Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WayyyCleverer t1_j9gpjig wrote

In other words - 1/3 have received help.

159

No-Lunch4249 t1_j9gz03x wrote

There was a pretty extensive outreach campaign before they cleared the square. The hard truth is that a lot of, not all, but a lot of the individuals currently homeless are doing so at least partially by choice.

There are a ton of possible reasons for this, whether it’s an unwillingness or an inability to abide by sometimes strict shelter rules, substance abuse or mental health issues, fear of their remaining possessions being forfeited or stolen, just feeling safer and more comfortable on the street than in an unknown environment, or whatever else. The government is not empowered to involuntarily commit someone who’s not an active danger to some facility.

163

jlboygenius t1_j9hjm8l wrote

I believe a previous post quoted an article saying that a few dozen were offered permanent/transition housing and only a dozen-ish took up the offer.

29

Inappropriate_Piano t1_j9hz019 wrote

> According to DMHHS Deputy Mayor Wayne Turnage, just 20 of 45 homeless individuals who were offered bridge housing — temporary accommodations for those who qualify for a voucher — accepted it. Three people agreed to seek refuge at a homeless shelter, Turnage said. The rest, about 50 people, split off to different corners of the region.

From the article linked in the post

21

glopmod t1_j9h1jhf wrote

So, the minority of.

−23

DrunkWoodchuck t1_j9i01s4 wrote

Yes, most of them refused the help that was offered

13

glopmod t1_j9i0dl7 wrote

Half of them could not be reached. Insisting these are the same thing is either intellectually or deliberately dishonest.

−11

DrunkWoodchuck t1_j9i0x94 wrote

There are empty shelter beds every night. Anyone who couldn’t be reached who was living in McPherson Square has already made the choice to reject the services available to them in favor of living in a park.

Anyone who thinks they’re waiting for a helping hand is either intellectually or deliberatively dishonest.

14

glopmod t1_j9i1a5j wrote

I have friends that, despite the statement by people that shelters are available, took months to get placed.

"If you were not there to deny a service, you denied it." Very deep shit. Jesus, how do you survive without drowning yourself in the rain

−8

DrunkWoodchuck t1_j9i20ji wrote

The service is available. It isn’t something that needs to be specifically offered. The emergency shelters A) don’t ask you to document your emergency, and B) at most ask for picture ID. They fill up on a first come first serve basis, but do not require placement of any kind.

They didn’t have to be there to continually be denying the service that is offered you weapons grade idiot.

And of course, the alternative to not monopolize a fucking park is always available to them.

10

dynospectrum7 t1_j9i47p0 wrote

Don’t even try. Fucking guy is jerking you around. If people really wanted hello they would seek it out. Not wait until their shit is literally bulldozed to say “oh wait let me do something”.

And the people here throwing a fit about it are the worst. They know damn well that help is available. People just don’t go get it. That means either a) tough cookie. Or b) they aren’t mentally capable to make these decisions and need to be placed involuntarily.

14

glopmod t1_j9i2xt6 wrote

In order to be counted as denying a service, you have to be offered it. That is how data works. Half were not reached at all.

I'll take the word of those affected over some guy on Reddit.

−2

Zwicker101 t1_j9ibjzl wrote

>In order to be counted as denying a service, you have to be offered it. That is how data works. Half were not reached at all.

Not reached at the time. How do you know they weren't reached before?

7