Should Homeless Addicts Be Removed From Cities?

[Peterkin]

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

Other cities, having less homeless, have lower occupancy rates.

Which ones are at half capacity? And how can the homeless of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal get to them? 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Peterkin

[Alex_Krycek]

In my continued research of this issue I found a recent column by Bill Walton in the Times of San Diego that proposes more or less exactly the same solution as my camp idea.  It's called "Sunbreak Ranch" in San Diego. 

Very well thought out.  Full column here:  

https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2023/01/14/sunbreak-ranch-is-the-answer-to-san-diego-and-americas-homeless-crisis/

Here's another program that is already active in Oregon called "Safe Rest Villages":

https://www.portland.gov/united/saferestvillages

Edited February 25, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[mistermack]

I haven't read all the posts, so sorry if I'm repeating earlier posts. 

I don't think that extravagant schemes ever do much lasting good, and the problem is different from place to place. There have always been homeless people and probably always will, unless you go down the Nazi route, of total intolerance 'for the benefit' of the majority. 

If they don't impinge too much on the public, it's not worth hassling them. If needles etc become a problem, then you could bring in specific laws to control it. A special offence of discarding unprotected needles would be fair. After all, dangerous behaviour is legislated against in most other fields. Maybe technology could help with that. Make needles that retract automatically, like a ballpoint but without the 'stay out' position. And legislate that only those needles can be sold to the public. What would it cost? A few pence on a syringe. 

As far as other behaviour is concerned, it's not worth taking action if it's not a problem. There are lots of laws covering public behaviour, that can be used when problems pop up. 

[Peterkin]

18 minutes ago, mistermack said:

As far as other behaviour is concerned, it's not worth taking action if it's not a problem.

It is a problem, though. Mostly of sanitation, but also of law-enforcement, property value, aesthetics, health and safety concerns. Also, homeless people freeze to death at a higher rate than the general population. 

Even in sunny California, it's a problem. A big one. Even more so, during a pandemic.

And of course, there is a perception problem, as the prosperous citizens become increasingly antsy about all the crime they anticipate from homeless people.

https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/

And it's a growing problem, as housing grows ever less affordable.

 

[Sensei]

Quote

Should Homeless Addicts Be Removed From Cities?

Are they homeless because they were addicted to drugs?

or

Are they addicted to drugs because they are homeless?

or

Are they addicted to drugs because in North America opioids are prescribed for "everything" ?

https://www.google.com/search?q=opioids+epidemic+in+america

What is the sense of existence of private owned pharmaceutics companies? Unlike the public goodness, their existence, their income relies on how many people are ill (the longer they are ill, chronic deseases, the better for them)..

What is the sense of existence of private owned arm industry? Unlike the public goodness, their existence, their income depends on how many people fight and die in wars.. The more causalities, the more wars, the better for them..

 

or

Are they homeless because some white collar decided to push credit on them to get a bonus for it, knowing that they won't be able to pay back.. ?

 

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Sensei

[Alex_Krycek]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

I haven't read all the posts, so sorry if I'm repeating earlier posts. 

I don't think that extravagant schemes ever do much lasting good, and the problem is different from place to place. There have always been homeless people and probably always will, unless you go down the Nazi route, of total intolerance 'for the benefit' of the majority. 

If they don't impinge too much on the public, it's not worth hassling them. If needles etc become a problem, then you could bring in specific laws to control it. A special offence of discarding unprotected needles would be fair. After all, dangerous behaviour is legislated against in most other fields. Maybe technology could help with that. Make needles that retract automatically, like a ballpoint but without the 'stay out' position. And legislate that only those needles can be sold to the public. What would it cost? A few pence on a syringe. 

As far as other behaviour is concerned, it's not worth taking action if it's not a problem. There are lots of laws covering public behaviour, that can be used when problems pop up. 

This video pretty much sums up the gravity of the problem, and the specific homeless element that I'm referring to (i.e. meth and opioid addicts).  The situation in Portland is a microcosm that can be applied to many others cities in North America.

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[TheVat]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

You don't have a funny bone, do you ?

I was making a joke, too.  Riffing off yours.  Sorry if that was not clear.

22 hours ago, zapatos said:

 Not eating McDonald's would also be better for people but do you really want the State to round up everyone at McDonald's and put them in a nice camp with beds and running water and give them access to healthier foods until they are off fast foods?

I have far more support for the fast food detox camps than I do for the homeless camps idea.

DISCLAIMER:  ALSO A JOKE.   

[Janus]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Are they homeless because they were addicted to drugs?

or

Are they addicted to drugs because they are homeless?

or

Are they addicted to drugs because in North America opioids are prescribed for "everything" ?

https://www.google.com/search?q=opioids+epidemic+in+america

What is the sense of existence of private owned pharmaceutics companies? Unlike the public goodness, their existence, their income relies on how many people are ill (the longer they are ill, chronic deseases, the better for them)..

What is the sense of existence of private owned arm industry? Unlike the public goodness, their existence, their income depends on how many people fight and die in wars.. The more causalities, the more wars, the better for them..

 

or

Are they homeless because some white collar decided to push credit on them to get a bonus for it, knowing that they won't be able to pay back.. ?

 

 

An answer to your questions might lie in how Finland dealt with the homeless issue.  They found that if you provide housing without stipulation, then those people tend to be able to get jobs and require less and less assistance. In addition, it turns out to be cheaper in the long run than dealing with the issues caused by a large homeless population. As a result, Finland has almost no homeless problem.

In contrast, in the US, you basically need to meet certain conditions before you become eligible for housing.  If you don't meet them, then tough luck.    

[TheVat]

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

In my continued research of this issue I found a recent column by Bill Walton in the Times of San Diego that proposes more or less exactly the same solution as my camp idea.  It's called "Sunbreak Ranch" in San Diego. 

Very well thought out.  Full column here:  

https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2023/01/14/sunbreak-ranch-is-the-answer-to-san-diego-and-americas-homeless-crisis/

 

This proposal for Sunbreak Ranch is a voluntary program.  In the article, it is stated that residents can come and go as they please.  In posting this, I feel you may be conceding the point so many here have made regarding the problems with involuntary camps.

[Peterkin]

It's a lot more expensive to criminalize people than to help them.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/economics_of_incarceration/

[mistermack]

44 minutes ago, Janus said:

if you provide housing without stipulation,

 

45 minutes ago, Janus said:

As a result, Finland has almost no homeless problem.

That's not exactly surprising. If you give the homeless homes, you won't get much homelessness. But I doubt if that could be replicated everywhere. Both politically and financially, it's likely to be a non-starter. A lot of people quote other countries, with the unsaid inference that it would work elsewhere, but countries are so different that it's not a valid conclusion. 

 

40 minutes ago, TheVat said:

This proposal for Sunbreak Ranch is a voluntary program.

And that's why you can't extrapolate from it. You get the same thing in prisons. Some genius comes in with a project to reform prisoners, and it's self fulfilling, when it's only the people willing to take part who are included. It's a form of selection, which means you can't apply it's results to a non-selective group.  

 

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It's a lot more expensive to criminalize people than to help them.

Firstly, you don't criminalize people. They do that themselves. Secondly, costing prisons 'per inmate' is a false depiction. You have to have prisons, and staff. There is a huge standing charge that is unavoidable, so it's totally misleading to include that in the cost of locking someone up.

A more honest approach would be to calculate how much it costs to lock up one extra prisoner. You would get a vastly smaller figure.

[zapatos]

32 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Firstly, you don't criminalize people. They do that themselves.

Chicken and the egg.

People did drugs before drug use was outlawed.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

An answer to your questions might lie in how Finland dealt with the homeless issue.  They found that if you provide housing without stipulation, then those people tend to be able to get jobs and require less and less assistance. In addition, it turns out to be cheaper in the long run than dealing with the issues caused by a large homeless population. As a result, Finland has almost no homeless problem.

In contrast, in the US, you basically need to meet certain conditions before you become eligible for housing.  If you don't meet them, then tough luck.    

Similar programs have been implemented in various sizes throughout Europe and NA. While it was not always a perfect success, especially in the short term, it does seem to be one of the most successful intervention strategy.

[Moontanman]

All drugs should be legal and sold in designated drug stores along with alcohol and tobacco. Prices should be low enough that people can maintain their habit with the low paying jobs that are available to the general public. Housing should be cheap for those with very low incomes who have to work the low paying jobs. If this was implemented the ultra rich could get even richer and the homeless drug addicts wouldn't be a problem. 

 

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

As a result, Finland has almost no homeless problem.

Finland is a country where homelessness is a one-year problem. After winter, there are no more homeless people.

 

1 hour ago, Janus said:

In contrast, in the US, you basically need to meet certain conditions before you become eligible for housing.  If you don't meet them, then tough luck.    

The U.S. is pathological in thousands of areas..

They wanted to demolish buildings built before the 2009 crisis, from which people were evicted due to their inability to pay loans and rent.. Instead, the banks got the money, not the people they evicted..

In fact, the whole world is pathological in thousands of areas..

The only smart solution is to demolish the whole world and build a new one..

1 hour ago, Janus said:

An answer to your questions might lie in how Finland dealt with the homeless issue.  They found that if you provide housing without stipulation, then those people tend to be able to get jobs and require less and less assistance. In addition, it turns out to be cheaper in the long run than dealing with the issues caused by a large homeless population. As a result, Finland has almost no homeless problem.

V.P.'s Russia on the other hand, sent them into Ukraine in the first lane of battle..

"No man, no problem" - proclaims an old Russian adage.

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Sensei

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Finland is a country where homelessness is a one-year problem. After winter, there are no more homeless people.

In Finland the rate of homelessness was reduced from 20k to around 3k. It is not a seasonal thing.

 

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

But I doubt if that could be replicated everywhere. Both politically and financially, it's likely to be a non-starter. A lot of people quote other countries, with the unsaid inference that it would work elsewhere, but countries are so different that it's not a valid conclusion. 

Exceptionalism is often used as an excuse not to change systems. Luckily, there are folks who are actually doing research on the matter instead giving up before doing anything.

As mentioned, it is not a golden bullet, but cost is not the biggest issue. Homelessness incurs costs, too and many of the implemented programs are near cost neutral or are at least favourable compared to other measures.

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

Firstly, you don't criminalize people.

I don't. But that was the proposal in the OP.

 

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

Secondly, costing prisons 'per inmate' is a false depiction.

Which part of those cost analyses is incorrect, and what particulars? 

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

A more honest approach would be to calculate how much it costs to lock up one extra prisoner. You would get a vastly smaller figure.

Alex_Krycek was not talking about one extra prisoner in the existing prison system; he was talking about incarcerating all the thousands of homeless drug addicts in specially constructed concentration camps.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

All drugs should be legal and sold in designated drug stores along with alcohol and tobacco. Prices should be low enough that people can maintain their habit with the low paying jobs that are available to the general public. Housing should be cheap for those with very low incomes who have to work the low paying jobs. If this was implemented the ultra rich could get even richer and the homeless drug addicts wouldn't be a problem. 

 

Making the drugs cheap and legal and on the high street makes it easier for kids to get them, and for addicts to get more and more of them. 

Cheap housing would be nice, but who pays? Housing costs money to build and maintain. Someone has to pay for it. I think modern governments work on the principle that expensive housing makes people work harder, so they deliberately keep costs high using the levers of administration. It's an unspoken policy, they would never admit it, but judging them by their actions, that's what they are doing. 

In the UK, if you gave homes to the homeless without restriction, there would be a stampede for them. 

Why would you work long hours in a boring job, for poor money, when you can just declare yourself homeless and drink, smoke and do drugs all day? I don't know Finland, but I do know plenty of poor people in the UK, and I know how a lot of them think.  

[Moontanman]

31 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Making the drugs cheap and legal and on the high street makes it easier for kids to get them, and for addicts to get more and more of them. 

Cheap housing would be nice, but who pays? Housing costs money to build and maintain. Someone has to pay for it. I think modern governments work on the principle that expensive housing makes people work harder, so they deliberately keep costs high using the levers of administration. It's an unspoken policy, they would never admit it, but judging them by their actions, that's what they are doing. 

In the UK, if you gave homes to the homeless without restriction, there would be a stampede for them. 

Why would you work long hours in a boring job, for poor money, when you can just declare yourself homeless and drink, smoke and do drugs all day? I don't know Finland, but I do know plenty of poor people in the UK, and I know how a lot of them think.  

So you are sarcasm impaired? 
 

On the cheap legal drugs... we control alcohol by making it legally available, makes it harder for under age people to obtain it, drugs on the other hand that are illegal and have an actual war waged on them and anyone of nearly any age that has the money can get them. 

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

This proposal for Sunbreak Ranch is a voluntary program.  In the article, it is stated that residents can come and go as they please.  In posting this, I feel you may be conceding the point so many here have made regarding the problems with involuntary camps.

I don't think you read the entire article.  You missed this paragraph:

"With a safe Sunbreak housing option available to all homeless persons in need, public loitering, camping, littering, defecating, urinating, illicit substance use and criminal activity on our streets, parks, canyons, and river basins will no longer be permitted, and strictly enforced."

This is exactly what I was arguing for earlier: removing the option to camp on the street (which is much more unsafe for the homeless anyway).  Cities have the legal right to arrest people who loiter, camp, or shoot up on the streets.  With the Sun Break Ranch, or other option available, the homeless addict has a choice:  go to the provided shelter or go to jail. Very simple.  But shooting up, camping, going to the bathroom, in front of someone's house, a school, or a business would no longer be an option.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Making the drugs cheap and legal and on the high street makes it easier for kids to get them, and for addicts to get more and more of them. 

Cheap housing would be nice, but who pays? Housing costs money to build and maintain. Someone has to pay for it. I think modern governments work on the principle that expensive housing makes people work harder, so they deliberately keep costs high using the levers of administration. It's an unspoken policy, they would never admit it, but judging them by their actions, that's what they are doing. 

In the UK, if you gave homes to the homeless without restriction, there would be a stampede for them. 

Why would you work long hours in a boring job, for poor money, when you can just declare yourself homeless and drink, smoke and do drugs all day? I don't know Finland, but I do know plenty of poor people in the UK, and I know how a lot of them think.  

Making drugs legal doesn't automatically mean they're cheap, nor does it mean they're necessarily easier for kids to get, unless your conservative local government is either trying to make money or hire more police. Your stance assumes we're waving a wand and making the laws disappear, which isn't at all how these things work. Look to Portugal, where they took the money they used to use for drug prisons and drug police (which deals with "addicts" without helping them) and spent it on rehab, counseling, and job placement (which helped real people overcome addiction).

Cheap housing should be paid for by citizens and businesses who're interested in helping real people overcome problems so they can better participate in their own economy, rather than being the double burden an addict is now (at least in the US). And this garbage about everybody slacking off all day if given the choice is just conservative bullshit. It doesn't happen to the degree you try to scare everyone with.

It's always been hard for me to stomach this fearful approach to societal processes, where we pay TWICE for security AND prisons instead of simply supporting our fellow humans the right way ONCE.  You folks whose countries invest in universal healthcare have no idea what it's like for your country to charge you taxes without representing your continued existence. The US taxpayers spend more on the average prisoner than the average US taxpayer earns, and the total cost of incarceration to society (lost earnings, health problems, breaking up families) is up to three times the direct costs. All because conservative thinkers don't think we're ALL worth it, because some of us are addicts or poor or foreign or melanated or not Christian.

[mistermack]

35 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

On the cheap legal drugs... we control alcohol by making it legally available, makes it harder for under age people to obtain it, drugs on the other hand that are illegal and have an actual war waged on them and anyone of nearly any age that has the money can get them.

Sorry, I can't tell, was that sarcasm, or baloney? I genuinely can't tell. 

[TheVat]

3 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I don't think you read the entire article.  You missed this paragraph:

"With a safe Sunbreak housing option available to all homeless persons in need, public loitering, camping, littering, defecating, urinating, illicit substance use and criminal activity on our streets, parks, canyons, and river basins will no longer be permitted, and strictly enforced."

This is exactly what I was arguing for earlier: removing the option to camp on the street (which is much more unsafe for the homeless anyway).  Cities have the legal right to arrest people who loiter, camp, or shoot up on the streets.  With the Sun Break Ranch, or other option available, the homeless addict has a choice:  go to the provided shelter or go to jail. Very simple.  But shooting up in front of someone's house, a school, or a business would no longer be an option.

Tha article appears to contradict itself.  First, it says:

"It is designed to welcome all homeless persons, each of whom may come and go as they please."  So, starting out on a nice 14th Amendment respecting note.  Sounds truly empowering and helpful.  

It then goes on to describe a free shuttle that takes Sunbreakers downtown or wherever.  Sweet.

Then later there is the implication that Sunbreak will be mandatory if one opts for it as a diversion program instead of jail.  All the defecators and loiterers and sleepers outdoors will be rounded up, formally arrested, and then presumably have to stay at Sunbreak if they choose the get out of jail card.  Stay.  As in:  can't leave.  

So which is it?  A voluntary program and you can check out of the Hotel California anytime you like?  Or a detention unit with better light and services that will send you back to jail if you decide to leave?  If the  latter, then the solution proposed, with undoubtedly some features that are better than a county jail, is still a prison camp, and we are still criminalizing the condition of having no home (i.e. no roof, no toilets, no place to sleep but a public venue, etc.).  I think these folks need to clarify which program they are envisioning here.  

[mistermack]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Making drugs legal doesn't automatically mean they're cheap

See the post I was replying to, and quoted.

 

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's always been hard for me to stomach this fearful approach to societal processes

If people don't agree with your approach, they are fearful? No, they disagree, and might be right. It can happen. 

[Alex_Krycek]

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Tha article appears to contradict itself.  First, it says:

"It is designed to welcome all homeless persons, each of whom may come and go as they please."  So, starting out on a nice 14th Amendment respecting note.  Sounds truly empowering and helpful.  

It then goes on to describe a free shuttle that takes Sunbreakers downtown or wherever.  Sweet.

Then later there is the implication that Sunbreak will be mandatory if one opts for it as a diversion program instead of jail.  All the defecators and loiterers and sleepers outdoors will be rounded up, formally arrested, and then presumably have to stay at Sunbreak if they choose the get out of jail card.  Stay.  As in:  can't leave.  

So which is it?  A voluntary program and you can check out of the Hotel California anytime you like?  Or a detention unit with better light and services that will send you back to jail if you decide to leave?  If the  latter, then the solution proposed, with undoubtedly some features that are better than a county jail, is still a prison camp, and we are still criminalizing the condition of having no home (i.e. no roof, no toilets, no place to sleep but a public venue, etc.).  I think these folks need to clarify which program they are envisioning here.  

Come on, don't feign ignorance.  We both know you're smarter than that.

The options are very simple: go to Sun Break (where all the support facilities are provided, and yes, they can leave at any time), or go to jail (if loitering / public camping).   And as established, the city has a right to arrest those trespassing, loitering, public camping etc.