7 ms·

The sad part is how long such spending has gone on across the state. They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of

The sad part is how long such spending has gone on across the state. They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of "they're homeless because they haven't a home". The mental illness is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies. Instead of the singular focus on establishing state-paid housing, _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless is far overdue. The option of shooting-up and camping on the streets clearly has not worked in any way -- show me the data for how that helps anybody.

re6fae5Wied5tha 5y ago
[flagged]
- linksnapzz 5y ago
  Something like 85% of those homeless have unresolved psychiatric & drug-abuse issues. It's not compassionate to let them do their thing, and squat in filth on public sidewalks untreated.
  - vkou 5y ago
    No, it's not particularly compassionate, but when no alternative exists, it's better than criminalizing poverty, or from sweeping people out of 3rd street, into 4th street, and then, three weeks later, back to 3rd. You'll find that most progressives don't actually like people camping in parks, they just think it's the best option out of all the shitty ones currently available. If you want to fix homelessness, you need to provide all three of housing, psychological, and addiction services. Housing, not shelters - most people prefer sleeping in a tent to sleeping in a shelter. If you're not doing all three, you're just wasting your time and money.
    - linksnapzz 5y ago
      I don't think compelling longterm vagrants to accept mandatory psychiatric and drug treatment in a secure facility under state custodial care is criminalizing poverty. Doing that would make the housing problem all the more solvable for those homeless whose ultimate and not proximate problem is affordability of shelter & transport.
      - vkou 5y ago
        > I don't think compelling longterm vagrants to accept mandatory psychiatric and drug treatment in a secure facility under state custodial care is criminalizing poverty. I live in Seattle. Please tell me which facility within 50 miles of me will both safely house people, and provide psychiatric/drug treatment for them, and I'll get right onto advocating for getting people out of tents and into that facility. Does it have a name, address, and website? Also, it needs to have room for 5,500 unsheltered homeless people. [1] That facility, of course, does not exist. This is my entire point. In some parallel universe where support services exist, I'd prefer them being used over people living in tents. I'd even support mandating them, because I also don't like stepping over human shit when I take a walk in my neighborhood. We don't live in that parallel universe, though, and the services that exist aren't up to the task. Shelters are unsafe, have incredibly limited admission hours, are often at capacity, don't provide enough support services, and refuse to take addicts. There's a reason people are sleeping in tents, and that reason isn't 'they don't know that shelters exist'. Those people know shelters exist. Those shelters either don't want those people, or those people don't want to live in those shelters, because that life is worse than living in a tent by the overpass. If we're going to talk about compassion, I'm not sure how compassionate it is to force people into a living condition that's worse than the squalor they already live in. As of February 23rd, 2022, we have exactly three options that we can implement. 1. Sweep the streets and 'house' all homeless people in prison. [2] 2. Keep sweeping tent cities from street to street, shuffling people between 3rd and 4th and back to 3rd and back to 4th. [3] 3. Do nothing and let people live in tent cities. There is no option 4. It doesn't exist. I'd like one to exist, but it doesn't. I don't like any of these three options, but the one I dislike least is #3. We just voted for a city council that is going to double down on #2. My prediction is that four years from now, we'll be exactly where we are today. Nobody's building a magical housing and treatment facility for 5,500 people. [1] There are, at any point in time, ~6,000 sheltered homeless and ~5,500 unsheltered homeless in King county (population 2,200,000). [2] This is what people mean when they talk about criminalizing poverty. [3] This is what we call 'Re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic'. This can be done on a local level, by sweeping tents out of neighbourhoods which complain the loudest, on a municipal level by having suburban police arrest people and release them in the city center, or on a national level, by giving mid-western homeless people a one-way bus ticket to the coasts. The net result is the same - it doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it around.
thescriptkiddie 5y ago
Requiring treatment as a prerequisite for housing is the status quo, and it has not been working.
flerchin 5y ago
Treatment would IMO, include housing while under treatment, and some sort of halfway-housing afterwards.
- kerneloftruth 5y ago
  Yes, exactly right. That is where they can learn and establish structure in their life, and build a foundation. These were once referred to as Independent Living Skills. Once taught and established, then they can hopefully translate that into a healthier life on their own.
- TheCondor 5y ago
  Is there an "afterwards?" I don't know if there are "one time" or "one shot" solutions. Certainly there are some unhoused that can be helped by that but I'm under the impression that most have issues that go substantially beyond a one time check or a pill or a one time treatment.
lisper 5y ago
> They're homeless because they're mentally ill Some but not all. There are many disparate causes of homelessness and mental illness is just one of them. > _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless That is hard to implement in a free country.
- kerneloftruth 5y ago
  "That is hard to implement in a free country" The past 2 years proves that entirely untrue.
  - lisper 5y ago
    Huh? How?
    - throwaway1777 5y ago
      We required everyone to get COVID treatment. (Especially in california)
      - mmoche 5y ago
        Not only was it not "required," nearly 30% of the state of California remains short of full vaccination and restrictions are dropping daily. You can demand an end to "mandates" and public health emergencies, but you must then applaud when those things end.
        throwaway1777 5y ago
        Not technically required, but required for many workplaces. I do applaud an end to mandates even though I support vaccination and am vaccinated and boosted. And therein lies the problem.
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    > Requiring medical treatments > Free country That choice is a radio button, not a checkbox. Can't have both.
Edmond 5y ago
Not sure why you're being down voted, this is the most honest statement about so called "homelessness" in the united states. It is affordable housing advocates essentially leveraging the mentally ill while completely ignoring their plight.
- GrantYE 5y ago
  But if you ask anyone who works to house the unhoused, the affordability of homes is the problem. If you don't have shelter to rely on, how can you possibly treat your mental illness in a safe environment. I actually think it is truly both. IT's the lack of available mental health treatment and the lack of affordable housing. Neither can be fixed with the perverse incentives of the current system we have.
  - kjkjadksj 5y ago
    If the goal really was to get as many people off the streets as possible, why don’t our builds look more like the dorms at ucla with shared facilities instead of private apartments with a kitchen built and bathroom built into every unit? Follow the money and see that this is a cash cow for certain developers and nothing more.
  - Edmond 5y ago
    With the exception of treatment facilities/hospitals and housing as a basic necessity for all, housing really shouldn't be a central part of the discussion when it comes to people living on the streets, housing (or lack thereof) is not their problem. Almost all people you see on the streets end up there after burning all bridges in their personal lives because of their illness. You may not be aware of this but there are in fact a lot of options in existence for housing such people, it doesn't work because they are ill and without treatment (forceful), it is hopeless trying to help them.
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  America can build houses but free mental health care for all? It took Democrats 50 years to get the paltry affordable care act through.
istjohn 5y ago
They're homeless because housing costs are absurd in California. There are mentally ill people all across the country, but few places have a housing crisis anything like that in California. Only a quarter of the homeless in California suffer from severe mental illness[1]. 1. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-08-07/mentally-ill-and-homeless-arrest-highlights-systems-flaws https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-08-07/men...
- zdragnar 5y ago
  California attracts homeless people because of its relatively temperate climate, lax policies on camps, and pays more than other states (recent interview guy said he was getting 800 cash plus 200 food stamps a month). Back in June or July 2021, the governor invited the homeless to come to California with promises of free housing during a press tour.

re6fae5Wied5tha 5y ago

[flagged]

linksnapzz 5y ago
Something like 85% of those homeless have unresolved psychiatric & drug-abuse issues. It's not compassionate to let them do their thing, and squat in filth on public sidewalks untreated.
- vkou 5y ago
  No, it's not particularly compassionate, but when no alternative exists, it's better than criminalizing poverty, or from sweeping people out of 3rd street, into 4th street, and then, three weeks later, back to 3rd. You'll find that most progressives don't actually like people camping in parks, they just think it's the best option out of all the shitty ones currently available. If you want to fix homelessness, you need to provide all three of housing, psychological, and addiction services. Housing, not shelters - most people prefer sleeping in a tent to sleeping in a shelter. If you're not doing all three, you're just wasting your time and money.
  - linksnapzz 5y ago
    I don't think compelling longterm vagrants to accept mandatory psychiatric and drug treatment in a secure facility under state custodial care is criminalizing poverty. Doing that would make the housing problem all the more solvable for those homeless whose ultimate and not proximate problem is affordability of shelter & transport.
    - vkou 5y ago
      > I don't think compelling longterm vagrants to accept mandatory psychiatric and drug treatment in a secure facility under state custodial care is criminalizing poverty. I live in Seattle. Please tell me which facility within 50 miles of me will both safely house people, and provide psychiatric/drug treatment for them, and I'll get right onto advocating for getting people out of tents and into that facility. Does it have a name, address, and website? Also, it needs to have room for 5,500 unsheltered homeless people. [1] That facility, of course, does not exist. This is my entire point. In some parallel universe where support services exist, I'd prefer them being used over people living in tents. I'd even support mandating them, because I also don't like stepping over human shit when I take a walk in my neighborhood. We don't live in that parallel universe, though, and the services that exist aren't up to the task. Shelters are unsafe, have incredibly limited admission hours, are often at capacity, don't provide enough support services, and refuse to take addicts. There's a reason people are sleeping in tents, and that reason isn't 'they don't know that shelters exist'. Those people know shelters exist. Those shelters either don't want those people, or those people don't want to live in those shelters, because that life is worse than living in a tent by the overpass. If we're going to talk about compassion, I'm not sure how compassionate it is to force people into a living condition that's worse than the squalor they already live in. As of February 23rd, 2022, we have exactly three options that we can implement. 1. Sweep the streets and 'house' all homeless people in prison. [2] 2. Keep sweeping tent cities from street to street, shuffling people between 3rd and 4th and back to 3rd and back to 4th. [3] 3. Do nothing and let people live in tent cities. There is no option 4. It doesn't exist. I'd like one to exist, but it doesn't. I don't like any of these three options, but the one I dislike least is #3. We just voted for a city council that is going to double down on #2. My prediction is that four years from now, we'll be exactly where we are today. Nobody's building a magical housing and treatment facility for 5,500 people. [1] There are, at any point in time, ~6,000 sheltered homeless and ~5,500 unsheltered homeless in King county (population 2,200,000). [2] This is what people mean when they talk about criminalizing poverty. [3] This is what we call 'Re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic'. This can be done on a local level, by sweeping tents out of neighbourhoods which complain the loudest, on a municipal level by having suburban police arrest people and release them in the city center, or on a national level, by giving mid-western homeless people a one-way bus ticket to the coasts. The net result is the same - it doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it around.

thescriptkiddie 5y ago

Requiring treatment as a prerequisite for housing is the status quo, and it has not been working.

flerchin 5y ago

Treatment would IMO, include housing while under treatment, and some sort of halfway-housing afterwards.

kerneloftruth 5y ago
Yes, exactly right. That is where they can learn and establish structure in their life, and build a foundation. These were once referred to as Independent Living Skills. Once taught and established, then they can hopefully translate that into a healthier life on their own.
TheCondor 5y ago
Is there an "afterwards?" I don't know if there are "one time" or "one shot" solutions. Certainly there are some unhoused that can be helped by that but I'm under the impression that most have issues that go substantially beyond a one time check or a pill or a one time treatment.

lisper 5y ago

> They're homeless because they're mentally ill Some but not all. There are many disparate causes of homelessness and mental illness is just one of them. > _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless That is hard to implement in a free country.

kerneloftruth 5y ago
"That is hard to implement in a free country" The past 2 years proves that entirely untrue.
- lisper 5y ago
  Huh? How?
  - throwaway1777 5y ago
    We required everyone to get COVID treatment. (Especially in california)
    - mmoche 5y ago
      Not only was it not "required," nearly 30% of the state of California remains short of full vaccination and restrictions are dropping daily. You can demand an end to "mandates" and public health emergencies, but you must then applaud when those things end.
      - throwaway1777 5y ago
        Not technically required, but required for many workplaces. I do applaud an end to mandates even though I support vaccination and am vaccinated and boosted. And therein lies the problem.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  > Requiring medical treatments > Free country That choice is a radio button, not a checkbox. Can't have both.

Edmond 5y ago

Not sure why you're being down voted, this is the most honest statement about so called "homelessness" in the united states. It is affordable housing advocates essentially leveraging the mentally ill while completely ignoring their plight.

GrantYE 5y ago
But if you ask anyone who works to house the unhoused, the affordability of homes is the problem. If you don't have shelter to rely on, how can you possibly treat your mental illness in a safe environment. I actually think it is truly both. IT's the lack of available mental health treatment and the lack of affordable housing. Neither can be fixed with the perverse incentives of the current system we have.
- kjkjadksj 5y ago
  If the goal really was to get as many people off the streets as possible, why don’t our builds look more like the dorms at ucla with shared facilities instead of private apartments with a kitchen built and bathroom built into every unit? Follow the money and see that this is a cash cow for certain developers and nothing more.
- Edmond 5y ago
  With the exception of treatment facilities/hospitals and housing as a basic necessity for all, housing really shouldn't be a central part of the discussion when it comes to people living on the streets, housing (or lack thereof) is not their problem. Almost all people you see on the streets end up there after burning all bridges in their personal lives because of their illness. You may not be aware of this but there are in fact a lot of options in existence for housing such people, it doesn't work because they are ill and without treatment (forceful), it is hopeless trying to help them.
AniseAbyss 5y ago
America can build houses but free mental health care for all? It took Democrats 50 years to get the paltry affordable care act through.

istjohn 5y ago

They're homeless because housing costs are absurd in California. There are mentally ill people all across the country, but few places have a housing crisis anything like that in California. Only a quarter of the homeless in California suffer from severe mental illness[1]. 1. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-08-07/mentally-ill-and-homeless-arrest-highlights-systems-flaws https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-08-07/men...

zdragnar 5y ago
California attracts homeless people because of its relatively temperate climate, lax policies on camps, and pays more than other states (recent interview guy said he was getting 800 cash plus 200 food stamps a month). Back in June or July 2021, the governor invited the homeless to come to California with promises of free housing during a press tour.