Homeless Camp In Affluent Neighborhood

[mamselle]

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.

[Mobius]

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.

[spork]

Comparative context: Oakland and Mexico City.

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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".)

[Caracal]

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.

[Mobius]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

[ciao_yall]

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.

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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?

[ciao_yall]

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.

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?

[mamselle]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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?