The Fora: A Higher Education Community

This story:

Proposed homeless camp in church parking lot unsettles progressive Denver (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/proposed-homeless-camp-church-parking-lot-unsettles-progressive-denver-neighborhood-n1267181)

On the one hand, I totally understand why the Denverians are being chided for being hypocritical.  "Black Lives Matter" on the lawn.  A camp for the homeless?  Not so much.

On the other hand, I'm from a temperate region on the west coast and grew up dealing with the broad category of people we call "the homeless."  These experiences were very often far from positive.  I can understand a very practical concern for putting a homeless camp in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

I'm just curious about what people have to say.

When I was in grad school, spouse and I spent a year in frigid squalor above the parish hall of a church, where we paid low rent in exchange for unlocking the church each morning and locking it up in the evening. One evening, two transients asked if they could sleep under the awning in front of the church, and we took them down two blankets for the night. The minister was furious and bought a big heavy chain and an ostentatious padlock to add to the front gate because "we don't need those sorts of people here."

This Denver church sounds like the sort of church I would like to attend.

AR.

I'm in one of the many cities in the US that is under liberal democrat control that has encampments springing up everywhere. At least in my city, the homeless situation is being exacerbated INTENTIONALLY to provide cover to pass one bill after another as a sweetheart deal for developers who will "solve" the homeless issue. (At 600k per unit or 370k per portable restroom placed in these areas.) It amazes me that the citizens still believe this is the case despite city council members being federally indicted for real estate kick backs and elected officials refusing to disclose the use of proceeds from another massive homeless funding bill in a recent election despite court order. Apparently the technique of creating (or refusing to even attempt to solve) a problem if it allows you to promote an existing agenda is called "nudging."

You will have as many homeless people as you are willing to pay for.

Matthew 25: 34-40:  Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?  And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?  And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'  And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

The minister of the church I joined in the 70's used to bring soup out to the homeless folks on the public common in front of the church.

They opened a soup kitchen a few years later, and I think it's still going.

I was most impressed the day I was leaving from choir practice in the pouring rain and saw our vestry's senior warden take off his Burberry raincoat and give it to one of the people leaving the soup kitchen after dinner.

He didn't just hand it to him.

He stood there, helping him try it on, seeing if it fitted at the shoulders and back, and then went back in the church, ostensibly to get something.

He waited to be sure the guy could wear it and was comfortable before going back out to his car and driving off.

You can't teach that kind of compassion....it's caught, learned by example.

That's not to say there aren't potential problems. They had to take off the red silk damask cushions from the pews because people would go to sleep on them and wet themselves. They didn't want to close the church--it was open from 7 AM until 9 PM every day--but to save the cushions, they got a set of less expensive ones and put those out for the weekdays instead.

And you do have to watch about letting people actually sleep in the church building--fires have gotten started from a stray cigarette ash, and the insurance might not cover it, so the person in charge of the building has to be able to set clear limits and maintain them with friendliness and firmness.

We also had a series of wallet thefts, which were traced to one individual, and he had to be banned after he did it all a second time after having been warned.

But the point is to take things on a case-by-case basis, be considerate and respectful, know how to defuse things with wisdom and steadiness, and be able to anticipate difficulties and prevent unnecessary problems while making the resources you can share available to the fullest extent possible.

As Hegemony points out, basically, the church is not your house. Its land is not your land--or not only yours.

It's Someone else's, and They've told you how they want you to treat their guests.

So you do.

M.

In one of writer Stuart Woods first major successes, "CHIEFS", he has a major character instructing an incoming sheriff as to why homeless camps, hobo jungles, and such cannot be allowed to appear and to thrive. It is quite compelling in defeating charitable reasoning instances.

See, I think maybe we are missing part of the equation here.

As I posted, I am from a part of the world known for it "homeless problem."  And I'm sorry, but in my experience the homeless are often a problem, and not the 'I'm-annoyed-that-a-poor-person-is-within-my-sightlines' kind of problem.

I think all good people will agree that we must do more for all sorts of people, but we might also acknowledge the reality of the homeless population.

I am male and large enough physically that I would not make an ideal victim, but I was menaced on more than one occasion by vagrants and drug addicts; I always managed to back them down or safely ignore them and I am lucky.  I had a friend in college who was assaulted by two homeless men and hospitalized because he would not give them admission to a dormitory party.  I had another friend who was threatened with a knife and ran away.  And I had several female friends who were followed by men who were apparently homeless.  I personally have witnessed at least a dozen brawls in the street involving people who looked like indigents.  And I have had a car broken into...I do not know who, exactly, but I suspect it was a desperate person trying to burgle me (they only got some change in the ashtray and a mixed tape).

Not to mention that homeless camps tend to produce a great deal of garbage and squalor.  I'm sure the church in question here had some sort of sanitation plan----still, you have people living outdoors without tidy indoor private bathrooms and a garbage disposal in their sink and you are going to have waste problems.

There are also crime statistics dealing with homeless populations we can look at.

What this boils down to is that I have some sympathy with the neighborhood in the story.  Sure, let's help people, but let's keep ourselves safe too.  A neighborhood might not be the best place for an encampment for obvious reasons.  And there is a difference between helping a family who has been displaced by a layoff or a victim of domestic violence and a violent sociopath or a violent drug addict.

I truly appreciate the idealism here...but can we make that work in this circumstance?

I volunteer weekly at a local homeless shelter. One of the things I love about it is that everyone is welcome and loved. It doesn't matter what they have done before they came. The flip side is that they have a fairly substantial list of people who have been banned because they would not follow the shelter's rules. Some people cannot return love in the way it is given to them. That's reality.

There is a perception in our town that this shelter is attracting the homeless from other communities. The reality is that we have fewer homeless individuals in total, and a less troublesome homeless community, than comparable towns in our state. The shelter's staff works very hard to help people transition to a stable life--connecting them with agencies that can help with addiction, mental health, etc. Working through the bureaucracy that is purportedly to prevent fraud, but actually to prevent service to the unworthy. Supporting people until they can get into Section 8 housing. Helping them find work.

In this particular case, it appears to me, as an outsider, that the Park Hill church is doing the right thing. No violent or sexual offenders. Keeping things orderly. The best quote is the last line: "So I would really, really invite people in the community who feel like, 'My neighborhood isn't the right place for this,' to rethink: Whose neighborhood is?"

The homeless have to go somewhere. My city has opened up safe sleeping spaces with tents, portable showers and toilets, food and other services. I pass by there regularly and it seems pretty quiet and well-run.

Near my neighborhood there is a huge homeless problem. A nonprofit wanted to open a shelter right in the neighborhood and, while most neighbors were supportive, a few complained. Really? You would rather have people sleep in the street? And if you deny this shelter, where do you think they will go?

Just read the article - a young woman is worried about walking home late at night after parking her car. Wouldn't she feel safer if people were settled, sleeping in a camp, than out wandering around?

While I understand the neighbors' concerns, the church is doing what it needs to do.  The downtown church that I belonged to in Nashville for some years was one of several churches that housed homeless people on a rotation.  These were not long-term street people, but we did have some of those attending off and on from the rescue mission nearby.  One of those visitors was an ex-con who ended up becoming a member of our Sunday school class.  He found work, moved in for a time with a guy I knew who had some room (In return he helped him remodel the place), and had plenty of visitors when he had to undergo back surgery at the local municipal hospital.  Victories like that over the streets are far too rare.  But they're wonderful to see when they happen.

In our town outright homelessness isn't common.  Our declining population means that there's an abundance of shelter that can be had cheap.  Unfortunately some of it is very old and dilapidated, and the poorest don't have money to maintain and repair it.  A number of local churches help out with repair and maintenance as they learn about needs and have opportunity.  There's a real need for a more coordinated and better-resourced effort.  I hear about "financial independence" types who are trying to hoard two million dollars or so to live on for the rest of their lives, and think what incredible things we could do around here to improve quality of life for dozens of households if we just had that kind of money available.

QuoteI truly appreciate the idealism here...but can we make that work in this circumstance?

Several of us are saying "yes," and showing how.

There are resources for such projects. The American Friends' Service Committee helped establish the meals program I described above, and they had a very tightly-constructed, practical, workable program proposal that went through very three committees (the AFSC itself, that of the church involved, and the town's zoning board with some of its social services support folks present) before being put into place.

A few years later, two different churches in the 12-church ministerial coalition for that part of the town created night shelters (one has evolved into a fully staffed daytime/nighttime shelter) as well.

The meals program start-up was in 1980. The two shelters started 3-5 years later. They're all three still running, the regrettable necessity still being in existence.

M.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 23, 2021, 07:05:45 PM
See, I think maybe we are missing part of the equation here.

As I posted, I am from a part of the world known for it "homeless problem."  And I'm sorry, but in my experience the homeless are often a problem, and not the 'I'm-annoyed-that-a-poor-person-is-within-my-sightlines' kind of problem.

I think all good people will agree that we must do more for all sorts of people, but we might also acknowledge the reality of the homeless population.

I am male and large enough physically that I would not make an ideal victim, but I was menaced on more than one occasion by vagrants and drug addicts; I always managed to back them down or safely ignore them and I am lucky.  I had a friend in college who was assaulted by two homeless men and hospitalized because he would not give them admission to a dormitory party.  I had another friend who was threatened with a knife and ran away.  And I had several female friends who were followed by men who were apparently homeless.  I personally have witnessed at least a dozen brawls in the street involving people who looked like indigents.  And I have had a car broken into...I do not know who, exactly, but I suspect it was a desperate person trying to burgle me (they only got some change in the ashtray and a mixed tape).

Not to mention that homeless camps tend to produce a great deal of garbage and squalor.  I'm sure the church in question here had some sort of sanitation plan----still, you have people living outdoors without tidy indoor private bathrooms and a garbage disposal in their sink and you are going to have waste problems.

There are also crime statistics dealing with homeless populations we can look at.

What this boils down to is that I have some sympathy with the neighborhood in the story.  Sure, let's help people, but let's keep ourselves safe too.  A neighborhood might not be the best place for an encampment for obvious reasons.  And there is a difference between helping a family who has been displaced by a layoff or a victim of domestic violence and a violent sociopath or a violent drug addict.

I truly appreciate the idealism here...but can we make that work in this circumstance?

I went to grad school in an area where a fair number of homeless people hung around and never had any problems or heard of them. The large majority of homeless people don't commit violent crimes, usually they are more likely to be the victims of them.

Now, obviously, there is a higher rate of violent crime among people experiencing homelessness. Most of that crime is against other homeless people, but not all. However, the story makes it clear that people with violent criminal records aren't going to be allowed in this encampment and there will be security. Given that, all these worries about children and safety seem overblown.

Safety sounds nice, but it is often used to justify discrimination and cruelty. In this case, the argument seems to be that the proper place for homeless people is in poor neighborhoods. Why should poorer people have to bear all the costs?

Quote from: mamselle on May 24, 2021, 08:39:26 AM

QuoteI truly appreciate the idealism here...but can we make that work in this circumstance?

Several of us are saying "yes," and showing how.

There are resources for such projects. The American Friends' Service Committee helped establish the meals program I described above, and they had a very tightly-constructed, practical, workable program proposal that went through very three committees (the AFSC itself, that of the church involved, and the town's zoning board with some of its social services support folks present) before being put into place.

A few years later, two different churches in the 12-church ministerial coalition for that part of the town created night shelters (one has evolved into a fully staffed daytime/nighttime shelter) as well.

The meals program start-up was in 1980. The two shelters started 3-5 years later. They're all three still running, the regrettable necessity still being in existence.

M.

I am well aware of these sorts of programs.

I am well aware of their failures.  As you note, they are still regrettably in existence.

My question is about the safety of a parking-lot encampment in a neighborhood.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 24, 2021, 02:37:52 PM

Quote from: mamselle on May 24, 2021, 08:39:26 AM

QuoteI truly appreciate the idealism here...but can we make that work in this circumstance?

Several of us are saying "yes," and showing how.

There are resources for such projects. The American Friends' Service Committee helped establish the meals program I described above, and they had a very tightly-constructed, practical, workable program proposal that went through very three committees (the AFSC itself, that of the church involved, and the town's zoning board with some of its social services support folks present) before being put into place.

A few years later, two different churches in the 12-church ministerial coalition for that part of the town created night shelters (one has evolved into a fully staffed daytime/nighttime shelter) as well.

The meals program start-up was in 1980. The two shelters started 3-5 years later. They're all three still running, the regrettable necessity still being in existence.

M.

I am well aware of these sorts of programs.

I am well aware of their failures.  As you note, they are still regrettably in existence.

My question is about the safety of a parking-lot encampment in a neighborhood.

Are there places that aren't neighborhoods where these could exist?

Whenever someone asks "Where do you want them to go?" I am puzzled by the fact that jail is not proposed. In my city, those who are homeless are breaking several laws against sleeping in a public place and other issues. I live within one mile of a homeless shelter that is in a dense area. You know what is in eyesight of the homeless shelter? An encampment. The residents are constantly approached by the case workers of the shelter but refuse to comply with the rules.

Why, if we are willing to force those of us who are following the rules to pay for these resources, are we unwilling to force those who don't follow the rules to use them? I reject the fact that we simply must accept homelessness in an area and the debate is only about which specific location. I see no problem with telling people that have declined services readily available to them that they will be incarcerated involuntarily until they are rendered able to enter society in some capacity that facilitates housing. The bleeding heart comments here imply that someone has a constitutional right to relieve themselves on the street constantly or to sleep in such a way that wheelchair traffic is impossible or to light fires that are a danger to those in the vicinity or live in such a way that a public health crisis is all but guaranteed. None of these are "musts" that we are compelled to accept. I'm all for an immediately expunged record or many programs while incarcerated but the "Hey, I just prefer to live this way, you deal with it." is not something I'm up for accepting.

Quote from: Caracal on May 24, 2021, 02:41:14 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 24, 2021, 02:37:52 PM

Quote from: mamselle on May 24, 2021, 08:39:26 AM

QuoteI truly appreciate the idealism here...but can we make that work in this circumstance?

Several of us are saying "yes," and showing how.

There are resources for such projects. The American Friends' Service Committee helped establish the meals program I described above, and they had a very tightly-constructed, practical, workable program proposal that went through very three committees (the AFSC itself, that of the church involved, and the town's zoning board with some of its social services support folks present) before being put into place.

A few years later, two different churches in the 12-church ministerial coalition for that part of the town created night shelters (one has evolved into a fully staffed daytime/nighttime shelter) as well.

The meals program start-up was in 1980. The two shelters started 3-5 years later. They're all three still running, the regrettable necessity still being in existence.

M.

I am well aware of these sorts of programs.

I am well aware of their failures.  As you note, they are still regrettably in existence.

My question is about the safety of a parking-lot encampment in a neighborhood.

Are there places that aren't neighborhoods where these could exist?

In a city which has experienced a lot of population growth and land prices are at a premium--which is exactly the sort of place where homelessness is most common--that can be a tall order.  I recall about two years ago a city in Orange County, California, proposed three possible sites for a new homeless encampment on land that the city owned and was not currently using for something else.  Citizens in neighborhoods near all three sites promptly brought suit to block the measure.  There just wasn't anywhere within the city limits to place a homeless encampment that wasn't close enough to a neighborhood not to alarm the neighborhood's residents.  And if there IS an especially isolated, remote site available, that begs the question of how the homeless people who live there will be able to access potential employment and anything else they need to get out of being homeless.

What people want in situations like this is for the homeless to just go away.  Or de-materialize, or cease to exist.  None of these is really feasible.  Except for the "cease to exist" option--it's called "dying."  But that's really not what we, as a society, want, right?

A few years back the main state mental hospital in Nevada created a scandal when it was discovered that their standard treatment for indigent patients was a bottle of anti-psychotic pills and a bus ticket out of state.  They had exported hundreds of unwanted, homeless mentally ill people to every state in the Union except Alaska and Hawaii.  That only had the effect of relocating the problem.

Here's a section from the article that illustrates the problem:

Quote
No violent or sexual offenders are allowed in the camps, Cole said. But the population includes people who have been on the streets for years and have addictions.


"We don't exclude chronically homeless. Our site currently is about 40% people that are newly homeless and 60% that are chronically homeless," he said. "We don't allow drugs or substances at the site. But this is a harm-reduction model. And we do certainly have people that are living with an addiction that are a part of this community."

On a recent tour of one of the collaborative's camps downtown, a drug deal could be seen happening across the street near an abandoned diner.

How reasonable is it to believe there can be any enforcement of "no drugs at the site" if drug deals are happening just outside the confines of the camp?

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 24, 2021, 03:29:53 PM
Here's a section from the article that illustrates the problem:

Quote
No violent or sexual offenders are allowed in the camps, Cole said. But the population includes people who have been on the streets for years and have addictions.


"We don't exclude chronically homeless. Our site currently is about 40% people that are newly homeless and 60% that are chronically homeless," he said. "We don't allow drugs or substances at the site. But this is a harm-reduction model. And we do certainly have people that are living with an addiction that are a part of this community."

On a recent tour of one of the collaborative's camps downtown, a drug deal could be seen happening across the street near an abandoned diner.

How reasonable is it to believe there can be any enforcement of "no drugs at the site" if drug deals are happening just outside the confines of the camp?

Alas, Marsh, you know how I'd fix that! :-)

QuoteWhenever someone asks "Where do you want them to go?" I am puzzled by the fact that jail is not proposed.

Being homeless, in and of itself, is not a criminal state of existence.

M.

Quote from: Caracal on May 24, 2021, 02:41:14 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 24, 2021, 02:37:52 PM

Quote from: mamselle on May 24, 2021, 08:39:26 AM

QuoteI truly appreciate the idealism here...but can we make that work in this circumstance?

Several of us are saying "yes," and showing how.

There are resources for such projects. The American Friends' Service Committee helped establish the meals program I described above, and they had a very tightly-constructed, practical, workable program proposal that went through very three committees (the AFSC itself, that of the church involved, and the town's zoning board with some of its social services support folks present) before being put into place.

A few years later, two different churches in the 12-church ministerial coalition for that part of the town created night shelters (one has evolved into a fully staffed daytime/nighttime shelter) as well.

The meals program start-up was in 1980. The two shelters started 3-5 years later. They're all three still running, the regrettable necessity still being in existence.

M.

I am well aware of these sorts of programs.

I am well aware of their failures.  As you note, they are still regrettably in existence.

My question is about the safety of a parking-lot encampment in a neighborhood.

Are there places that aren't neighborhoods where these could exist?

Yes.

I still think that is not the issue, however.

Nor am I suggesting that ALL "homeless" people are dangerous criminals----plenty are perfectly descent people with some sever dysfunction.  But it is naïve to suggest this is a safe population.

One can be very socially conscious or "liberal" (whatever that really means) regarding our actions towards other people and still have rational, practical concerns.  I am sure that most homeless crime is toward other homeless, but I don't find that comforting, nor do I think that mitigates any danger to other people.

The answer is not to demonize people who *might* have a legitimate concern (and not all the neighborhood felt that way, anyway).

Again, I appreciate the idealism, but the answer is not short-term, volunteer philanthropy that offers limited help to the chronically homeless.*  This simply does not work.  It is only a Band-Aid.  It may even propagate the problem.  It is still too raw and upsetting for me to talk about, but I learned a lot about the homeless lifestyle in the last couple of years----and people's good intentions really don't help people who find themselves chronically trapped on the streets.

I think the answer is to repopulate our mental hospitals and addiction centers (thank you Ronald Reagan for your humanity).  I don't know how we do this with so many priorities in society, so don't ask me.  I am just not sure we should denounce people who express a legitimate anxiety because it would be better if the world worked a certain way.

*Approximately 2/3 of the homeless get off the streets in anywhere from a couple of weeks to a couple of years.  The chronically homeless are a different issue than the people who fall on hard times, flee a dangerous relationship, or recover from addiction.

Quote from: apl68 on May 24, 2021, 03:07:58 PM
What people want in situations like this is for the homeless to just go away.  Or de-materialize, or cease to exist.  None of these is really feasible.  Except for the "cease to exist" option--it's called "dying."  But that's really not what we, as a society, want, right?

With all due respect apl, this is what I am talking about.

That's not fair.  I have never meant anyone who simply wants to bury the unfortunate in a field or something.  But I, and you, and dismalist, have a right to walk the streets and not be harassed or threatened or have our property damaged or befouled or stolen etc.  And yes, this has been my own experience with the "homeless."  And I am not alone, even as I have a great deal of empathy and there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I comprehension (I'm in recovery).

Very good, idealistic people get frustrated, I think, by the reality of our situation. 

We need a solution that is fair to everyone.

Quote from: financeguy on May 24, 2021, 02:49:14 PM
Whenever someone asks "Where do you want them to go?" I am puzzled by the fact that jail is not proposed.

Jail is very expensive. In North Datoka, for instance, to pick a state randomly, to keep a person in prison for one year costs $38,601. This does not include the cost of court proceedings, public defenders, and all that. It's so expensive that many people who actually commit property crimes — not to mention violent crimes — are paroled so quickly that it alarms many. There are apparently around 400 homeless people on average in my city. That means the yearly expense of keeping them imprisoned, using North Dakota's figures, would be $15,200,000  But wait!  I know how we could save $15 million! We could simply not imprison people who haven't committed any crime other than not having a place to live. If they commit other crimes, we could imprison them for those. (But the prison system is so expensive and so underfunded that the system would probably parole them pretty quickly as well.) Boy, do I have a lot of better uses for that $15 million per medium-sized city. I bet you do too.

My city is now trying the experiment of providing tiny homes for the homeless. We'll see if it works; I definitely think it's worth a try. Incidentally there is a large, city-approved homeless encampment two blocks from my house. I know that the homeless can sometimes be problematic. If they were not subject to mental illness and attendant problems, many of them probably wouldn't be homeless in the first place. Nevertheless, just to say that we've had no problems on my block, and I'm glad they have a place to be.

For those of a religious frame of mind, I'm not aware of any clause about the poor in the Bible that says 'unless the poor don't meet your standards.'

QuoteMy city is now trying the experiment of providing tiny homes for the homeless.

That city will get more homeless.

Quote from: Hegemony on May 24, 2021, 05:17:20 PM

My city is now trying the experiment of providing tiny homes for the homeless. We'll see if it works; e.

It's a very good idea. If people have chronic problems keeping them homeless, the kindest, most humane thing to do is to give them a place to live. Of course, it is also much cheaper than having them go in and out of jail for non violent offenses, or to the emergency room. The trick is to make accommodations not dependent on refraining from substance abuse, or adhering to some treatment plan. If a person has a drinking or drug problem, its better for them to have that and a place to live than to have it on the street.

Quote from: dismalist on May 24, 2021, 05:19:16 PM

QuoteMy city is now trying the experiment of providing tiny homes for the homeless.

That city will get more homeless.

I don't think the country will get more homeless, however. We already know what happens when we don't provide housing. Misery, people sleeping on the sidewalks, panhandling, people dying on the streets (as has happened recently in my town).* I'm glad places are trying out different solutions. Doing thought experiments about why each of them is a bad idea has led us to the current impasse, where everyone deplores the situation but no one changes anything. No one sets out to be a miserable, mentally ill drug addict, just like no one sets out to be a mean-spirited pitiless reactionary. But some people grow up into those things anyway, and I think we should do our best to be merciful, even if we don't feel it.

*I can hear some of my fellow Forumites: "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Quote from: Hegemony on May 24, 2021, 05:17:20 PM
My city is now trying the experiment of providing tiny homes for the homeless. We'll see if it works; I definitely think it's worth a try. Incidentally there is a large, city-approved homeless encampment two blocks from my house. I know that the homeless can sometimes be problematic. If they were not subject to mental illness and attendant problems, many of them probably wouldn't be homeless in the first place. Nevertheless, just to say that we've had no problems on my block, and I'm glad they have a place to be.

This type of thing drives me crazy. Why tiny homes? For the same cost (or lower) you can put up an apartment building, where people can live permanently, with units that are larger and more livable than a "tiny house."   

Quote
For those of a religious frame of mind, I'm not aware of any clause about the poor in the Bible that says 'unless the poor don't meet your standards.'

I wonder what people's definition is of the "deserving poor" and whom they know who fits this standard.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 24, 2021, 05:06:49 PM

Quote from: apl68 on May 24, 2021, 03:07:58 PM
What people want in situations like this is for the homeless to just go away.  Or de-materialize, or cease to exist.  None of these is really feasible.  Except for the "cease to exist" option--it's called "dying."  But that's really not what we, as a society, want, right?

With all due respect apl, this is what I am talking about.

That's not fair.  I have never meant anyone who simply wants to bury the unfortunate in a field or something.  But I, and you, and dismalist, have a right to walk the streets and not be harassed or threatened or have our property damaged or befouled or stolen etc.  And yes, this has been my own experience with the "homeless."  And I am not alone, even as I have a great deal of empathy and there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I comprehension (I'm in recovery).

Very good, idealistic people get frustrated, I think, by the reality of our situation. 

We need a solution that is fair to everyone.

So, what do we do in the meantime? Rush the process? Put cyanide in their soup?

QuoteI don't think the country will get more homeless, however.

Make something more pleasant for others, and there will be more others.

QuoteThis type of thing drives me crazy. Why tiny homes? For the same cost (or lower) you can put up an apartment building, where people can live permanently, with units that are larger and more livable than a "tiny house."

Yup. Why indeed? I think with ceramic countertops.

The "homeless" include families, orphaned children, and quite possibly, some of your own students:

   https://www.wcvb.com/article/5-investigates-homeless-students-in-massachusetts-crisis/36521780

And, for all I know, at any one given point in time, if he's gone off his meds or decided the current shelter he's living in is trying to poison him or do thought experiments on him, one of them could be my brother.

We think he's in Kansas City right now.

M.

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 24, 2021, 05:49:43 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 24, 2021, 05:06:49 PM

Quote from: apl68 on May 24, 2021, 03:07:58 PM
What people want in situations like this is for the homeless to just go away.  Or de-materialize, or cease to exist.  None of these is really feasible.  Except for the "cease to exist" option--it's called "dying."  But that's really not what we, as a society, want, right?

With all due respect apl, this is what I am talking about.

That's not fair.  I have never meant anyone who simply wants to bury the unfortunate in a field or something.  But I, and you, and dismalist, have a right to walk the streets and not be harassed or threatened or have our property damaged or befouled or stolen etc.  And yes, this has been my own experience with the "homeless."  And I am not alone, even as I have a great deal of empathy and there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I comprehension (I'm in recovery).

Very good, idealistic people get frustrated, I think, by the reality of our situation. 

We need a solution that is fair to everyone.

So, what do we do in the meantime? Rush the process? Put cyanide in their soup?

For pete's sake.

I'm sorry to hear about your brother, Mamselle.

It turned out that one of my students last year was homeless. She was having a lot of trouble getting the internet. The usual place they get is is McDonald's — the parking lot, during a pandemic.

As for tiny homes creating more homeless, I can't see why anyone who had a choice would give up an apartment with all modern conveniences to live in a parking lot in a very tiny place with no plumbing (one communal building has toilets), surrounded by neighbors who may be mentally ill, on drugs, anti-social, or all of the above, and where one may, in Wahoo's words, be "harassed or threatened or have our property damaged or befouled or stolen etc." Doesn't sound like the idyllic life that will draw in people eager to experience the fun.

As for why they don't build apartments — I think the answer here is expense and expediency. It's cheaper to have these little pre-fab homes that can be moved. Where they will set up permanently is still in contention — the place they'll start is temporary. There's a lot online about options and possibilities — not in my town specifically, but across the country — if anyone wants to delve further into the matter.

Quote from: mamselle on May 24, 2021, 06:34:35 PM
The "homeless" include families, orphaned children, and quite possibly, some of your own students:

   https://www.wcvb.com/article/5-investigates-homeless-students-in-massachusetts-crisis/36521780

And, for all I know, at any one given point in time, if he's gone off his meds or decided the current shelter he's living in is trying to poison him or do thought experiments on him, one of them could be my brother.

We think he's in Kansas City right now.

M.

My sister just died after going homeless.  Meth.

It is not that I lack a personal stake in the issue.  I have posted this and later, after my wife has gone to bed, I will cry because I posted this.  Even mentioning it just kills me and I want to die.

This is part of the reason I posted this.  I am very, very aware of this world we are discussing and the REALISTIC problems it entails.

I made a mistake in posting this.

We have reached a point in our culture in which we cannot discuss certain topics.

QuoteAs for tiny homes creating more homeless, I can't see why anyone who had a choice would give up an apartment with all modern conveniences... .

The mod cons cost more?

QuoteI'm sorry to hear about your brother, Mamselle.

Thanks.

And Wahoo, I am sorry to hear of the loss of your sister.

We do need this discussion, and we need to have it with compassion.

It was not wrong to post it.

M.

Quote from: mamselle on May 24, 2021, 07:41:35 PM

QuoteI'm sorry to hear about your brother, Mamselle.

Thanks.

And Wahoo, I am sorry to hear of the loss of your sister.

We do need this discussion, and we need to have it with compassion.

It was not wrong to post it.

M.

The homeless are often struggling with drug addiction and mental illness. Many have loving families who are frustrated at their inability to help them. My husband's brother may be one of them - we don't know. He won't talk to us or many of his friends and has disappeared. Some of his friends filed a police report and they found an address for him 5 states away from where he had been living.

I used to pass  this young woman (https://twitter.com/hknightsf/status/1336330205783191552?lang=en) many mornings on the way to the subway. She always looked well fed but cheerfully shooting up. We called her "Cindy Brady."

Quote from: dismalist on May 24, 2021, 07:15:36 PM

QuoteAs for tiny homes creating more homeless, I can't see why anyone who had a choice would give up an apartment with all modern conveniences... .

The mod cons cost more?

The implication is that if we create tiny homes for homeless people, people will declare themselves homeless so they can live in them. If people can afford the mod cons, they would certainly stick with the mod cons. If they cannot afford them, then being homeless is not a choice.

I'm sorry to hear about your loss, Wahoo.

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 24, 2021, 05:43:58 PM

Quote from: Hegemony on May 24, 2021, 05:17:20 PM
My city is now trying the experiment of providing tiny homes for the homeless. We'll see if it works; I definitely think it's worth a try. Incidentally there is a large, city-approved homeless encampment two blocks from my house. I know that the homeless can sometimes be problematic. If they were not subject to mental illness and attendant problems, many of them probably wouldn't be homeless in the first place. Nevertheless, just to say that we've had no problems on my block, and I'm glad they have a place to be.

I suppose if you could build these places cheaper and house more people it might be a good idea, but I see your point. What's the difference between a tiny home and a small studio apartment?

I don't know enough about social services for the homeless and how they work, but my guess is that there's already a process to triage and find services for people, although I'm sure that process is usually heavily constrained by lack of resources. I can't imagine you would just show up at a shelter and be immediately offered an apartment.

Ideally, you would just have apartments spread throughout cities. I used to walk by an area where a few homeless people hung out during the day. After years of that, I became pretty familiar with a couple of people. When I would go out of town, one guy would ask where I'd been. Most of those guys seemed like nice people. I would have sooner had them as neighbors than quite a few of the gainfully employed jerks I had to deal with.

I'm sorry to hear about your sister. That's heartbreaking.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 24, 2021, 06:56:36 PM

Quote from: mamselle on May 24, 2021, 06:34:35 PM
The "homeless" include families, orphaned children, and quite possibly, some of your own students:

   https://www.wcvb.com/article/5-investigates-homeless-students-in-massachusetts-crisis/36521780

And, for all I know, at any one given point in time, if he's gone off his meds or decided the current shelter he's living in is trying to poison him or do thought experiments on him, one of them could be my brother.

We think he's in Kansas City right now.

M.

My sister just died after going homeless.  Meth.

It is not that I lack a personal stake in the issue.  I have posted this and later, after my wife has gone to bed, I will cry because I posted this.  Even mentioning it just kills me and I want to die.

This is part of the reason I posted this.  I am very, very aware of this world we are discussing and the REALISTIC problems it entails.

Really sorry to hear about your sister Wahoo Redux.

And about your brother Mamselle.

Discussions on the fora have varying rates of openmindedness and readiness to listen. I'd hope that the personal nature of the topic might make people more willing to engage in helpful ways.

I'm also sorry to hear about sad personal experiences related to homelessness.

One of the reasons I think a UBI is worth considering is for issues like this. Part of the problem with many social programs is that they are targeted too finely. For instance, building apartments for homeless people specifically (aside from the definitional problem that once they are in the apartments, they are no longer "homeless"), is that people of very low income living in sketchy places don't necessarily qualify, so being officially "homeless" is the better option. With a UBI, homeless or not, low income or not, won't matter, and any income a person can generate is beneficial. Also, if housing costs are linked to the UBI, then whether people are technically "homeless" or not they should still be able to afford it.

A second issue which has been raised is that there are a small segment of the homeless who have serious mental health and/or substance abuse problems that will make them unable to live independently without them being a danger to themselves or their neighbours. These people will need to be in some sort of supervised individual setting because the damage they cause will cast aspersions on all homeless people otherwise. The people most eager to help homeless people must be willing and able to deal with the few who do present a risk in order to get community support for helping the non-dangerous majority.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 24, 2021, 05:06:49 PM

Quote from: apl68 on May 24, 2021, 03:07:58 PM
What people want in situations like this is for the homeless to just go away.  Or de-materialize, or cease to exist.  None of these is really feasible.  Except for the "cease to exist" option--it's called "dying."  But that's really not what we, as a society, want, right?

With all due respect apl, this is what I am talking about.

That's not fair.  I have never meant anyone who simply wants to bury the unfortunate in a field or something.  But I, and you, and dismalist, have a right to walk the streets and not be harassed or threatened or have our property damaged or befouled or stolen etc.  And yes, this has been my own experience with the "homeless."  And I am not alone, even as I have a great deal of empathy and there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I comprehension (I'm in recovery).

Very good, idealistic people get frustrated, I think, by the reality of our situation. 

We need a solution that is fair to everyone.

Actually I don't disagree with what you said above about how homelessness is a structural problem that needs far greater resources and planning--better provision for low-income housing, better mental health services, etc.  De-institutionalization of the mentally ill was a humanitarian idea that turned into a catastrophic failure in the execution.  And it's a tragedy that notorious public housing failures like Pruitt-Igoe caused the public to lose faith in public housing altogether.  We have to address the extreme shortages of affordable housing and mental care in so many cities.

Here and now, though, we have thousands of homeless people who need help right away.  Homeless shelters and churches like the one in Denver are trying to meet those needs that can't wait.  They're doing what they have to do.

Quote from: apl68 on May 25, 2021, 07:20:56 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 24, 2021, 05:06:49 PM

Quote from: apl68 on May 24, 2021, 03:07:58 PM
What people want in situations like this is for the homeless to just go away.  Or de-materialize, or cease to exist.  None of these is really feasible.  Except for the "cease to exist" option--it's called "dying."  But that's really not what we, as a society, want, right?

With all due respect apl, this is what I am talking about.

That's not fair.  I have never meant anyone who simply wants to bury the unfortunate in a field or something.  But I, and you, and dismalist, have a right to walk the streets and not be harassed or threatened or have our property damaged or befouled or stolen etc.  And yes, this has been my own experience with the "homeless."  And I am not alone, even as I have a great deal of empathy and there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I comprehension (I'm in recovery).

Very good, idealistic people get frustrated, I think, by the reality of our situation. 

We need a solution that is fair to everyone.

Actually I don't disagree with what you said above about how homelessness is a structural problem that needs far greater resources and planning--better provision for low-income housing, better mental health services, etc.  De-institutionalization of the mentally ill was a humanitarian idea that turned into a catastrophic failure in the execution.  And it's a tragedy that notorious public housing failures like Pruitt-Igoe caused the public to lose faith in public housing altogether.  We have to address the extreme shortages of affordable housing and mental care in so many cities.

Here and now, though, we have thousands of homeless people who need help right away.  Homeless shelters and churches like the one in Denver are trying to meet those needs that can't wait.  They're doing what they have to do.

Exactly. We can't ask people hide away, going without sleep or food for the next few years until policymakers figure out what to do with them.

For many, a week or two of good nights' sleep, few regular meals, and space for personal hygiene - shower, toothbrush, haircut, bathroom - can go a long way towards getting them resettled, finding a job and getting back on their feet.

Quote from: apl68 on May 25, 2021, 07:20:56 AM
De-institutionalization of the mentally ill was a humanitarian idea that turned into a catastrophic failure in the execution.

+1

Sorry for the personal pain re: loved ones mentioned in this thread.  Wishing you comfort and peace.

I'm so sorry, Wahoo and Mamselle. Appreciate your willingness to mention their—and your—stories.

Quote from: apl68 on May 25, 2021, 07:20:56 AM
De-institutionalization of the mentally ill was a humanitarian idea that turned into a catastrophic failure in the execution. 

History has shown repeatedly that the more elaborate the government plans, and the more precipitous their implementation, the worse the unintended consequences turn out to be.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." It's not that they didn't mean well; it's that humans are terrible at thinking through the results of their actions. And the more desperate they are to act RIGHT NOW the worse it gets.

Let's not confound mental illness with homelessness. They are not the same thing. Maybe 25% of the homeless have serious mental problems. More have mental problems. But then again, all of us do. :-)

At least the others will respond to incentives. The leisure/work tradeoff surely matters.

Lot's of credible information here: https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html (https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html)

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 25, 2021, 12:28:12 PM

History has shown repeatedly that the more elaborate the government plans, and the more precipitous their implementation, the worse the unintended consequences turn out to be.

Let's not pretend that's an objective statement. There are plenty of arguments to the contrary, e.g. the New Deal, vaccinations in schools, even the establishment of the United States itself. An action is not automatically bad because it is elaborate, sponsored by the government, or done quickly. Let's evaluate a thing on the actual facts of the actual instances, rather than on generalizations.

Random observations, strung together ad hoc, largely because I am not motivated enough to outline my thoughts to write an essay here.

1) Libertarianism is a cancer on this country, for many reasons.   It is one of the main reasons we have the homeless problem, because of addle-brained absolutist notions of freedom and the hatred of taxation.   As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted, 'I like paying taxes, for when I pay taxes, I am buying civilization.'   We need to get back into the mental hospital business, and we need to be willing to force the mentally ill to take meds, submit to therapy, etc.   If it is unacceptable for your 80 yo mother with Alzheimer's to be sitting in a doorway baying at the moon and wallowing in her own filth, why is it acceptable for your 20yo niece with schizophrenia to do the same?
2) That said, not all homeless are mentally ill, so a one-size-fits-all approach won't work.   Jesus never said 'when did you see me in need of a fix, and not provide me with one?'   Drugs suck, and those who cannot refrain from their use should be prevented from doing so, for their own good, but more importantly, for the good of decent people whose neighborhoods are ruined by their unchecked presence.   And those wishing to purvey narcotics should receive free room and board for a goodly stretch.
3) Those homeless who are not mentally ill and not substance abusers should be able to work, and that is where we can use tax money effectively.  Biden's infrastructure bill can become but one plank on the way to dealing with this problem, by creating work opportunities that the private sector either cannot or will not provide for such people, and laws requiring appropriate minimum wages, preventing employers from learning about nonviolent offenses in job applicants' records, and the like would help as well.
4) For the short-term, homelessness needs to be addressed immediately, with short-term solutions that could perhaps be phased out going forward.   One of those solutions should be providing housing for these folks, but putting a large encampment of people in the midst of a residential neighborhood is a sledge hammer that is going to cause real problems.   Here in New England, many old towns still have streets in them called some variation of 'Town Farm Rd.', which was the location of the old poor farm that each town was required to have.   There, the homeless would become non-homeless, and those who could work worked to help maintain said farm.   Something like this should be done now.   And one of these colonial policies included the policy of 'warning out' vagrants from towns, requiring them to return to their home town, which had to take them, thereby preventing the mass accumulation in a comparative handful of mostly larger and poorer communities, whilst smaller, whiter, and wealthier communities get to pass their homeless problems along.

I love the argument that the libertarian viewpoint is a cancer presented with the assumption that we have anything remotely approaching that philosophy being implemented. What we do have is a standard of bilegalism where those of us who can be threatened with state violence to extract money are made to "follow rules" and those who have nothing for the state to extract via threat of violence are left to "do their own thing." To put it simply, if I can be made to have 9 licenses for act of commerce that are voluntary, why can we not tell someone else they can't relieve themselves in the middle of the road, shoot up in public, sleep in such a way that prevents others from utilizing a sidewalk or maintain conditions likely to cause or exacerbate a public health crisis?

The federal register is growing at a rate far quicker than anyone could possibly read it by even devoting their entire time to this endeavor, not to mention similar activity in all 50 states. One in three occupations requires government permission via license. Permits are required for any number of activities including....wait for it....protesting. If you were to ask a random neutral observer from elsewhere what philosophy of government is implemented in the united states, Libertarianism would not be the answer in response during the current or previous administration. There is no major political figure that has a snowball's chance in hell in this country of achieving material control over governance who can even remotely be considered a libertarian, yet this phantom villain still exists. Why? The reason is obvious. You (those on either side of the political debate) have made the argument that a central authority needs to control our lives and its just a matter of finding the "right" people at the helm. After multiple failures to do so in every possible capacity, that argument becomes less and less plausible. Darn. Must be the fault of someone who wants to build their house, run a business or otherwise live their life without intervention from some incompetent and/or psychopathic bureaucratic scumbag.

Quote from: kaysixteen on May 25, 2021, 10:13:27 PM
Random observations, strung together ad hoc, largely because I am not motivated enough to outline my thoughts to write an essay here.

1) Libertarianism is a cancer on this country, for many reasons.   It is one of the main reasons we have the homeless problem, because of addle-brained absolutist notions of freedom and the hatred of taxation.   As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted, 'I like paying taxes, for when I pay taxes, I am buying civilization.'   We need to get back into the mental hospital business, and we need to be willing to force the mentally ill to take meds, submit to therapy, etc.   If it is unacceptable for your 80 yo mother with Alzheimer's to be sitting in a doorway baying at the moon and wallowing in her own filth, why is it acceptable for your 20yo niece with schizophrenia to do the same?

For the record, a lot (if not the majority) of the push to get people out of institutions was from the left, i.e. the social justice advocates. And those are the people you'll be up against in suggesting people be forced into treatment.

Quote from: kaysixteen on May 25, 2021, 10:13:27 PM
1.we need to be willing to force the mentally ill to take meds, submit to therapy, etc.   

2. Drugs suck, and those who cannot refrain from their use should be prevented from doing so, for their own good, but more importantly, for the good of decent people whose neighborhoods are ruined by their unchecked presence.   And those wishing to purvey narcotics should receive free room and board for a goodly stretch.

4) For the short-term, homelessness needs to be addressed immediately, with short-term solutions that could perhaps be phased out going forward.   One of those solutions should be providing housing for these folks, but putting a large encampment of people in the midst of a residential neighborhood is a sledge hammer that is going to cause real problems.   Here in New England, many old towns still have streets in them called some variation of 'Town Farm Rd.', which was the location of the old poor farm that each town was required to have.   There, the homeless would become non-homeless, and those who could work worked to help maintain said farm.   Something like this should be done now.   And one of these colonial policies included the policy of 'warning out' vagrants from towns, requiring them to return to their home town, which had to take them, thereby preventing the mass accumulation in a comparative handful of mostly larger and poorer communities, whilst smaller, whiter, and wealthier communities get to pass their homeless problems along.

1. Is an offensive idea, as well as an impractical one. Being mentally ill shouldn't mean that people lose all of their rights. There's a reason the standard is whether someone is an imminent danger to themself or others. Other people should get to make choices. The alternative is what? Forced long term incarceration in mental facilities for people who don't really need to be there because there's no other way to make sure they take medications? I'm not a libertarian and I don't have any problem with drugs for psychiatric problems, but I do have an issue with that.

2.I can tell you right now that involuntary incarceration of any sort for drug users is not going to help. If it did, there wouldn't be a drug problem. This is why a harm reduction approach makes a lot more sense. Imprisoning drug dealers isn't any more effective and causes huge amounts of harm. I'd really recommend this series of podcasts on all of this. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/george-bushs-infamous-crack-speech-30-years-later/id1091031079?i=1000448743841

3. That was a system based on the idea that homelessness and unemployment were moral problems that should be punished. It was neither very pleasant nor particularly effective...

For those who might appreciate some nice background on the deinstitution of the mentally ill in the US there is the link below. In began on a large scale in the US in 1955, so whatever some of us think happened it's likely we forgot or never knew. FWIW I don't think I'm alone in misremembering or the never knowing.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html

Quote from: jimbogumbo on May 26, 2021, 08:14:47 AM
For those who might appreciate some nice background on the deinstitution of the mentally ill in the US there is the link below. In began on a large scale in the US in 1955, so whatever some of us think happened it's likely we forgot or never knew. FWIW I don't think I'm alone in misremembering or the never knowing.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html

Yes, it happened in stages over a period of decades.  It wasn't any particular administration or set of politicians' fault.  The effects were no less catastrophic for that.

And it was done with the best of motivations, at least by some. The institutions were by and large backward, inhumane prison-like warehouses for people who might well never see freedom again. People were right to feel that society could and should do better than that. They were wrong in thinking that society would want to the costs of doing better. So in effect it was out of the frying pan into the fire. But we don't want to go back to the old ways, either.

Quote from: Hegemony on May 26, 2021, 02:43:10 PM
And it was done with the best of motivations, at least by some. The institutions were by and large backward, inhumane prison-like warehouses for people who might well never see freedom again. People were right to feel that society could and should do better than that. They were wrong in thinking that society would want to the costs of doing better. So in effect it was out of the frying pan into the fire. But we don't want to go back to the old ways, either.

Yes, this-- the goal was right, and it is achievable. With modern treatments most people even with psychosis (and I think that's mostly what people mean when they talk about "mental illness" in the homeless) can live independently or in supportive group housing. The problem is as you note that we as a society haven't put in the resources required.

Instead, people tend to blame the individual (e.g., assuming they refused treatment) rather than looking at lack of access to treatment, including a critical shortage of psych beds (especially pediatric!) which leaves many people in crisis left "on hold" in the ER for days at a time. Hospitals have massively cut psych beds because they don't pay-- lots of uninsured/medicaid patients and no expensive procedures to bill for. Access to outpatient care is also hard-- in theory, there is insurance parity with other health coverage, but in practice many therapists don't take insurance (because they would need a full-time staff person just to manage the insurance billing) and those that do often have long wait times.

So someone gets discharged after a few days in the hospital, maybe never leaving the ER, in theory getting stabilized on meds, then is discharged with no real practical plan for follow-up outpatient care. And if they're discharged with no home to go to? Forgot it, they are not going to get effective treatment.

This is one of the reasons the "housing first" approach has been shown to be the most effective-- it is much easier to manage a psychiatric condition when you have a stable place to live, can get your prescriptions delivered and always know where your pills are, and have adequate sleep and regular meals (stress and sleep deprivation can trigger psychotic and manic episodes). Better yet these buildings generally have on-site social workers.

There are some tricky issues around autonomy (and some innovative solutions, like having people file care plans when they are lucid for use when they aren't), but that really isn't the primary issue-- house people, provide adequate *voluntary* treatment, and then when we've done all that we can have a debate about the best way to deal with those cases where people refuse treatment.

Editing to add for our local conservatives: housing first SAVES MONEY, both in both health care and law enforcement/jail costs.

At least in the area I'm in, a one-two punch wreaked the plans for de-institutionalization in both directions.

I was part of the planning group for the meals program I mentioned earlier, so we were hearing information from people in various social services about this in the 1980s.

The plans to de-institutionalize those for whom it was deemed potentially helpful had been made with a safety-net structure for housing and aftercare set up and ready to go.

However, after the deinstitutionalization went forward, the legislature balked on funding the second phase of the project, pulling the safety-net out from under it.

So people suddenly were released with no-place to go; the deroulement we've been discussing followed. The agencies had been responsible in putting together a comprehensive, structured, protocol for follow-up, then were prevented from actually carrying it out.

Many non-profit groups worked to pick up the pieces as best they could--one was the feeding program itself.

But there was a lot of talk about the expectation that the nonprofit sector would just pick up the pieces the legislators had left lying on the State House floor, and a lot of discussion--never really serious, they were too invested in client care to actually do this--about whether it might not be better in the long term to let the broken pieces of the plan stay on the floor and make the legislature pick them up and put them back together as they'd originally planned and promised.

The human cost would have been worst, so of course they didn't. But they did go to the press. The two large dailies didn't do much; the more feisty weekly did, but the reps mostly ignored that, if they read it at all.

That pattern repeated itself in several other locales, with 'budget-minded folks' balancing that budget on the backs of the most needy members of the population, and then working very hard to obfuscate the issues so that no-one among the voting or reporting public connected the dots.

M.

Another factor of medication in institutionalized settings is that too often the aim is to sedate or otherwise make patients more tractable for the staff's convenience, not the patient's quality of life or ability to function.

It's a hard thing to deal with when someone trusts the voices in their head more than they trust you.

I do not much care whether you are offended by the notion that someone who is mentally incompetent should be made to accept treatment that would restore his competency, or at least ameliorate his condition significantly.  Tough.   We make people do all sorts of things for their own good....and for the good of society, and for both of these goods, leaving people in an incompetent state when it is not necessary is a cancer, bolstered by idiot libertarians on the left and right.

As to scumbags who trash communities by selling narcotics, what we gots here be a failyah to communicate.

Quote from: Puget on May 26, 2021, 03:44:32 PM
This is one of the reasons the "housing first" approach has been shown to be the most effective-- it is much easier to manage a psychiatric condition when you have a stable place to live, can get your prescriptions delivered and always know where your pills are, and have adequate sleep and regular meals (stress and sleep deprivation can trigger psychotic and manic episodes). Better yet these buildings generally have on-site social workers.

There are some tricky issues around autonomy (and some innovative solutions, like having people file care plans when they are lucid for use when they aren't), but that really isn't the primary issue-- house people, provide adequate *voluntary* treatment, and then when we've done all that we can have a debate about the best way to deal with those cases where people refuse treatment.

This is going to cause the same problem as the situation Mamselle described. The "first phase" of a program is popular and gets completed, but the "second phase", which is more difficult but necessary, gets put off or cancelled, leaving things in a mess. Politicians do this so often that voters are extremely skeptical, which makes it hard to get support for these initiatives. If you want to get buy-in, then you have to give people clarity up front about how you will deal with people who refuse treatment, and indeed what constitutes "refusing treatment". Otherwise you're just another salesperson saying "Trust me!", and will be met with the same cynicism.

I also have not encountered, on balance, so many people unwilling to follow their med protocols  or refusing treatment, per se, as challenged by the roadblocks to getting the meds, having a safe place to store and administer them (where someone won't try to rip them off, or attack them mid-syringe of a legal painkiller for fire-damaged skin-graft pain), and getting accurate refills on time.

Not having a permanent address (now in this state, remedied by permission to use an acquiescing shelter, church, synagogue, mosque or a P.O. box) kept people from getting a replacement ID if one were lost or stolen at night in the shelter. No ID, no refills. Also no safe place to send SSI checks.

People are very aware of their own dietary constraints, so diabetics and those with celiac disease have to be very careful how much shelter food they eat: like many large kitchens, the use of salt, sugar, and pastry flour often become "filler" when funds for protein run short and the U.S. Gov. bread,  cheese and lunch meat are held up in transit, or delayed when grandstanding filibusters hold up a budget approval.

With established housing, services are easier to coordinate. Without it, the person you've been working with for six months to get a job and an approved section-8 apartment gets jailed for loitering on the between-nights the smaller shelters impose to let overflow clients get a bed after 3 days without one...and like chutes and ladders, they're back to square one, because the jail sentence has wiped out their eligibility for the jobs program, and the apartment went to someone else because the forms weren't signed in time.

M.

Quote from: kaysixteen on May 26, 2021, 11:14:33 PM
I do not much care whether you are offended by the notion that someone who is mentally incompetent should be made to accept treatment that would restore his competency, or at least ameliorate his condition significantly.  Tough.   We make people do all sorts of things for their own good....and for the good of society, and for both of these goods, leaving people in an incompetent state when it is not necessary is a cancer, bolstered by idiot libertarians on the left and right.

As to scumbags who trash communities by selling narcotics, what we gots here be a failyah to communicate.

Yeah, it isn't that simple. Drug dealers are often users themselves and they are often very young. It also just doesn't do anything to reduce the supply of drugs. People don't deal drugs because they are looking for a safe, risk free career option. All you do is end up with more people in jail.

As for forcing people into treatment, I'm not a libertarian, but I do find the idea troubling. I think you're going to these fantasies of state coercion without trying to imagine an actual social safety net.

Quote from: Caracal on May 27, 2021, 07:14:08 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on May 26, 2021, 11:14:33 PM
I do not much care whether you are offended by the notion that someone who is mentally incompetent should be made to accept treatment that would restore his competency, or at least ameliorate his condition significantly.  Tough.   We make people do all sorts of things for their own good....and for the good of society, and for both of these goods, leaving people in an incompetent state when it is not necessary is a cancer, bolstered by idiot libertarians on the left and right.

As to scumbags who trash communities by selling narcotics, what we gots here be a failyah to communicate.

Yeah, it isn't that simple. Drug dealers are often users themselves and they are often very young. It also just doesn't do anything to reduce the supply of drugs. People don't deal drugs because they are looking for a safe, risk free career option. All you do is end up with more people in jail.

As for forcing people into treatment, I'm not a libertarian, but I do find the idea troubling. I think you're going to these fantasies of state coercion without trying to imagine an actual social safety net.

Enforcement of strict drug laws can have only a limited effect in reducing availability once the horse has gotten out of the barn, but elimination of controls on them lets out the rest of the herd and is a sure recipe for flooding a locality with drugs and increasing the amount of harm they do.  It's no accident that some of the cities (San Francisco comes to mind) with the most extreme homeless problems also have gone the farthest down that road.  Unfortunately more and more states are running down that road now.  We're going to continue to see steep increases in drug use and drug-induced deaths and psychoses, despite the expenditure of billions for "harm reduction."

Forcing people into mental treatment is a troubling issue with no easy answers.  The presence of so many seriously mentally ill people on the streets seems to have made some nostalgic for the days of the big state mental hospitals, but those weren't really very good solutions to the problem in their day.  The "housing first" strategy mentioned above for treating the mentally ill homeless does tend to work best.  Manselle's description of how coordinating the treatments of people in medical need in the absence of any sort of stable housing situation becomes a nearly impossible task is all too on the nose.

One of the problems with coerced treatment for addiction in the US is that much of the treatment that gets provided is  ineffective. Just a large waste of money. So many badly run expensive rehab centers.

There are reasonably effective treatments available, but people also need a lot of support once they come out of treatment. Until the US grapples more rationally with health care, forcing to get "treatment" is just another phony solution.

Quote from: Caracal on May 27, 2021, 07:14:08 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on May 26, 2021, 11:14:33 PM
I do not much care whether you are offended by the notion that someone who is mentally incompetent should be made to accept treatment that would restore his competency, or at least ameliorate his condition significantly.  Tough.   We make people do all sorts of things for their own good....and for the good of society, and for both of these goods, leaving people in an incompetent state when it is not necessary is a cancer, bolstered by idiot libertarians on the left and right.

As to scumbags who trash communities by selling narcotics, what we gots here be a failyah to communicate.

Yeah, it isn't that simple. Drug dealers are often users themselves and they are often very young. It also just doesn't do anything to reduce the supply of drugs. People don't deal drugs because they are looking for a safe, risk free career option. All you do is end up with more people in jail.

How is people who sell hard drugs in jail not a better situation than people selling hard drugs on the street, carrying guns, having gangs and turf wars? Build more jails.
I'm worried about the urban community with the hot weather and long daylight hours ahead and who knows whether the police presence will be sufficient. As we take note of the one year anniversary of a black minimum wage retail worker calling the police to ask for protection from the criminal activity of the late George Floyd.

Quote from: mahagonny on May 27, 2021, 08:56:26 AM

Quote from: Caracal on May 27, 2021, 07:14:08 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on May 26, 2021, 11:14:33 PM
I do not much care whether you are offended by the notion that someone who is mentally incompetent should be made to accept treatment that would restore his competency, or at least ameliorate his condition significantly.  Tough.   We make people do all sorts of things for their own good....and for the good of society, and for both of these goods, leaving people in an incompetent state when it is not necessary is a cancer, bolstered by idiot libertarians on the left and right.

As to scumbags who trash communities by selling narcotics, what we gots here be a failyah to communicate.

Yeah, it isn't that simple. Drug dealers are often users themselves and they are often very young. It also just doesn't do anything to reduce the supply of drugs. People don't deal drugs because they are looking for a safe, risk free career option. All you do is end up with more people in jail.

How is people who sell hard drugs in jail not a better situation than people selling hard drugs on the street, carrying guns, having gangs and turf wars? Build more jails.

Because there will just be different people selling drugs.

Quote from: Caracal on May 27, 2021, 10:01:04 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on May 27, 2021, 08:56:26 AM

Quote from: Caracal on May 27, 2021, 07:14:08 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on May 26, 2021, 11:14:33 PM
I do not much care whether you are offended by the notion that someone who is mentally incompetent should be made to accept treatment that would restore his competency, or at least ameliorate his condition significantly.  Tough.   We make people do all sorts of things for their own good....and for the good of society, and for both of these goods, leaving people in an incompetent state when it is not necessary is a cancer, bolstered by idiot libertarians on the left and right.

As to scumbags who trash communities by selling narcotics, what we gots here be a failyah to communicate.

Yeah, it isn't that simple. Drug dealers are often users themselves and they are often very young. It also just doesn't do anything to reduce the supply of drugs. People don't deal drugs because they are looking for a safe, risk free career option. All you do is end up with more people in jail.

How is people who sell hard drugs in jail not a better situation than people selling hard drugs on the street, carrying guns, having gangs and turf wars? Build more jails.

Because there will just be different people selling drugs.

It's very depressing, isn't it, the number of people who fall victim to the temptation of street narcotics. However, there are always some who will never use these drugs of their own volition, and if they can be protected from the presence of those who would, I don't see how we do not owe it to the non-users to keep their neighborhoods drug-free at any cost. Or, alternatively, you make the drugs legal and affordable and put the gangs out of business. But you have to decide something. Otherwise, the government and its laws are illegitimate. I have had friends, black white and other, who are determined never to use illegal inebriants, and some whom would never even use legal ones. It can be done.

Quote from: financeguy on May 26, 2021, 04:10:47 AM
I love the argument that the libertarian viewpoint is a cancer presented with the assumption that we have anything remotely approaching that philosophy being implemented. What we do have is a standard of bilegalism where those of us who can be threatened with state violence to extract money are made to "follow rules" and those who have nothing for the state to extract via threat of violence are left to "do their own thing." To put it simply, if I can be made to have 9 licenses for act of commerce that are voluntary, why can we not tell someone else they can't relieve themselves in the middle of the road, shoot up in public, sleep in such a way that prevents others from utilizing a sidewalk or maintain conditions likely to cause or exacerbate a public health crisis?

The federal register is growing at a rate far quicker than anyone could possibly read it by even devoting their entire time to this endeavor, not to mention similar activity in all 50 states. One in three occupations requires government permission via license. Permits are required for any number of activities including....wait for it....protesting. If you were to ask a random neutral observer from elsewhere what philosophy of government is implemented in the united states, Libertarianism would not be the answer in response during the current or previous administration. There is no major political figure that has a snowball's chance in hell in this country of achieving material control over governance who can even remotely be considered a libertarian, yet this phantom villain still exists. Why? The reason is obvious. You (those on either side of the political debate) have made the argument that a central authority needs to control our lives and its just a matter of finding the "right" people at the helm. After multiple failures to do so in every possible capacity, that argument becomes less and less plausible. Darn. Must be the fault of someone who wants to build their house, run a business or otherwise live their life without intervention from some incompetent and/or psychopathic bureaucratic scumbag.

It's true that the US is not libertarian, but that dosn't mean that libertarian ideals are not used to sell people on things.  The republican party is very adept at this, selling the fear of government coming to take your money, guns, freedoms, etc.  Then, once they are in power, the government expands, deficits continue to grow, but they continue to sell these goods and their loyal base continue to believe what they are selling.  So, it is completely possible for libertarian ideals to be a cancer without your government being libertarian.

As for an actual libertarian government, it seems fundamentally flawed anyway (at least at the scale of the USA). 

If your definition of a cancer is a philosophical principal that someone can sell without actually implementing, you could say nearly anything is a cancer, "peace and love" for example. Since nearly all things human are flawed, placing this label on the libertarian philosophy is not a particularly high bar. We are choosing between multiple options, all of which are flawed to some degree. 

Re: fun metaphors

Government is a vital organ that has grown errantly until it is 75% cancer. Libertarianism is chemotherapy. It fights the disease but also harms the host organism.

Quote from: financeguy on May 27, 2021, 09:49:42 PM
If your definition of a cancer is a philosophical principal that someone can sell without actually implementing, you could say nearly anything is a cancer, "peace and love" for example. Since nearly all things human are flawed, placing this label on the libertarian philosophy is not a particularly high bar. We are choosing between multiple options, all of which are flawed to some degree.

Yes, you could, but some examples are more problematic than others.  The libertarian pitch is just used in this way far more than peace and love.

Quote from: mahagonny on May 28, 2021, 04:10:51 AM
Re: fun metaphors

Government is a vital organ that has grown errantly until it is 75% cancer. Libertarianism is chemotherapy. It fights the disease but also harms the host organism.

Sure, and too much or used incorrectly will kill you quicker than the cancer.

I agree with some libertarian concepts, but think taken to the extreme it is flawed and it is being used to sell harmful policies.

I would think that the reincarnation of 'peace and love' is 'defund the police' which, being a specific prescription for action, is much more dangerous than the original.
ETA: well, instead if inane, actually risky.

From Miriam Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarian):

Quote
Definition of libertarian
1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will

2a: a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

  b (capitalized) : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

From libertarianism.org (https://www.libertarianism.org/what-is-a-libertarian):

Quote
A libertarian is committed to the principle that liberty is the most important political value. Liberty means being free to make your own choices about your own life, that what you do with your body and your property ought to be up to you. Other people must not forcibly interfere with your liberty, and you must not forcibly interfere with theirs.

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism):

Quote
Libertarianism is a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.

From all of these, it's not clear that causes on the left advocating decriminilization of drugs, access to abortion, marriage equity, etc. do not count as libertarian, just as much as causes on the right about private property rights and so on.

An authoritarian and/or theocratic state would seem to be the only systems that would count as clearly anti-libertarian. In modern democracies, debate is about which choices people should have freedom to make, with the assumption on both sides of the debate that in certain matters there ought to be a great deal of autonomy.

Two more sources to suggest: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Bob Dole, ca 1996: a good day in government is not getting a good thing to happen. It's preventing a bad thing from being done.

ETA: P. J. O'Rourke: America was not created so we could be better. It was created so we could be anything we damn please.

Someone find a country with no functioning government and let me know how well you think it is going over there.

I'll wait.

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 28, 2021, 06:23:55 AM
Someone find a country with no functioning government and let me know how well you think it is going over there.

I'll wait.

You may want to consult the leaders of the CHOP/CHAZ from Seattle last summer, or the ANTIFA spokesperson who told the mayor of Portland that they want to have NO mayors. These aren't right-wing anti-government types; they're left-wing anti-government types. (The wackos at both extremes of the political spectrum look a lot alike.)

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 28, 2021, 06:23:55 AM
Someone find a country with no functioning government and let me know how well you think it is going over there.

I'll wait.

North America before the white people ruined it.

Quote from: mahagonny on May 28, 2021, 07:17:13 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 28, 2021, 06:23:55 AM
Someone find a country with no functioning government and let me know how well you think it is going over there.

I'll wait.

North America before the white people ruined it.

That's possibly the stupidest most ignorant thing you've said yet. You really don't know what the hell you're talking about, do you?

Quote from: mahagonny on May 28, 2021, 07:17:13 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 28, 2021, 06:23:55 AM
Someone find a country with no functioning government and let me know how well you think it is going over there.

I'll wait.

North America before the white people ruined it.

So...you think Native American societies had no form of government? No laws? Complete anarchy?

Quote from: smallcleanrat on May 28, 2021, 07:57:19 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on May 28, 2021, 07:17:13 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 28, 2021, 06:23:55 AM
Someone find a country with no functioning government and let me know how well you think it is going over there.

I'll wait.

North America before the white people ruined it.

So...you think Native American societies had no form of government? No laws? Complete anarchy?

North America wasn't a political entity or a unified cultural group. It also wasn't static. There were different forms of organization and governments and those evolved. All of this is probably a bit lost on Mahagonny, however.

This is the sort of thing that makes discussions about stories like Rick Santorum's recent statements so frustrating. Yes, a person stating or implying that pre-colonial Native Americans were savage, unsophisticated, and "uncivilized" is going to draw a lot more criticism these days than it would have in previous generations. Why is that automatically a bad thing?

Santorum likes to attribute this to irrational liberals intolerant of any truth that challenges PC culture. Of course, there are extremists and ideologues who are going to start hollering, but that doesn't mean every criticism is motivated by dogmatism. 

Sometimes what's happening is people pointing out: "Hey, listen...that thing you said is not actually true."

Too many people try to dodge their critics by proclaiming, "Oh, they just don't like it because it's not PC." Saves them the trouble of actually having to defend their statements through argument.

Quote from: Caracal on May 28, 2021, 08:02:23 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on May 28, 2021, 07:57:19 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on May 28, 2021, 07:17:13 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 28, 2021, 06:23:55 AM
Someone find a country with no functioning government and let me know how well you think it is going over there.

I'll wait.

North America before the white people ruined it.

So...you think Native American societies had no form of government? No laws? Complete anarchy?

North America wasn't a political entity or a unified cultural group. It also wasn't static. There were different forms of organization and governments and those evolved.

However, this does raise an interesting question about which sort of government one of these communities exhibits.

• Does the high degree of interdependence of one of these communities make it roughly socialist or communist in nature?
• Does the very low number of explicit regulations on what individuals can/must do make it roughly libertarian in nature?

It seems that a case could be made in either direction. The reality is that the difference in scale between a community of a few dozen people versus a city (country, etc.) of thousands to millions makes the comparison one of apples to oranges.

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 28, 2021, 08:49:07 AM
[

However, this does raise an interesting question about which sort of government one of these communities exhibits.

• Does the high degree of interdependence of one of these communities make it roughly socialist or communist in nature?
• Does the very low number of explicit regulations on what individuals can/must do make it roughly libertarian in nature?

It seems that a case could be made in either direction. The reality is that the difference in scale between a community of a few dozen people versus a city (country, etc.) of thousands to millions makes the comparison one of apples to oranges.

Of course it does. Off the top of my head, a government of centuries ago could be smaller than that found today because the complexities of what government could do weren't yet so evolved. That doesn't mean people thought small government was better, or does it?

What kind of government does Antarctica have? Sparsely populated places can have less government.

It seems to me the concepts the far far left (and we might as well say 'the democratic party' since the radicals are being condoned) have been floating are something you'd expect to find in a religious code of law more often than in a government that is not a religion-state government. For example, 'looting is reparations' could ultimately mean that the same act, stealing, could be deemed legal or illegal depend on one's skin color. That is, a religion may define certain people as 'infidels' or 'the enemy.' As long as we're talking about government and law.
We are already getting race-based farm subsidy, and Biden and Co. are acting like they got an FDR landslide victory mandate instead of having eked out a win.
But this is probably a hijack. Well, no one knows what to do about homelessness and narcotics anyway. Too bad.
The forum gets an "A" for effort.

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 28, 2021, 08:49:07 AM

Quote from: Caracal on May 28, 2021, 08:02:23 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on May 28, 2021, 07:57:19 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on May 28, 2021, 07:17:13 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 28, 2021, 06:23:55 AM
Someone find a country with no functioning government and let me know how well you think it is going over there.

I'll wait.

North America before the white people ruined it.

So...you think Native American societies had no form of government? No laws? Complete anarchy?

North America wasn't a political entity or a unified cultural group. It also wasn't static. There were different forms of organization and governments and those evolved.

However, this does raise an interesting question about which sort of government one of these communities exhibits.

• Does the high degree of interdependence of one of these communities make it roughly socialist or communist in nature?
• Does the very low number of explicit regulations on what individuals can/must do make it roughly libertarian in nature?

It seems that a case could be made in either direction. The reality is that the difference in scale between a community of a few dozen people versus a city (country, etc.) of thousands to millions makes the comparison one of apples to oranges.

This is what I mean. By some estimates, 40k people might have lived in Cahokia around 1200. That would make it as big as London at the time. No other North American city had that many people till 1780.

The Iroquois Confederacy didn't have that kind of population, but it was a dominant power controlling a huge area through incredibly complicated internal and external diplomacy

I could go on, but the point is the assumption that Native American people in the United States lived in groups of a "few dozen" is just very wrong.

Quote
I could go on, but the point is the assumption that Native American people in the United States lived in groups of a "few dozen" is just very wrong.

Just curious.

What was the least densely populated region in  what we now call continental USA of say, between nine and ten thousand square miles (roughly the size of Vermont) circa, OK, let's make it easy for an historian of your caliber, in some period of time between 1600 and 1630, and what type of government did they have? I'm asking about the population we refer to as Native Americans.

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 28, 2021, 06:23:55 AM
Someone find a country with no functioning government and let me know how well you think it is going over there.

I'll wait.

I expect the intended inference was 'there are none.' Sorry if I have deprived the forum of something.

Quote from: mahagonny on May 28, 2021, 09:14:48 PM

Quote
I could go on, but the point is the assumption that Native American people in the United States lived in groups of a "few dozen" is just very wrong.

Just curious.

What was the least densely populated region in  what we now call continental USA of say, between nine and ten thousand square miles (roughly the size of Vermont) circa, OK, let's make it easy for an historian of your caliber, in some period of time between 1600 and 1630, and what type of government did they have? I'm asking about the population we refer to as Native Americans.

I don't know. I'm not an expert on Native American history, and I'm certainly not a demographer. Probably somewhere that has a very low population now.

Since you're asking about 1600-1630, that actually gets to part of the problem. When people like Ponce De Leon and Verrazano came to areas of what's now the eastern United States in the early 16th century, they reported pretty dense populations. We don't really have a lot of reports between then and 1600, but by the time the first English colonies were being established in North America things looked really different. Those really dense populations had become much sparser. Probably this was about epidemic diseases from Europe. Some estimates are that these diseases could have killed 90 percent of the population. That probably caused huge changes in governments and societies and might have made lots of Native American societies less hierarchical-which doesn't mean less complex.

But that's the point. We're talking about a whole bunch of different groups of people over a long period of time. Imagine if someone just said "In Europe they had really centralized governments before 1700 with large populations." We would immediately recognize that as a hopelessly vague statement without specifying where and when at a minimum.

I don't know stats, but I know of complex cultural products that didn't come about by happenstance. The narrow date range you've cited is far too small for objective comparison, civilzations lasted in many areas for millenia.

I'll discuss the 3 I know best, omitting the NW, Central Plains, and SE societies. Others may like to chime in on those....

SW: Pueblo communities (and those that preceded them) in several waves. Some final failures were brought on by climate-related disasters (some of those the same that led to crop failures in medieval Europe), others due to attack and defeat by equally complex civilizations that wanted their land, etc.

Their cultural products (and those of other societies in the area) included underground ritual structures, pottery and seriously complex basketweaving patterns, finely-attuned ritual practices linked (further south) to a complex calendrical system we haven't yet completely decoded (so they were smarter then than we are, now).

They (or, probably, their predecessors) aldo did a nice line in petroglyph that show music and dance practices we still can't describe directly, but were probably also tied to ritual observances, which in turn have been taken as indices to complex subdivisions of task-related classes for political and religious organizwtion, farming, fishing, and trade, which now appears to have been even more extensive than previously believed: feather capes and bird/wildlife exchanges just turned up that extend the distances of interaction to many thousand miles south (i.e., Central and South America).

OH Valley/ Lake Erie area, and radiating points south and west: Some links to the lower Mississippi were being suggested awhile ago for the Mound Builders in S. Central Ohio; I'd have to see if that's been updated, but by  18,000 BCE, last I heard, the folks resposible for the large earthworks like Serpent Mound and many other smaller structures in the areas  near Chillicothe, and larger burial sites around Cincinnati (Ft. Ancient, for example) were in the area and creating, not only those structures, but whimsical pottery, like the small pipes and bowls that still turn up in excavations, and a governmental infrastructure that got large-scale, very technically sophisticated (and apparently astronomically alligned), public works projects done.

By the time you're looking at, there were several dentifiable societies (Huron, Wyandotte, Iroquois, and Shawnee among them) living, trading, and fighting in the area. They (and others) were there when Marquette and Joliet arrived, when Gnadenhutten was built, and when Chief Logan signed over land to the incoming English. Their names for things denominate about half of the state's counties and county sears, and many of its rivers, hills, and other landmarks...each group had a strong, functional grammar and an interactive trade language, in part through hand signals, that facilitated peaceful, economically productive encounters.

NE/E. Canada The Algonkians and several related subgroups populated a wide extent of land in what is now both south and north of the US/Canadian border. A splintered patchwork of independent groups inhabited much of the East coast from Maine to what's now CT, although due to higher ocean-reflective heat, and the green and black fly infestations in the summer, several of those groups migrated inland, some as far west as the Berkshires, before returning in the fall.

I've described them recently elsewhere; the Algonquins in the L17th-E18th c. were used by the French to fight for them against the British settlements over the border when the French English conflicts of that era spilled over into their respective N. Am. settlements. (Barrels of knives were captured in the Halifax area at one point, labeled for specific distribution to named First People contacts (Parkman); contracts for kidnapping and ransom deliveries are securely attested in cases like that of Jemima (Howe)Tute and her children in Vernon, VT(MA Hx. Soc. deposition, E 18th c.).

Very few to none f these human exploits in any of the sites I've (very broadly) described are possible without high intelligence, strong social bonds, well-defined civic expectations, and long experience of working, living, fighting, farming, and surviving together.

M.

* All due respect, I  don't mean this as snark, but, I'm truly somewhere between puzzled and incredulous that you'd have to ask....I learned this stuff as a kid, visiting Serpent Mound in the 60s, and taking Ohio History in the 8th grade in the 70s, and when I started research the NE area for tours in the 80s, and when I worked on SW colonial churches for comps in the 90s...and just the odd news article, since....where were you?)

Quote from: mamselle on May 29, 2021, 08:32:00 AM
I don't know stats, but I know of complex cultural products that didn't come about by happenstance. The narrow date range you've cited is far too small for objective comparison, civilzations lasted in many areas for millenia.

I'll discuss the 3 I know best, omitting the NW, Central Plains, and SE societies. Others may like to chime in on those....

SW: Pueblo communities (and those that preceded them) in several waves. Some final failures were brought on by climate-related disasters (some of those the same that led to crop failures in medieval Europe), others due to attack and defeat by equally complex civilizations that wanted their land, etc.

Their cultural products (and those of other societies in the area) included underground ritual structures, pottery and seriously complex basketweaving patterns, finely-attuned ritual practices linked (further south) to a complex calendrical system we haven't yet completely decoded (so they were smarter then than we are, now).

They (or, probably, their predecessors) aldo did a nice line in petroglyph that show music and dance practices we still can't describe directly, but were probably also tied to ritual observances, which in turn have been taken as indices to complex subdivisions of task-related classes for political and religious organizwtion, farming, fishing, and trade, which now appears to have been even more extensive than previously believed: feather capes and bird/wildlife exchanges just turned up that extend the distances of interaction to many thousand miles south (i.e., Central and South America).

OH Valley/ Lake Erie area, and radiating points south and west: Some links to the lower Mississippi were being suggested awhile ago for the Mound Builders in S. Central Ohio; I'd have to see if that's been updated, but by  18,000 BCE, last I heard, the folks resposible for the large earthworks like Serpent Mound and many other smaller structures in the areas  near Chillicothe, and larger burial sites around Cincinnati (Ft. Ancient, for example) were in the area and creating, not only those structures, but whimsical pottery, like the small pipes and bowls that still turn up in excavations, and a governmental infrastructure that got large-scale, very technically sophisticated (and apparently astronomically alligned), public works projects done.

By the time you're looking at, there were several dentifiable societies (Huron, Wyandotte, Iroquois, and Shawnee among them) living, trading, and fighting in the area. They (and others) were there when Marquette and Joliet arrived, when Gnadenhutten was built, and when Chief Logan signed over land to the incoming English. Their names for things denominate about half of the state's counties and county sears, and many of its rivers, hills, and other landmarks...each group had a strong, functional grammar and an interactive trade language, in part through hand signals, that facilitated peaceful, economically productive encounters.

NE/E. Canada The Algonkians and several related subgroups populated a wide extent of land in what is now both south and north of the US/Canadian border. A splintered patchwork of independent groups inhabited much of the East coast from Maine to what's now CT, although due to higher ocean-reflective heat, and the green and black fly infestations in the summer, several of those groups migrated inland, some as far west as the Berkshires, before returning in the fall.

I've described them recently elsewhere; the Algonquins in the L17th-E18th c. were used by the French to fight for them against the British settlements over the border when the French English conflicts of that era spilled over into their respective N. Am. settlements. (Barrels of knives were captured in the Halifax area at one point, labeled for specific distribution to named First People contacts (Parkman); contracts for kidnapping and ransom deliveries are securely attested in cases like that of Jemima (Howe)Tute and her children in Vernon, VT(MA Hx. Soc. deposition, E 18th c.).

Very few to none f these human exploits in any of the sites I've (very broadly) described are possible without high intelligence, strong social bonds, well-defined civic expectations, and long experience of working, living, fighting, farming, and surviving together.

M.

* All due respect, I  don't mean this as snark, but, I'm truly somewhere between puzzled and incredulous that you'd have to ask....I learned this stuff as a kid, visiting Serpent Mound in the 60s, and taking Ohio History in the 8th grade in the 70s, and when I started research the NE area for tours in the 80s, and when I worked on SW colonial churches for comps in the 90s...and just the odd news article, since....where were you?)

Uh...I'm just trying to remember. Oh yeah, reform school.
I scored 100 on the state administered final exam for Algebra, ninth grade, and now I can't remember any of it. Just imagine it.
And BTW I didn't ask for most the stuff you posted, though if you're welling up with pride now I'm happy for you.

Pride? Hardly.

Many could have done better, I suspect.

I just figured that, if you're being asked to reconsider your viewpoint, you might appreciate having some facts easily at hand.

M.

What to do about the homeless is the eternal question. Had a relative who kept posting Salt Lake City solved it by providing apartments. We all know it didn't solve homelessness.

Fact of the matter is some people would rather live on the streets rather than be subject to rules for whatever program is established. You don't see many that just give homeless some keys to a place without expecting something in return (following rules).

I don't know what you do with that population.

Some other things can happen at a local level. YMCA-type housing has gone away. Many cities had boarding houses that provided a bedroom and communal bathroom, but no kitchen that was affordable for even those making minimum wage.

Obviously other barriers exists with limited acceptance of Section 8 and other vouchers.

I don't think people are being hypocritical in not wanting a makeshift campground in their neighborhood. I do see it as hypocritical if they don't want low-income permanent housing, though.

Regarding camps, what's the percentage of those who don't have a serious mental health or drug addiction issue? I assume it's higher than what is classified as homeless.

Comparative context: Oakland and Mexico City (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/17/us/oakland-california-homeless-camp.html).

Over the years, I have travelled to parts of the world that are far poorer than the USA, with "poor" being defined in a variety of ways, and it has been very rare to see people living like those shown in the interactive feature linked above. For example, a few decades ago in Hanoi, where annual per capita income was about US$700, the UNDP had classified 20% of residences as "unfit for human habitation." Yet living conditions there at that time were far better than in this Oakland homeless encampment in 2019.

Salt Lake City's program was intended for people who had become homeless after losing jobs for non-drug related reasons to help them as they looked for and then worked at new jobs to then be able to afford housing. At the time that seemed to be working pretty well.

Quote from: Mobius on May 29, 2021, 02:48:05 PM

Fact of the matter is some people would rather live on the streets rather than be subject to rules for whatever program is established. You don't see many that just give homeless some keys to a place without expecting something in return (following rules).

That's actually the approach some places are trying. Beyond, requiring people to be non violent they aren't trying to get them to follow rules around not using substances. The argument is that someone might not be able or willing to stop drinking or using drugs, but it will still be better for them and others if they have a place to stay. You know what's worse than someone drinking too much in their apartment? Drinking too much on the streets.

Quote from: Caracal on May 29, 2021, 06:23:47 PM

Quote from: Mobius on May 29, 2021, 02:48:05 PM

Fact of the matter is some people would rather live on the streets rather than be subject to rules for whatever program is established. You don't see many that just give homeless some keys to a place without expecting something in return (following rules).

That's actually the approach some places are trying. Beyond, requiring people to be non violent they aren't trying to get them to follow rules around not using substances. The argument is that someone might not be able or willing to stop drinking or using drugs, but it will still be better for them and others if they have a place to stay. You know what's worse than someone drinking too much in their apartment? Drinking too much on the streets.

So are there rules around defecation in public areas? Smoking in bed? There are all kinds of things that can make it unpleasant or unsafe for people around them that need to be addressed unless they get a building to themselves. "No rules" being OK includes all kinds of assumptions about what kind of behaviour will be implicitly avoided. For some people, those assumptions don't hold, and they're the ones who present the biggest difficulties. (And none of these involve direct "violence".)

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 30, 2021, 06:21:51 AM

Quote from: Caracal on May 29, 2021, 06:23:47 PM

Quote from: Mobius on May 29, 2021, 02:48:05 PM

Fact of the matter is some people would rather live on the streets rather than be subject to rules for whatever program is established. You don't see many that just give homeless some keys to a place without expecting something in return (following rules).

That's actually the approach some places are trying. Beyond, requiring people to be non violent they aren't trying to get them to follow rules around not using substances. The argument is that someone might not be able or willing to stop drinking or using drugs, but it will still be better for them and others if they have a place to stay. You know what's worse than someone drinking too much in their apartment? Drinking too much on the streets.

So are there rules around defecation in public areas? Smoking in bed? There are all kinds of things that can make it unpleasant or unsafe for people around them that need to be addressed unless they get a building to themselves. "No rules" being OK includes all kinds of assumptions about what kind of behaviour will be implicitly avoided. For some people, those assumptions don't hold, and they're the ones who present the biggest difficulties. (And none of these involve direct "violence".)

There aren't really that many people who would prefer to poop in the stairway of their building instead of their own bathroom, and most of those people aren't homeless.

The point is not that there are no rules. The idea is to make the rules on par with the sort of rules anyone renting an apartment might have to follow rather than having special restrictive rules for the homeless.

What if they don't follow the rules we're all expected to follow such as noise or basic cleanliness? I don't consider someone uncharitable if they don't want those type of people setting up camp in their neighborhood.

Plus, I don't think homeless who are working to get out of a rut should be subject to that, either.

Quote from: Mobius on May 30, 2021, 06:43:03 PM
What if they don't follow the rules we're all expected to follow such as noise or basic cleanliness? I don't consider someone uncharitable if they don't want those type of people setting up camp in their neighborhood.

Plus, I don't think homeless who are working to get out of a rut should be subject to that, either.

Honestly, if you're living in an apartment those rules are a lot more minimal and easy to follow than in a group home or shelter. When I was in my early to mid 20s, my apartments were pretty disgusting by any normal standards. Certainly, my friends were pretty horrified when they came over. My landlords on the other hand barely blinked. Once, when one of them came over to fix something, I apologized sheepishly and told me this didn't bother her and she had seen far, far worse. I can tell you from experience that there's a pretty big level of filth where it isn't a problem for anybody not in your apartment unit. To get to the level where it causes problems for your landlord and other tenants takes some extra  inattention to very obvious problems. If you occasionally take the trash out and investigate any really terrible smells coming from the fridge, you'll probably avoid issues.
The point is that I think you're overestimating what's required to live in apartment building without causing problems.

Quote from: Caracal on May 30, 2021, 02:08:59 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 30, 2021, 06:21:51 AM

So are there rules around defecation in public areas? Smoking in bed? There are all kinds of things that can make it unpleasant or unsafe for people around them that need to be addressed unless they get a building to themselves. "No rules" being OK includes all kinds of assumptions about what kind of behaviour will be implicitly avoided. For some people, those assumptions don't hold, and they're the ones who present the biggest difficulties. (And none of these involve direct "violence".)

There aren't really that many people who would prefer to poop in the stairway of their building instead of their own bathroom, and most of those people aren't homeless.

The point is not that there are no rules. The idea is to make the rules on par with the sort of rules anyone renting an apartment might have to follow rather than having special restrictive rules for the homeless.

Quote from: Caracal on May 31, 2021, 06:44:19 AM

Quote from: Mobius on May 30, 2021, 06:43:03 PM
What if they don't follow the rules we're all expected to follow such as noise or basic cleanliness? I don't consider someone uncharitable if they don't want those type of people setting up camp in their neighborhood.

Plus, I don't think homeless who are working to get out of a rut should be subject to that, either.

Honestly, if you're living in an apartment those rules are a lot more minimal and easy to follow than in a group home or shelter.

In both these cases, you still don't indicate what would happen if someone consistently refuses to comply. Do they get kicked out or not? By not specifying, it suggests this could just go on indefinitely.

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 31, 2021, 08:44:48 AM

Quote from: Caracal on May 30, 2021, 02:08:59 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 30, 2021, 06:21:51 AM

So are there rules around defecation in public areas? Smoking in bed? There are all kinds of things that can make it unpleasant or unsafe for people around them that need to be addressed unless they get a building to themselves. "No rules" being OK includes all kinds of assumptions about what kind of behaviour will be implicitly avoided. For some people, those assumptions don't hold, and they're the ones who present the biggest difficulties. (And none of these involve direct "violence".)

There aren't really that many people who would prefer to poop in the stairway of their building instead of their own bathroom, and most of those people aren't homeless.

The point is not that there are no rules. The idea is to make the rules on par with the sort of rules anyone renting an apartment might have to follow rather than having special restrictive rules for the homeless.

Quote from: Caracal on May 31, 2021, 06:44:19 AM

Quote from: Mobius on May 30, 2021, 06:43:03 PM
What if they don't follow the rules we're all expected to follow such as noise or basic cleanliness? I don't consider someone uncharitable if they don't want those type of people setting up camp in their neighborhood.

Plus, I don't think homeless who are working to get out of a rut should be subject to that, either.

Honestly, if you're living in an apartment those rules are a lot more minimal and easy to follow than in a group home or shelter.

In both these cases, you still don't indicate what would happen if someone consistently refuses to comply. Do they get kicked out or not? By not specifying, it suggests this could just go on indefinitely.

If someone is unable to follow these basic behavior guidelines, it's better that they be moved into appropriate mental health services in a supported way than "kicked out" onto the street.

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 31, 2021, 08:55:31 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 31, 2021, 08:44:48 AM

Quote from: Caracal on May 30, 2021, 02:08:59 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 30, 2021, 06:21:51 AM

So are there rules around defecation in public areas? Smoking in bed? There are all kinds of things that can make it unpleasant or unsafe for people around them that need to be addressed unless they get a building to themselves. "No rules" being OK includes all kinds of assumptions about what kind of behaviour will be implicitly avoided. For some people, those assumptions don't hold, and they're the ones who present the biggest difficulties. (And none of these involve direct "violence".)

There aren't really that many people who would prefer to poop in the stairway of their building instead of their own bathroom, and most of those people aren't homeless.

The point is not that there are no rules. The idea is to make the rules on par with the sort of rules anyone renting an apartment might have to follow rather than having special restrictive rules for the homeless.

Quote from: Caracal on May 31, 2021, 06:44:19 AM

Quote from: Mobius on May 30, 2021, 06:43:03 PM
What if they don't follow the rules we're all expected to follow such as noise or basic cleanliness? I don't consider someone uncharitable if they don't want those type of people setting up camp in their neighborhood.

Plus, I don't think homeless who are working to get out of a rut should be subject to that, either.

Honestly, if you're living in an apartment those rules are a lot more minimal and easy to follow than in a group home or shelter.

In both these cases, you still don't indicate what would happen if someone consistently refuses to comply. Do they get kicked out or not? By not specifying, it suggests this could just go on indefinitely.

If someone is unable to follow these basic behavior guidelines, it's better that they be moved into appropriate mental health services in a supported way than "kicked out" onto the street.

Agreed. But how expeditiously they get moved is the issue. If there are waiting lists of several months (or more) for spaces in those facilities, do neighbours just have to endure it?

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 31, 2021, 09:01:37 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 31, 2021, 08:55:31 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 31, 2021, 08:44:48 AM

Quote from: Caracal on May 30, 2021, 02:08:59 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 30, 2021, 06:21:51 AM

So are there rules around defecation in public areas? Smoking in bed? There are all kinds of things that can make it unpleasant or unsafe for people around them that need to be addressed unless they get a building to themselves. "No rules" being OK includes all kinds of assumptions about what kind of behaviour will be implicitly avoided. For some people, those assumptions don't hold, and they're the ones who present the biggest difficulties. (And none of these involve direct "violence".)

There aren't really that many people who would prefer to poop in the stairway of their building instead of their own bathroom, and most of those people aren't homeless.

The point is not that there are no rules. The idea is to make the rules on par with the sort of rules anyone renting an apartment might have to follow rather than having special restrictive rules for the homeless.

Quote from: Caracal on May 31, 2021, 06:44:19 AM

Quote from: Mobius on May 30, 2021, 06:43:03 PM
What if they don't follow the rules we're all expected to follow such as noise or basic cleanliness? I don't consider someone uncharitable if they don't want those type of people setting up camp in their neighborhood.

Plus, I don't think homeless who are working to get out of a rut should be subject to that, either.

Honestly, if you're living in an apartment those rules are a lot more minimal and easy to follow than in a group home or shelter.

In both these cases, you still don't indicate what would happen if someone consistently refuses to comply. Do they get kicked out or not? By not specifying, it suggests this could just go on indefinitely.

If someone is unable to follow these basic behavior guidelines, it's better that they be moved into appropriate mental health services in a supported way than "kicked out" onto the street.

Agreed. But how expeditiously they get moved is the issue. If there are waiting lists of several months (or more) for spaces in those facilities, do neighbours just have to endure it?

Endure it with the person in a supervised facility where they can be sheltered and fed, or endure it with them wreaking havoc on the streets?

Is the priority to make life more comfortable for those with housing, whatever the cost to those without?

I don't think those have to be zero-sum goals.

M.

Quote from: mamselle on May 31, 2021, 11:39:26 AM
Is the priority to make life more comfortable for those with housing, whatever the cost to those without?

I don't think those have to be zero-sum goals.

M.

The point is that when you need public support for an idea, dealing with the problems is vital. For instance, one of the complaints about safe-injection sites is the presence of discarded needles, etc. near the sites. If all of the people in favour of the sites would volunteer to do a daily cleanup around the area to eliminate this problem, it would help a lot with public acceptance. If one or two obnoxious people who should be in a mental health facility are improperly housed in low-income housing, but make a disproportionate amount of trouble, the whole facility will get a bad reputation. If failure to deal with those few problem people erodes support for the entire project, is it really worth that cost?

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 31, 2021, 11:54:35 AM

Quote from: mamselle on May 31, 2021, 11:39:26 AM
Is the priority to make life more comfortable for those with housing, whatever the cost to those without?

I don't think those have to be zero-sum goals.

M.

The point is that when you need public support for an idea, dealing with the problems is vital. For instance, one of the complaints about safe-injection sites is the presence of discarded needles, etc. near the sites. If all of the people in favour of the sites would volunteer to do a daily cleanup around the area to eliminate this problem, it would help a lot with public acceptance. If one or two obnoxious people who should be in a mental health facility are improperly housed in low-income housing, but make a disproportionate amount of trouble, the whole facility will get a bad reputation. If failure to deal with those few problem people erodes support for the entire project, is it really worth that cost?

But this is a two way street.  If all of those who opposed safe injection sites would offer up any sort of solution at all, perhaps there wouldn't be a need?  When I hear people slam safe injection sites, or homeless camps, they rarely offer an alternative solution and just focus on the limitations or negative side of the proposal.

This whole conversation really just highlights that homelessness, as most things, is complex and there is no one size fits all solution.  That being said, just because providing homes to the homeless dosn't fix the entire problem dosn't mean it isn't an important part of it.  Even if you go one step further and dont think it will even help, it could still be worth while simply to reduce suffering. 

Is it even true that there are more needles lying around near safe-injection sites? The needles used in the facility are disposed of indoors, in the appropriate bins.

Anecdotally, I've seen loads of needles all over downtown (you have to be very careful before you sit anywhere) but I don't recall seeing loads more near the safe-injection site.

The idea that there are no examples of regions without government where the streets are paved with gold and all residents dine on lobster nightly does not damage the libertarian idea or even that of anarchism. In order to have a fair comparison, one must not simply point out that either of these ideologies contain the potential for negative outcome but that they do so to an extent greater than traditional governments. There is no possible way on this planet that anyone could hope to make that argument convincingly.

Take just the last century alone, for example, ignoring all previous governments. Did libertarians cause the gulags, the concentration camps, the US internment camps, the Tuskegee experiment, the enforcement of Jim Crow, the mass NSA spying, the additional genocides in tens of countries, all of which had pretty strong government. Look at the minor offenses such as every idiot son and wife being given a government job. I suppose all a libertarian would need to do by your standards would be to point and say, "let me know how that 'government thingy' is going once your next genocidal lunatic is done with the current mass execution.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 31, 2021, 12:19:06 PM
Is it even true that there are more needles lying around near safe-injection sites? The needles used in the facility are disposed of indoors, in the appropriate bins.

Anecdotally, I've seen loads of needles all over downtown (you have to be very careful before you sit anywhere) but I don't recall seeing loads more near the safe-injection site.

But even if there are no more, it illustrates the problem.  As you say, needles used inside the site should have been disposed of properly, and the site's existence is supposed to reduce the frequency of people shooting up outside. The area nearest the site should be the cleanest; if it's not, it's not fulfilling its promise in that regard.

Quote from: Kron3007 on May 31, 2021, 12:08:12 PM
This whole conversation really just highlights that homelessness, as most things, is complex and there is no one size fits all solution.  That being said, just because providing homes to the homeless doesn't fix the entire problem dosn't mean it isn't an important part of it.  Even if you go one step further and don't think it will even help, it could still be worth while simply to reduce suffering.

Any government initiative needs to have public support. Individual politicians need to have the support of their communities. Everyone is aware of the problem of homelessness, and so any successful solution should be welcomed by large portions of the electorate. However, if the legitimate concerns of community members are ignored or downplayed, then any incidents which reflect the reality of those concerns will get extra emphasis as a consequence.  And it will cast suspicion on people who are actually benefiting from the system as intended.

It's similar to why cheating matters in academia. If it is seen to run rampant, it devalues the degrees of everyone, including those of the good students who don't cheat. The reason to come down hard on cheating is to preserve the value of the degrees obtained ethically.

Quote from: Kron3007 on May 31, 2021, 12:08:12 PM

This whole conversation really just highlights that homelessness, as most things, is complex and there is no one size fits all solution.  That being said, just because providing homes to the homeless dosn't fix the entire problem dosn't mean it isn't an important part of it.  Even if you go one step further and dont think it will even help, it could still be worth while simply to reduce suffering.

Exactly. There are lots of people living on the street who, with a small amount of support, could live in an apartment without causing any problems. Is that solution going to work for every person? No, of course not. However, it doesn't seem like identifying people who would be good candidates for this would be particularly difficult and with a small amount of support and regular check ups, you could manage most issues.

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 31, 2021, 11:54:35 AM

Quote from: mamselle on May 31, 2021, 11:39:26 AM
Is the priority to make life more comfortable for those with housing, whatever the cost to those without?

I don't think those have to be zero-sum goals.

M.

The point is that when you need public support for an idea, dealing with the problems is vital. For instance, one of the complaints about safe-injection sites is the presence of discarded needles, etc. near the sites. If all of the people in favour of the sites would volunteer to do a daily cleanup around the area to eliminate this problem, it would help a lot with public acceptance. If one or two obnoxious people who should be in a mental health facility are improperly housed in low-income housing, but make a disproportionate amount of trouble, the whole facility will get a bad reputation. If failure to deal with those few problem people erodes support for the entire project, is it really worth that cost?

We are in agreement that difficulties can arise when alternative or innovative solutions are tried for these issues.

The level of anxiety about the situation and the potential difficulties that might arise with various scenarios, both real (as I and others have cited) and imagined (as most of the naysayers seem to be describing) is the part I'm not understanding.

When a scenario that has worked is described, those who are anxious about the issues seem not to acknowledge those resolutions, or raise new ones.

When those are answered, other issues are raised.

It seems like the anxiety is feeding on itself, not really seeking an answer or accepting that solutions might exist for the concerns that have been accepted as valid and taken seriously.

What would be needed to assuage this level of anxiety? So far, the answers given don't seem to be resolving the question.

M.   

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 31, 2021, 01:48:49 PM
But even if there are no more, it illustrates the problem.  As you say, needles used inside the site should have been disposed of properly, and the site's existence is supposed to reduce the frequency of people shooting up outside. The area nearest the site should be the cleanest; if it's not, it's not fulfilling its promise in that regard.

I was hedging, because I don't have the answer: I don't go there often, and I haven't undertaken careful or systematic observations. I would be very surprised to learn that the stray needle problem is worse in the immediate vicinity than it is a few blocks further out, however, or that it's worse now than it was before the site was established. (Bear in mind, safe-injection sites don't spring up in the affluent burbs; they're established where the people who need them are.)

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 31, 2021, 08:55:31 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 31, 2021, 08:44:48 AM

Quote from: Caracal on May 30, 2021, 02:08:59 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 30, 2021, 06:21:51 AM

So are there rules around defecation in public areas? Smoking in bed? There are all kinds of things that can make it unpleasant or unsafe for people around them that need to be addressed unless they get a building to themselves. "No rules" being OK includes all kinds of assumptions about what kind of behaviour will be implicitly avoided. For some people, those assumptions don't hold, and they're the ones who present the biggest difficulties. (And none of these involve direct "violence".)

There aren't really that many people who would prefer to poop in the stairway of their building instead of their own bathroom, and most of those people aren't homeless.

The point is not that there are no rules. The idea is to make the rules on par with the sort of rules anyone renting an apartment might have to follow rather than having special restrictive rules for the homeless.

Quote from: Caracal on May 31, 2021, 06:44:19 AM

Quote from: Mobius on May 30, 2021, 06:43:03 PM
What if they don't follow the rules we're all expected to follow such as noise or basic cleanliness? I don't consider someone uncharitable if they don't want those type of people setting up camp in their neighborhood.

Plus, I don't think homeless who are working to get out of a rut should be subject to that, either.

Honestly, if you're living in an apartment those rules are a lot more minimal and easy to follow than in a group home or shelter.

In both these cases, you still don't indicate what would happen if someone consistently refuses to comply. Do they get kicked out or not? By not specifying, it suggests this could just go on indefinitely.

If someone is unable to follow these basic behavior guidelines, it's better that they be moved into appropriate mental health services in a supported way than "kicked out" onto the street.

I tend to agree, but forced institutionalization doesn't have many fans, either from progressives who don't like it from a civil liberties perspective or conservatives who don't want to fund it.

Salt Lake City article. It notes the difference in how it has succeeded much more than the San Francisco efforts. And, as many have noted, the need for addiction program intersects with but is not the same as efforts for curbing homelessness. And as we all know there plenty of addiction issues that are not related to homelessness at all.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/archive/item/What-S-F-can-learn-from-Salt-Lake-City-30428.php

That's a fascinating article, Jimbogumbo — thanks.

The reporter clearly didn't spend time around downtown SLC. If you've ever been to an AP reading there, you'd see plenty of panhandlers asking for spare change. Plenty of homeless at Pioneer Park near downtown.

Quote
Look around downtown, from the Mormon Temple to the Old West City Hall, and panhandlers and homeless camps are virtually nonexistent. For anyone used to being hit up for spare change every block or two in downtown San Francisco, it's a startling contrast.

"There are no homeless people here — nowhere that I can see," said Otie Malenz, a 29-year-old drifter from Chico who had just gotten to town and was napping on the City Hall lawn. "I heard years ago there were lots of homeless guys around — but now? Why is it so clean?

"It's kind of freaky."

Quote from: Mobius on May 31, 2021, 04:02:02 PM
The author clearly didn't spend time around downtown SLC. If you've ever been to an AP reading there, you'd see plenty of panhandlers asking for spare change. Plenty of homeless at Pioneer Park near downtown.

Quote
Look around downtown, from the Mormon Temple to the Old West City Hall, and panhandlers and homeless camps are virtually nonexistent. For anyone used to being hit up for spare change every block or two in downtown San Francisco, it's a startling contrast.

"There are no homeless people here — nowhere that I can see," said Otie Malenz, a 29-year-old drifter from Chico who had just gotten to town and was napping on the City Hall lawn. "I heard years ago there were lots of homeless guys around — but now? Why is it so clean?

"It's kind of freaky."

Never been to SLC, but I never imagined it wouldn't have plenty of panhandlers still. They are everywhere in cities throughout the Midwest, which is nothing like warmer places in the West.

(move along, nothing to see here)

Quote from: jimbogumbo on May 31, 2021, 02:38:24 PM
Salt Lake City article. It notes the difference in how it has succeeded much more than the San Francisco efforts. And, as many have noted, the need for addiction program intersects with but is not the same as efforts for curbing homelessness. And as we all know there plenty of addiction issues that are not related to homelessness at all.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/archive/item/What-S-F-can-learn-from-Salt-Lake-City-30428.php

Great article and excellent points.

Memo from SF - One of the concerns out here about popping up supportive housing out of the city center is that people will then be physically isolated from jobs. And unless they have affordable housing to move to, not much can happen.

Public housing within the City of SF has that issue - it's just a few miles away from shopping, downtown, offices. Public transportation is limited so unless someone has a car or can spend a long time sitting on the bus, it tends to feed isolation and generational unemployment.

Salt Lake City also has tried to decentralize homeless services from around Pioneer Park with mixed results. This recent article points to families being separated in shelters (not a good thing), NIMBY, the homeless who prefer the streets rather than shelter rules, etc.

There also isn't political will to address housing shortages across the country as some states have banned cities mandating set to aside units for low-income housing. Also no real programs to help people who move across the country to take decent-paying jobs they might be qualified for.

https://www.deseret.com/22361016/are-utahs-new-homeless-centers-actually-working-housing-poor-low-income-camping-salt-lake-city

Quote from: Mobius on May 31, 2021, 02:31:11 PM
I tend to agree, but forced institutionalization doesn't have many fans, either from progressives who don't like it from a civil liberties perspective or conservatives who don't want to fund it.

Define "forced institutionalization." When is someone not able to make decisions for themselves or in their own best interest? When is someone a harm to their health and safety, or that of others?

I suppose there will always be people who cannot live in polite society and would cheerfully prefer to live as an urban camper. We have a number of those "chronically homeless" in SF. They have been homeless for so long it's part of their identity. They have money through jobs or Social Security but don't understand why they should waste money on an apartment when they can sleep in their tent for free.

They manage, busking or panhandling or finding friendly restaurant and grocery store owners who slip them leftover food, or hitting the local soup kitchens. They park their extra stuff in a storage facility. They join a cheap gym or pop by local homeless shelters to shower. They use the free computers at the public library.

This is the the  Coalition on Homelessness  (https://www.streetsheet.org/) which really puts the voices of the homeless front and center. I don't always agree with them, but I always buy the Street Sheet when I see someone selling it.

Besides a mental health in-patient hospital, there are group homes. I worked for a summer as an overnight supervisor for an organization that ran several while in my early grad school years. Some were ordered to live in some sort of supervised setting short of hospital.

Most of us are at a loss at what to do with people who can't live in "polite society" for various reasons. I don't have the answers except for vastly expanding services and also providing funding so those helping out that population aren't working for poverty wages. However, that is a pipe dream in the current environment.

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 31, 2021, 04:26:55 PM

Quote from: Mobius on May 31, 2021, 02:31:11 PM
I tend to agree, but forced institutionalization doesn't have many fans, either from progressives who don't like it from a civil liberties perspective or conservatives who don't want to fund it.

Define "forced institutionalization." When is someone not able to make decisions for themselves or in their own best interest? When is someone a harm to their health and safety, or that of others?

Yeah, and often I worry that when people call for things like that, they essentially would like to forcibly institutionalize people who make them uncomfortable, rather than people who are actually dangerous. Danger to others is clear enough Danger to self is also clear enough if we are talking about somebody committing or threatening to commit self harm.  I get pretty uncomfortable with it if it isn't one of those things.

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 31, 2021, 04:11:38 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on May 31, 2021, 02:38:24 PM
Salt Lake City article. It notes the difference in how it has succeeded much more than the San Francisco efforts. And, as many have noted, the need for addiction program intersects with but is not the same as efforts for curbing homelessness. And as we all know there plenty of addiction issues that are not related to homelessness at all.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/archive/item/What-S-F-can-learn-from-Salt-Lake-City-30428.php

Great article and excellent points.

Memo from SF - One of the concerns out here about popping up supportive housing out of the city center is that people will then be physically isolated from jobs. And unless they have affordable housing to move to, not much can happen.

Public housing within the City of SF has that issue - it's just a few miles away from shopping, downtown, offices. Public transportation is limited so unless someone has a car or can spend a long time sitting on the bus, it tends to feed isolation and generational unemployment.

Reminds me of a meme that goes around periodically suggesting that we turn abandoned malls into giant homeless shelters. But where would they work? I think many people are surprised to learn how many homeless people work and do other normal daily activities.


I actually came on this thread to share a conversation that the director of the homeless shelter where I volunteer had. Some local critic was berating her and the shelter for just providing food and short-term help when what they need is a permanent place to live. She replied that in fact, she works hard to get people into permanent housing whenever possible (which requires dealing with bureaucracy, waiting for an opening, etc.) and has placed X individuals into apartments. The critic's response? "Oh, so now they're filling up all our affordable housing." The critic doesn't actually care about the homeless individuals, but just wants them gone and is trying to find any angle to attack the shelter.

QuoteI think many people are surprised to learn how many homeless people work and do other normal daily activities.

Grading papers, preparing classes, etc.

Quote from: Caracal on May 31, 2021, 06:24:48 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 31, 2021, 04:26:55 PM

Quote from: Mobius on May 31, 2021, 02:31:11 PM
I tend to agree, but forced institutionalization doesn't have many fans, either from progressives who don't like it from a civil liberties perspective or conservatives who don't want to fund it.

Define "forced institutionalization." When is someone not able to make decisions for themselves or in their own best interest? When is someone a harm to their health and safety, or that of others?

Yeah, and often I worry that when people call for things like that, they essentially would like to forcibly institutionalize people who make them uncomfortable, rather than people who are actually dangerous. Danger to others is clear enough Danger to self is also clear enough if we are talking about somebody committing or threatening to commit self harm.  I get pretty uncomfortable with it if it isn't one of those things.

It's difficult because we're going to have people in our communities who aren't an immediate danger to themselves and others, but clearly can't take care of themselves. There are some situations that make us uncomfortable that we can deal with and some we can't.

I wouldn't use dumb, but you get the point:

QuoteLook, mister, there's... two kinds of dumb, uh... guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, uh, guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don't matter, the second one you're kinda forced to deal with.

Quote from: pgher on May 31, 2021, 07:03:35 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 31, 2021, 04:11:38 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on May 31, 2021, 02:38:24 PM
Salt Lake City article. It notes the difference in how it has succeeded much more than the San Francisco efforts. And, as many have noted, the need for addiction program intersects with but is not the same as efforts for curbing homelessness. And as we all know there plenty of addiction issues that are not related to homelessness at all.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/archive/item/What-S-F-can-learn-from-Salt-Lake-City-30428.php

Great article and excellent points.

Memo from SF - One of the concerns out here about popping up supportive housing out of the city center is that people will then be physically isolated from jobs. And unless they have affordable housing to move to, not much can happen.

Public housing within the City of SF has that issue - it's just a few miles away from shopping, downtown, offices. Public transportation is limited so unless someone has a car or can spend a long time sitting on the bus, it tends to feed isolation and generational unemployment.

Reminds me of a meme that goes around periodically suggesting that we turn abandoned malls into giant homeless shelters. But where would they work? I think many people are surprised to learn how many homeless people work and do other normal daily activities.


I actually came on this thread to share a conversation that the director of the homeless shelter where I volunteer had. Some local critic was berating her and the shelter for just providing food and short-term help when what they need is a permanent place to live. She replied that in fact, she works hard to get people into permanent housing whenever possible (which requires dealing with bureaucracy, waiting for an opening, etc.) and has placed X individuals into apartments. The critic's response? "Oh, so now they're filling up all our affordable housing." The critic doesn't actually care about the homeless individuals, but just wants them gone and is trying to find any angle to attack the shelter.

In my region they had setup a miniature home area and it seemed to be doing quite well.  They did some interviews with a few of the tents, and it was clear that this was a good thing, at least for some of the (which is a step).

However, the property it was on has now sold and they are proposing to move it to a rural property due to a lack of available space (or will...).  The proposed new area has no infrastructure, no transportation, and is not close to anything.  I really don't see how they expect homeless people to move to the country.  What are they going to do, start farming (although, many farmers here do provide room and board for migrant laborers, so could be a good idea for some)?

Quote from: Kron3007 on June 01, 2021, 04:16:42 AM

In my region they had setup a miniature home area and it seemed to be doing quite well.  They did some interviews with a few of the tents, and it was clear that this was a good thing, at least for some of the (which is a step).

However, the property it was on has now sold and they are proposing to move it to a rural property due to a lack of available space (or will...).

A very similar thing is planned here; it's not clear what sort of services are available at the new site. The area in the city worked quite well during covid to allow people to isolate but still have shelter. We'll see how the move goes.  Since the camp in the city had a lot of publicity, I imagine there will be interest in what happens with the move.

Obviously I believe that the mentally ill/ addicted should be compelled to accept treatment, for their own good and for the good of society, and that society ought to be willing to pay enough taxes to make this feasible.   But there is that other element of the homeless population, those who want to live like this but do not have a mental health or addiction issue.   These are your classically defined 'vagrants' or 'transients', and, like it or not, many times/ places they are not welcome.... and often deservedly so.  These people oftten commit crimes, threaten or strongarm settled folks, do not see to it that their children regularly attend school/ get appropriate med care, etc.   And, yes, their presence does not do much for a neighborhood, or the property values of the homes.   A couple of years ago I read a scholarly ethnography of the Irish Travellers, and I confess I am deeply sympathetic to what appears, more or less, to be the 21st century policy of the Irish government towards them, namely to build public housing for them and make them live in it/ send their kids to the local schools, and try to get them working.

This (https://www.katu.com/news/homeless-crisis/neighbor-installs-cameras-electric-fence-as-portland-homeless-camp-has-gotten-exponentially-bad) is the sort of scenario I was first thinking of when I posted here, and bringing up this topic makes some people angry for some reason, but here we are...

https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/homelessness/2021/06/29/california-s-largest-tiny-home-village-breaks-ground-in-highland-park

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 05, 2021, 04:32:44 PM
This (https://www.katu.com/news/homeless-crisis/neighbor-installs-cameras-electric-fence-as-portland-homeless-camp-has-gotten-exponentially-bad) is the sort of scenario I was first thinking of when I posted here, and bringing up this topic makes some people angry for some reason, but here we are...

And surely if the police are kept away, so they don't harass people, everything should be fine.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on July 06, 2021, 05:21:25 AM
https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/homelessness/2021/06/29/california-s-largest-tiny-home-village-breaks-ground-in-highland-park

A lot of people have a lot invested in the success of experiments like this.  If they can be made to work, it would do a lot to provide a way forward for some communities and segments of the homeless population.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on July 06, 2021, 05:21:25 AM
https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/homelessness/2021/06/29/california-s-largest-tiny-home-village-breaks-ground-in-highland-park

I am 100% behind anything that works.

Sounds like an ongoing expense, but being a 'bleeding heart liberal,' I am okay with the money if it helps people.

I am just dubious.