Should Homeless Addicts Be Removed From Cities?

[Peterkin]

43 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

What can we learn from this experience?  

Nothing. One incident in which each character, speech, act and circumstance might be judged on insufficient evidence, and I won't judge them, because they shed no light whatever on all the other incidents taking place in all the places with all the other participants.

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Nothing

Well, one might learn that expressions of kindness in our culture are not just infrequently rewarded, but are for various reasons often shunned by those in positions of authority.

And just to ensure it doesn't again get missed: Where's the due process in all of this?

(last question not to you, Peterkin)

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s exacerbated by our generally poor public transit system. You can’t live far from work unless you have a car, and if you can barely afford housing, you can’t afford housing plus a car. If you’re using public transit and commuting for two to three hours a day, that makes working a second job even harder.

If we're suggesting controversial alternatives, perhaps we need some programs that are run by the state but can't be changed when a different party takes office. We could fix many social woes, but as soon as conservatives get elected, they shift the funding elsewhere, or put a slacker in charge of social funding they don't believe in. I think it's pretty stupid not to have public transportation that gets everybody to where they want to work or shop. It seems like such a worthwhile investment for everyone.

Oh, but that would be the hopeful approach, wouldn't it? Let's just hire more foot patrol police to round up all the bad pedestrians.

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well, one might learn that expressions of kindness in our culture are not just infrequently rewarded, but are for various reasons often shunned by those in positions of authority.

I guess, but I'm willing to hope a kinder, if less articulate police officer in my neighbourhood.

[MigL]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

f you’re not simply trolling me, then it’s hard making sense of why THIS is your line of attack, and why it’s been directed at me (a person who hasn’t affirmatively proposed anything in this thread).

Due process involves a reasonable hope for defense against a charge.
But is someone like D Trump gets elected again, and with the help of his cronies on the Supreme Court, passes a bill making living on the stret, with no fixed address, a minimum 2 year prison term, a lot of people are going to jail.
So no, I'm not trolling you, but I've been discussing stuff with you for 12 years and I've gotten used to it.

And you have made a proposal; build more housing.
it was that proposal that made me question where you would build the housing, and whether it would involve re-location similar to Alex's plan.

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There was a homeless chap sheltering in a local rundown shop near where I live. He appeared from his dilated eyes and pale skeleton like appearance that he was an addict of some sort. I'm not a qualified medical person so my judgement was based on experience with known drug users and (wrongly) a predisposition to assuming most homeless people are such due to drug addiction. However, as I usually do I felt sad to see such a dire and desperate person just sat there with nothing. So I passed the person some money and walked on by.

A few seconds later a police officer stopped me and asked if I'd presented the homeless person with some money. "Yes officer I did, is this a problem" She replied " Well its not a crime for sure... I commend your intent but, do yo realise that this person is a known criminal who is also a drug addict and has been relocated to numerous charitable shelters. Which he always disregards and proceeds to commit crimes to fund his addiction and continues to live on the streets. By giving him money you are encouraging this behaviour and discouraging him from seeking the help that has been previously offered, I strongly suggest that you no longer approach such people and leave it to the authorities to deal with". 

I'm not so sure the authorities are doing all they can. I'm also sure that each individual case though similar in some respects may have differing circumstances, certainly differing personalities, backgrounds... plays a factor.

What can we learn from this experience?  

I wouldn't take her story at face value. Who knows what is behind it. Maybe they have personal issues between them. Maybe she has her own 'solution' for homelessness. Maybe she had a bad day. Etc. And who are "such people"? Homeless people with dilated eyes and pale skeleton?

I rather disapprove of her lecturing you while she is on duty, in uniform. 

[MigL]

I did like Peterkin's breakdown of problems associated with building large numbers of affordable housing in, near, or far from, major cities with large homeless populations.

Also I would think that for the first year or two, recovering addicts don't need the stress of a job, nor a public transit system to get to one.
That can come later, after de-tox, when they have the confidence to get back into the 'rat race'.

[CharonY]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

 

And you have made a proposal; build more housing.
it was that proposal that made me question where you would build the housing, and whether it would involve re-location similar to Alex's plan.

The critical difference here is consent. 

 

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

This actually touches on another issue with your proposal: Funding.

If tax dollars or philanthropic donations are required to cover this, then the next most logical question is: Is there a better way to get higher ROI on those expenditures? In most cases, the answer there seems to be an unequivocal yes (at least if we look to what other countries like Finland have done). 

And also... nobody would be challenging you if this were simply voluntary. It's not though, and you keep evading the due process questions. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If you can't get yourself off the floor, go and stay in a state run homeless shelter, which is only different from downtown shelters in that there's more beds and space, and it's further out in the countryside, so you'd get a free ride out there.  Gee, what an abhorrently dystopian concept.  

 If you get a free ride there, how do you get back to the place where you can get a job and get out of the camp? Or is this camp a permanent place? Life imprisonment? Do you only send homeless addicts to this place or all the homeless? I'm betting that the vast majority of the homeless are not drug addicts in the manner you are suggesting or are you counting alcoholics as drug addicts? In Ca., I've ben told by people who live there, the vast majority of the homeless are hard working people who cannot afford housing because the jobs they can get are so low paying. I was out there a couple years ago and the number of homeless was appalling, but a great many of them lived in high end tents, entire families, and even drove cars. My sons who do live there say the homeless are an artifact of the extreme restrictions of building new housing that keeps rent prices artificially high and once you become homeless recovering from it is almost impossible.   

Edited February 27, 2023 by Moontanman

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

I did like Peterkin's breakdown of problems associated with building large numbers of affordable housing in, near, or far from, major cities with large homeless populations.

Also I would think that for the first year or two, recovering addicts don't need the stress of a job, nor a public transit system to get to one.
That can come later, after de-tox, when they have the confidence to get back into the 'rat race'.

I think an important aspect regarding homelessness is to look at their causes, rather than subscribing to a punitive "quick fix after it is broken" solution.

There are of course quite a few, but certain things, such as a better social welfare system, can help to catch folks before they end up being homeless in the first place. Another interesting aspect is a lot of focus in this thread is on meth and opioid abuse, but the most common substance associated with homelessness is alcohol.

However, substance abuse is often not the driving factor.  Studies have shown different factors, often related to age. For example, a UK study found that in young folks, homelessness was associated with child abuse or general disruptive childhood experiences (e.g. family breakup). A factor that determines long-term homelessness that is often mentioned is whether they have a family home to return to.

In adults, economic pressures are the most common explanation and determinants include e.g. access to social housing. Especially in older adults, disruptive personal events (job loss, death of family relative etc) have been more prevalent.

As such there is no single preventative measure, but there are many areas where social or mental support, as well as general guidance might be preventative. 

 

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I think an important aspect regarding homelessness is to look at their causes, rather than subscribing to a punitive "quick fix after it is broken" solution.

I didn't see an explanation from @Alex_Krycek to questions about the distinction between homeless people and homeless addicts.

Nor a response to my own questions.

 

Different problems require different solutions.

 

Yes I agree in principle with CharonY but it may be worth noting that in the UK the vagrancy laws have not been repealed as our elected representatives have far more important squabbling and finger pointing to do than tidy up centuries old archaic legislation.

You can in principle in the UK be prosecuted it you go out with no money in your pocket.

These same laws require 'vagrants' to move on after a certain number of nights in any one place.
These regulations are more rigidly enforced.
So how is a homeless person supposed to return to normal, get a job and settle back into the community ?

 

No one here has yet raised the issue of whether the homeless would actually take up social housing af any description.

Again UK experience is that a significant % will actually prefer to remain homeless and 'free', because the cost to them of conforming in any type of available accomodation is too high.

 

Finally I highlighted the difference between the US and Europe, in that the US land prices and palnning regulations play  different roles in the 'cost of construction'  - I didn't get a response from swansont on this.

Edited February 27, 2023 by studiot

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Again UK experience is that a significant % will actually prefer to remain homeless and 'free', because the cost to them of conforming in any type of available accomodation is too high.

Yes, that's a phenomenon - not the biggest problem, but one that's easy to cite by people who want to prove it's 'their choice; their fault'.

Here's an article on the subject:

Quote

The main reasons why homeless people refuse help are that they view shelters as dangerous places, feel inundated with religion and substance abuse and mental health counseling when in them, cannot take their pets into the shelters, and have substance abuse disorders that prevent them from meeting the requirements of drug screenings.

This is mainly about emergency shelters, not long-term housing solutions. The long-terms ones obviously need to have a number of different options for different needs. I should think one of the most urgent - families or single parents with children - would also be the easiest. Mental health issues are more complicated.

Quote

 

 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I'm betting that the vast majority of the homeless are not drug addicts in the manner you are suggesting or are you counting alcoholics as drug addicts?  <...> a great many of them lived in high end tents, entire families, and even drove cars.

There's another similar (and similarly huge population) of folks who are known as "gym membership" homeless, where basically they sleep in their cars then use the gym facilities for showers and a locker space before they head to their jobs. 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Due process involves a reasonable hope for defense against a charge.

And we're still here waiting to hear what that charge might/should be from the thread author. Thus far, it was all police bracelets and no human hearings. 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

And you have made a proposal; build more housing.
it was that proposal that made me question where you would build the housing, and whether it would involve re-location similar to Alex's plan.

Fair, and as Charon rightly called out the difference is one of choice.

I'd be amenable to discussing "what are best practices and things to avoid when building government subsidized housing for the underhoused population," but that's a bit of a topic hijack since it's clearly not what the OP mentioned.

Unless "government subsidized housing" means wintery tents and muddy piles of feces off by the edge of the parking lot. 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

No one here has yet raised the issue of whether the homeless would actually take up social housing af any description.

They have, but it was peripherally: Make homelessness illegal. Then the weapons of the state can be yielded against the poor wretches stinking up the sewers. 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I highlighted the difference between the US and Europe, in that the US land prices and palnning regulations play  different roles in the 'cost of construction' 

I don't reckon this is terribly relevant in the end if the funding is from the government. It's surely better to explore lower cost more efficient options, but whether it's $2B or $20B per year can be covered more or less equally easily from the central purse. 

[Peterkin]

I've mentioned a few familiar ones. Finland's mentioned, too. Here are some more:

https://caufsociety.com/cities-solving-homelessness/

[studiot]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I don't reckon this is terribly relevant in the end if the funding is from the government. It's surely better to explore lower cost more efficient options, but whether it's $2B or $20B per year can be covered more or less equally easily from the central purse. 

 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, that's a phenomenon - not the biggest problem, but one that's easy to cite by people who want to prove it's 'their choice; their fault'.

 I think cherry picking from someone else's post should be beneath both of you.

 

iNow I was responding to a point purely about resources, including cost.

Peterkin how many UK homeless have you actually met to discuss their situation with ?

And how familiar are you with UK vagrancy laws ?

Both of you

I have not in any way said nothing should be done.

Quite the reverse if you bother to read my entire posts on this subject.

There are, after all, precious few of them.

Edited February 27, 2023 by studiot

[geordief]

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

And how familiar are you with UK vagrancy laws ?

It is off topic but perhaps of interest that I was  once threatened with deportation  from France via use of their vagabondage laws.

I was "working" for a Belgian employer in Agen  who  had a  very strong disagreement  with me (he had to be pulled off me and he  was armed) and he told me to leave  ,which I did.

He knew I had no money and was working for free.

[Peterkin]

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think cherry picking from someone else's post should be beneath both of you.

What? I was neither cherry-picking nor contradicting; I was responding. This isn't a brand new argument: we've all heard before all the reasons homeless people, poor people, people with all kinds of chronic societal problems, have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

Peterkin how many UK homeless have you actually met to discuss their situation with ?

And how familiar are you with UK vagrancy laws ?

No; I have no personal interest in the UK. I picked out some articles about various cities in different places were trying to do about a problem that appears to be world-wide, and that I don't see how can possibly be independent of the increasing concentration of wealth and escalating cost of living - particularly of housing, since the surge in international real estate speculation that started in the 1990's.

 

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

I have not in any way said nothing should be done.

I have never in way said you or anyone else said anything of the kind. 

I've just been tossing out random information that seems to be relevant to the topic - none of it aimed at you.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Peterkin

[iNow]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I think cherry picking from someone else's post should be beneath both of you.

Dufuq?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

iNow I was responding to a point purely about resources, including cost.

No shit. My reply regarded exactly that, too. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I have not in any way said nothing should be done.

I neither said nor implied nor insinuated that you did. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by iNow

[swansont]

On 2/26/2023 at 5:58 PM, studiot said:

Europe also suffers from this problem, though I have not seen any statistics to show the crime rate of homeless addicts is worse than many other sectors of the community.

One of the issues here is we haven’t seen any statistics from the OP to back up their claims.

 

On 2/26/2023 at 5:58 PM, studiot said:

I am merely challenging swansont's assertion about construction costs. What do these include ?

All I claimed was that you aren’t going to be selling a dwelling for less that the construction cost, whatever it happens to be, unless there is some kind of subsidy. If someone has a net cost of $100,000 to build a house, they aren’t going to sell it for less. Not if they want to stay in the business of building houses. 

I don’t think this math is different in Europe. 

[geordief]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

One of the issues here is we haven’t seen any statistics from the OP to back up their claims.

 

All I claimed was that you aren’t going to be selling a dwelling for less that the construction cost, whatever it happens to be, unless there is some kind of subsidy. If someone has a net cost of $100,000 to build a house, they aren’t going to sell it for less. Not if they want to stay in the business of building houses. 

I don’t think this math is different in Europe. 

Don't  you have an entitlement to subsidized  public housing in USA? We do ,if you get on the housing list and your means and needs qualify you.

Thatcher sold off a lot of  the "council houses" in her day  which (I don't live there but I imagine) must make it very hard to get a house where you might want to live.

 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

Don't  you have an entitlement to subsidized  public housing in USA?

We call them prisons here 

[npts2020]

On 2/26/2023 at 8:28 PM, Peterkin said:

Not exactly. You don't build them; I don't build them; we don't build them - either a developer or a city government does. Either choice has its problems.

I'm confused, is "Habitat for Humanity" an arm of the government or a developer? I heard they once built a dwelling or 30 million or so.

[Peterkin]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

One of the issues here is we haven’t seen any statistics from the OP to back up their claims.

Probably won't. Information is  hard to sort out. There are plenty of arrests on drug charges, vagrancy, trespassing; lots of stats on alcohol-related violence, but it's hard to find any linking violent crime to homelessness and/or addiction. There is a record in Portland, London and Vancouver of increased crime in areas where homeless people camp, but it's unclear whether the homeless are the perpetrators, or the rising crime is concentrated in the same neighbourhoods where homeless people are able to camp. There is evidence that they're more often victims. There ought to be an exhaustive study somewhere, but i haven't found it.

5 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I'm confused, is "Habitat for Humanity" an arm of the government or a developer? I heard they once built a dwelling or 30 million or so.

Even if Habitat for Humanity did consist of you and me, I don't think they have the capability to house Portland's, or Toronto's, or Manchester's homeless population. They may be able to help with a scheme that was worked out with the community in which they operate.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Peterkin

[geordief]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

We call them prisons here 

I am not familiar with "Social Housing" in Europe (just in UK and Ireland) but ,from this article it appears that it is a European thing and being discussed  in USA

https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/02/25/809315455/how-european-style-public-housing-could-help-solve-the-affordability-crisis

 

I wonder if it might help the homelessness problem in the States(and if homelessness is worse over there than it is here-don't think we have the opioid problem as bad  anyway)

When I was hitching  in the States I used to look for accommodation in rural police stations  and was obliged(somewhere in the Rockies from memory)

 

[npts2020]

42 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Even if Habitat for Humanity did consist of you and me, I don't think they have the capability to house Portland's, or Toronto's, or Manchester's homeless population. They may be able to help with a scheme that was worked out with the community in which they operate.

AFAIK The biggest obstacle to Habitat building and remodeling more is funding so they may possibly be able to build enough to solve the housing problem in those cities but even if they (likely) can't, I was only pointing out there ARE other options for going about things. (If you agree that Habitat is neither a developer or arm of the government)