Homeless Camp In Affluent Neighborhood

[ciao_yall]

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 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.

[Mobius]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[pgher]

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.

[mahagonny]

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

Grading papers, preparing classes, etc.

[Mobius]

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:

Look, 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.

[Kron3007]

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)?

[marshwiggle]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

This 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...

[jimbogumbo]

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

[marshwiggle]

This 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.

[apl68]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.