Homeless Camp In Affluent Neighborhood

[Kron3007]

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. 

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[financeguy]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[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.

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.   

[Parasaurolophus]

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.)

[Mobius]

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.

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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

[Hegemony]

That's a fascinating article, Jimbogumbo — thanks.

[Mobius]

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.

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."

[jimbogumbo]

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.

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.

[ciao_yall]

(move along, nothing to see here)

[ciao_yall]

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.

[Mobius]

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