Homeless Camp In Affluent Neighborhood

[financeguy]

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.

[apl68]

I 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.

[marshwiggle]

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

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?

[dismalist]

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

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! :-)

[mamselle]

Whenever 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.

[Wahoo Redux]

I 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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[Hegemony]

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.'

[dismalist]

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

That city will get more homeless.

[Caracal]

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.

[Hegemony]

My 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."

[ciao_yall]

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."   

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.

[ciao_yall]

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?

[dismalist]

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

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

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."

Yup. Why indeed? I think with ceramic countertops.

[mamselle]

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.