity, so I have no idea what you are even trying to prove here.
Bison256 t1_iunj3sy wrote
Aa I said before you live in fantasy world. You hide behind your cherry picked studies and reject real world conditions
IamHere-4U t1_iunjdfz wrote
I live in a world of hard data. You live in a world of deflections. In other words, you are so many abstractions away from base reality that you cannot engage real world trends in any meaningful way. You make a lot of noise but no substance. Get lost.
Bison256 t1_iunk35j wrote
No you don't you live on fantasy your fantasy world were you ignore the actual realty for cherry picked data.
Oh here's another real world news article
IamHere-4U t1_iunk5xm wrote
Another op-ed? Yeah, try harder. Give me an actual study. Not a shitty op-ed that has nothing to do with housing first interventions.
Bison256 t1_iunkoz5 wrote
Sorry that the real world disagrees with your Utopia non sense.
IamHere-4U t1_iunl9lk wrote
If that were true, then you would easily be able to find actual, statistical data supporting your argument, but alas, you cannot.
Bison256 t1_iunofw1 wrote
I'm not writing a 10 page research paper for a diluted fool on Reddit. If real world evidence isn't enough for you you're hopeless.
IamHere-4U t1_iunov74 wrote
>I'm not writing a 10 page research paper for a diluted fool on Reddit.
What a pathetic deflection. I can see right through it.
>If real world evidence isn't enough for your hopeless.
You haven't provided any. Only shitty op-eds. You are only making a fool of yourself here.
Bison256 t1_iunpmn0 wrote
Photos and information on the situation on the ground isn't good enough for you. You're hopeless.
IamHere-4U t1_iunqhml wrote
If somehow you think incorporating photos in an opinion piece with no statistical data somehow informs how efficacious housing first interventions are, then you are completely deluded. If you were at least university educated, you should know the value of statistical data, but alas, I don't see any on your end, nor any that are related to the success (or lackthereof) of housing first interventions.
HungryHumble t1_iumcnex wrote
I’m sorry but what you described does in fact sound like a pretty complicated issue.
Bison256 t1_iumnzle wrote
The mentally ill and addict ones need to be involuntarily institutionalized. Something tells me you're against that.
bigjohntucker t1_iuog7cs wrote
Never going to build enough housing at the beach to make it affordable for all the people that want to live there.
[deleted] t1_iumdst4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iumjzar wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments