|
|
Post by onelasttime on May 24, 2021 2:24:05 GMT
Respecting the request not to be political on the other thread on homelessness I’m starting this thread.
This is a subject that really bothers me because we can't seem to solve it. We throw millions of dollars at it but yet here we are. It’s still a problem.
But the pandemic and a study that was talked about on CBS Sunday Morning may provide a solution to make a big dent in it.
In 2019 the State of California gave Sonoma County $18M to use for the homeless. There was a camp of 142 homeless folks along a path that was in the City of Santa Rosa and the County of Sonoma. So both parties decided to work on the problem of moving these folks to a better place and provide them with the services they needed. I won’t bore you with the details but I will say as I read their progress in solving this problem I was getting to the point of taking my old lady purse and start hitting these officials and the NIMBY crowd.
But then I read the City of Santa Rosa was going to buy a small hotel in no one’s backyard to use for long term housing for these folks. I understand San Francisco and other cities are planning on doing the same thing.
Which brings me to the study talked about on the Sunday Morning show. The study found that if you provided housing first, not at shelters, the percentages go up in addressing the problems that drive these individuals on the streets in the first place, that includes addiction and mental health. The belief is by doing this their off the streets for good.
They also interviewed this mayor who thought it would be a good idea to become homeless for a week so he could understand. After his week living with homeless or I should say real homeless folks, his take away was it was a life style choice.
When he he was asked what he thought about this “home first” study he dismissed and the said the city has to have a balanced budget.
So, IMO, his justification for not do anything was because he has decided it’s a lifestyle choice and because he didn’t want to spend City money to address the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on May 24, 2021 2:45:03 GMT
Back to the Sunday Morning show.
They did a study in a town in Colorado and found..
80% folks stayed in their long term/permanent housing.
53% decrease in emergency room visits
58% decrease in arrests
93% decrease in the use of emergency shelters.
35% decrease in mental health symptoms
37% decrease in the use of drugs.
And overall
50% Reduction in veterans homelessness since the VA embraced the Housing First theory a decade ago.
Maybe those who work with the homeless may finally be on to something.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856 
|
Post by lizacreates on May 24, 2021 3:02:41 GMT
Yes, this method called Housing First has been proven to work in some cities. Seattle was the pioneer in this twenty years ago. In fact, the success Utah had in helping the homeless off the street was due to modeling what they learned from Seattle -- 1811 Eastlake. The difference in success rates was because Utah learned how to scale up, meaning they were able to build more of this supportive housing by first working with communities that may have initially shown resistance (i.e., NIMBYs). Seattle has not been able to scale.
"The idea of it is instead of making people prove themselves first — waiting for them to fix their lives so they ‘deserve’ housing – Housing First flips all that on its head, and says we’re going to give you housing first. And that should put you into a position where that stability will create an environment where you’re better equipped to want to go to treatment and services and in a better position to want to pursue and maintain and retain a job."
ETA: Among the impediments in CA, though, are the strict zoning laws and the political muscle of NIMBYs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on May 24, 2021 3:36:22 GMT
As I said in the other thread my sibling is a psychiatrist who works with mentally ill unhoused people. They have long said that providing safe spaces for drug use and not making “being clean” a requirement for housing is the only way for people to get help. The success rate of rehabilitation is much higher in places where there are clean needle sites and housing first programs.. Of course there are people who are mentally ill who do not have drug problems on the street but it is incredibly difficult for them to get treatment when they don’t have a safe and consistent place to be.
My sibling did so much work to try to get different programs started and did have a fairly successful one established in NY when the state cut the funding. They realized there was nothing they could do here in the US due to lack of funding and lack of willingness to actually look at solutions so they moved overseas where they have a chance of creating successful programs.
It is just ridiculous to me that no one with any power really seems to have any solutions to the crisis. It is apparent to me that the unhoused population has exploded the past 5 years in Portland and I imagine this past year has made it even worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on May 24, 2021 3:58:52 GMT
there were homeless on the streets of san francisco 40 yrs ago. there are many more now. san francisco spends a very very large amount of money on the issue. it is bad. during the pandemic, many homeless people were housed in hotels/motels. this has been helpful and there is work towards buying these buildings and adding supportive services there. the mayor has been trying to open clean drug places -(where you can use drugs in safe place). but has been prevented by regulations. so with pandemic money, there are now 6 teams -- 24 hour response teams that can help without involving the police. they just added one or two teams specifically to respond to overdose calls.. to try to get the people affected immediately into treatment, services, etc. the city use to give this population a significant grant every month. then, gavin newsom tried something new.. he cut the cash grant way down, but added a monthly event that offered haircuts, service and connecting to health care and social security..called homeless connect. that helped a lot.
but housing is so expensive and there is limited room and such a great need. it is not just people in tents, it is the people living 10 to a room, families, etc. there is some low income housing--we need more. there are services where you can get a free meal 3 times a day, clothes, showers, etc. but the forces pushing people on the streets is still there.. high cost of housing, medical care (though obamacare has helped--as did healthy CA medical care). and people under distress.. like the kids kicked out of their home..so they come to stay in golden gate park.
this is a societal problem.. it has to be solved as a whole nation and not city by city. more and better mental health help .. more help to families to get out of poverty. more support so they don't go back to poverty due to one disaster. universal health care. more support for kids in school.. esp kids with trauma, head injuries, learning issues, developmental disabilities. a more fair justice system.
so little here and little there.. need a big change all the way around.
|
|
|
|
Post by nlwilkins on May 24, 2021 7:17:05 GMT
I believe the rise in homeless people can be directly related to the loss of funding for mental institutions where people could actually get help in dealing with their issues. This article relates some of the history I can remember when the state of Texas closed down its facilities in Austin and just turned the patients out who did not have anywhere to go. Before that, patients were sent there involuntarily - by family members or by Police officers. (It is not unheard of for mentally ill patients to refuse care even though they so desperately need it.) which brings up another issue: Many of our homeless would be able to get help and shelter if they were willing to accept help with their mental illness. But how can we expect them to admit they need the help for their illness when they deny they have mental issues? Home first is a great idea, but only if they are given requirements to attend free counseling to help them figure out how they ended up homeless AFTER they are settled into their new home. So does this mean that sometimes someone needs to step up and be the "bad" guy and make the decision that his or her relative, friend or child needs to be involuntarily committed in order to obtain the help needed? I don't know, but I do know if I had a friend who ended up homeless I would do everything I could to help them find help to figure it all out. Most likely they would find a convenient answer that is far from the truth, so would need help in evaluating what the truth really is. |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on May 24, 2021 21:06:44 GMT
CW is a long time columnist in San Francisco. He retired from the San Francisco Chronicle but still writes about the goings on in SF.
“A Supervisor had an innovative idea for the homeless. It didn't even get a Board vote”
“It's popular in the city, but not in City Hall”
C.W. Nevius
Apr 27
“Supervisor Rafael Mandelman has done the impossible.
Even for San Francisco.
Mandelman has come up with an innovative plan to create “safe sleeping spots” for the unhoused San Franciscans who are living in tents on the sidewalk. The locations would be fenced and safe and, like the sites that are currently in operation, would have toilets, showers and electricity.
Best of all, it could be set up in a matter of months, not years in the future. The homeless get a free location and tent cities leave the neighborhood sidewalks. Mandelman calls it “A Place for All.”
It seems like a win-win.
And everybody hates it.
Well, not everybody, but as Mandelman said in an op-ed in The Examiner “predictably my proposal is drawing fire from right and left alike.”
Listening to last week’s hearing on the proposal in the Budget and Finance Committee was more depressing than “Nomadland.” Talk about a tale of two cities.
If you only listened to the first part of the public comment, and you were unfamiliar with San Francisco politics, you’d think Mandelman’s bill was both popular and necessary.
These hearings on homelessness have a pattern. Public comment is generally dominated by progressive advocates for the homeless.
But in this case Mandelman began by reading a long list of 17 local neighborhood and business organizations that are in support. And then there were residents, small business owners and advocates from organizations like Rescue SF. It might not have been a 50-50 split, but 60-40 is a reasonable estimate. At least one City Hall vet said it was an unprecedented turnout.
In a Tweet, Mandelman thanked “hundreds” of supporters who reached out and said he felt the proposal “aligns with the values and sensibilities of a majority of San Franciscans.” And I’ll bet it does.
In fact, in a shocker, it appears even the homeless prefer it. In a survey conducted last September by the Coalition on Homelessness (!) found that 58 percent of those unhoused individuals would prefer a “a legal free campsite,” with amenities. Ten percent said they might use it, compared to only 32 percent who said they would not.
Then we got to those opposed. I think it is fair to say many, if not most of them said they had a connection to the Coalition on Homelessness. Generally, they were outraged.
Anyone supporting the measure is “entitled and bigoted.” The idea was “insane.” Mandelman was putting people in “outdoor cages.” The plan was just “pacifying people who are upset with seeing the reality.”
(Even Mandelman couldn’t let that on pass. The idea that residents opposed to tents on their sidewalks were just squeamish was “gaslighting,” he said. Their concerns are real.)
Another critic said, “I feel we should continue going in the direction we are going.”
Which, Mandelman said at the hearing, was his point.
“We spend more and more money on the problem every year,” he said. “We create more and more resources. And it just feels endless. We can’t keep doing more of what we have been doing and expecting different results.”
But that’s where we are. Mandelman’s proposal didn’t make it out of committee. (It would be interesting to see how it would fare in a city-wide election.)
In response, there were lots of promises about a big, new homelessness initiative with the $200 million a year that was provided by Marc Benioff's Prop C in 2018.
It’s going to be huge, they say. Unhoused people will be put in downtown hotel rooms. The city may even buy whole hotels. It’s going to house thousands, they say, all on the way to “end homelessness.”
This just in. We aren’t going to end homelessness. Look around. It isn’t just San Francisco, it is Seattle, Los Angeles and Austin. This is a country in crisis and that is reflected in those who are so in need they can not shelter themselves.
I just don’t think anyone can walk past a tent on a street corner and say that it is more compassionate to continue to do nothing.
The problem with this discussion is that it is based on a false equivalence. The question is framed as: Is it better for someone to live in an apartment in a hotel or in a tent in a city-run parking lot? Obviously, the hotel is better.
But the question really is: Is it better to live on a neighborhood sidewalk with no toilet, showers or electricity, or in a safe sleeping spot with all those amenities?
Several of those against the idea asked if proponents had been to one of the sites.
I have. I’ve been to the one at United Nations Plaza. It looked tidy and well laid out. There was a fence around the site (that’s where the cage idea came from) and security, but residents are free to come and go.
There has been a lot of complaining and criticism of the cost. One report said the cost of a tent for a year was over $61,000.
Mandelman said he thought the cost could be brought down considerably. But also, you’re putting in a lot of extras in running water, power and security. That costs something.
Still, moderates see it as way too expensive. Another free lunch for the homeless. The progressives are against it because it will be “sucking up a lot of money” from Prop C and other revenue sources — particularly when the city is facing a budget shortfall.
But wait until you see it, they say. The new multi-million-dollar plan will redefine the homeless crisis in San Francisco.
Some day.
We will see if that happens. As Mandelman said, if that can be done, he’s all for it.
“If we can do it with housing over the next two years,” he said, “let’s do it that way.”
But if, like so many grand plans, it takes years to roll out and we still find there is a crisis of unhoused people living in squalor on the streets, wouldn’t you think the city would like to try A Place for All?
Naw, San Francisco said. We’re good. We’ll just keep doing what we’ve been doing.“
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on May 24, 2021 21:18:20 GMT
Another commentary from CW Nevius.....
“It's homelessness. Always homelessness”
“San Francisco has tried nearly everything. Not much has changed”
C.W. Nevius
Mar 23
“Last Friday, San Francisco’s Homelessness and Supportive Housing director resigned. City officials said they were surprised that Abigail Stewart-Kahn quit so abruptly, after roughly a year on the job.
Supervisor Matt Haney told the Chronicle that her departure is “both problematic and strange.”
Apparently, City Hall types are baffled. Why would she leave?
I think I can help. I haven’t spoken to her, but I am going to suggest a reason:
Because the job is freakin’ impossible.
I am now two years into my fifth decade since moving to San Francisco. And in those 50+ years, I’d say homelessness was the number one topic every single year. And I would say we are no closer to a solution than we were decades ago.
This week, Randy Shaw, writing in Beyond Chron said there are “roughly “6,000 unhoused people living in tents, shelters and on the street.” In 2015, the city’s official count put the total at 6,686. Not much progress.
Not that we haven’t tried. I think we can make a pretty comprehensive list of every reasonable attempt to get people off the SF streets and into stable housing. We’ve enforced the law, decided that was too mean, allowed tent camping, changed our minds and cleared out tent camps and then put people in hotels temporarily — apparently until some magic housing solution appeared out of the sky.
All while spending hundreds of millions of dollars.
And I would say, if you are reading a study, publication or treatise, and it says their idea has the “potential to end homelessness forever,” you should stop reading. I see no evidence of that happening.
Now, is it possible to make things better? Sure. And, as we come out of this pandemic, it would be a good time to implement a coherent, logic plan.
But first, let’s consider what doesn’t work:
ENFORCE THE DAMN LAWS: Isn’t it a crime to block the sidewalk and sleep on the street? Why don’t the police just enforce it?
Law and order is always a popular choice. San Francisco tried it when Frank Jordan was mayor, with his Matrix Program. People are still arguing over whether it was a good idea that was poorly handled or a misconception from the start.
What we know is that the cries of “This is not the San Francisco I know,” and “How can you arrest someone for not having a place to sleep?” was a big part of the reason it faded away.
It remains a tempting thought. Just this week both San Jose and granola-crunchy Santa Cruz announced new, tough stands on homeless camps. San Jose is proposing to clear them out and move residents to an approved camping site.
Santa Cruz officials have approved an ordinance that will ban daytime camping. That will mean tent-dwellers will have to move every day. The city says it will provide an alternative safe sleeping site.
Good luck with that. The problem is that the ultimate enforcement of those policies is jail. So you put a homeless person in jail. For what? A week?
And then they come out. Where do they go? Back on the street? Probably.
THROW MONEY AT THE PROBLEM: As noted in the Chronicle’s story on Stewart-Kahn’s resignation, San Francisco currently spends more than $300 million a year on homeless services. And yes, you can argue that some of that is fixed expenses, and shouldn’t be calculated so narrowly.
But that is still a lot of Monopoly money. And the problem is, all that cash doesn’t seem to be making much of an improvement. What should we do?
More money!
Not to pick on Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff (well, maybe a little) but there is always a problem-solver who say, “These programs will work if they just get more funding.”
On the good side, Benioff donated $30 million to UCSF to study the causes of homelessness. That’s fine. (Benioff also got to troll other tech billionaires, essentially saying “I’m helping, what are YOU doing?”)
But Benioff’s big play was in the 2018 election, when he basically wrote Proposition C, that would tax money-rich big corporations to generate some $300 million a year.
And then, according to this Chronicle column Benioff spent $7.9 million to campaign for Prop C , seven times what opponents could spend.
And here’s the funny thing. Among the opponents were Mayor London Breed, state Sen. Scott Weiner and Assemblyman David Chiu. A who’s who of influential local pols, in other words.
Their message: money is not the answer.
“I do not believe doubling what we spent on homelessness without new accountability, when we don’t even spend what we have now efficiently, is good government,” Breed said.
Prop C passed, although it was held up in the courts for a while, it is now dinging local corporations with new taxes. And that is pumping money into the swimming pool in the basement of City Hall where city officials use big nets to pull up bushels of cash.
And that’s one problem, once the city gets the Prop C money, there are loopholes aplenty. God knows where all of those hundreds of millions might end up.
Which is what Breed was trying to say. Unless there’s a comprehensive homelessness plan, the result is wasted funding, duplicate efforts and confusion. More money only makes that more likely.
HOUSE THEM IN HOTELS: In a classic SF strategy during the pandemic, it was decided to house the unhoused in vacant hotels.
For a while.
No one really knew how long. And worse yet, no one seemed to know what would happen when someone’s hotel stay ended.
Yet, we’ve heard for years that they are lots of vacant rooms in single room occupancy hotels, that could be used for supportive housing.
Now we are hearing the city will go all in, with the Office of Housing Opportunities hoping to provide rooms for 2,000 people by the end of the year. The idea is that the pandemic has created vacancies that can be used as homeless housing.
This is not a terrible idea. Just a couple of points. Are you presuming the economy isn’t coming back and students and tourists won’t rent those rooms in the future? And second, you’re establishing downtown hotels as homeless hubs.
Also, if you’re going to house people, you’re going to have to administrate it. That means you are responsible for safety, security and health. It is a lot of work. Just sayin’.
SAFE SLEEPING AREAS: At this point this may be the best option. Ever since activists began handling out free tents, the person on the street has changed from someone in a sleeping bag on the sidewalk to a person in a tent with personal space.
People like them. They keep them out of the rain, give them zip-up privacy and a place to keep stuff.
The people who don’t like them are the residents and businesses who find their sidewalks blocked with tent cities.
So a possible solution is to create a supervised tent space. There’s a fenced one at Civic Center now and it appears to still look like a little community. There are tents in socially-distanced spaces and residents sign in and sign out for security.
So there you go, right? Maybe add a formal RV parking site and you are housing people without hassling people.
The problem is as this KPIX story says the 262 tents, housing and feeding some 300 people, is costing the city $16.1 million. And this Chronicle story says the cost, per tent, is over $61,000 a year.
Supervisor Ahsha Safai said he’s as interested as anyone in solving the problem, but “we really need to dive deep to see if this is a sustainable model.”
And so, we return to the beginning, still trying new ideas and finding them problematic.
Personally, it seems the best idea would be to expand safe sleeping sites, but put them in inexpensive, vacant areas of the city, with lots of room. As they do in other cities, police officers could go to a tent-dweller and say, “You can’t stay here, but we have a safe sleeping site on the edge of the city. So you can leave or we can take you to the site.”
Actually, the city tried that one too. Back in 2016, the city set up a large shelter on Pier 80. There were bathroom facilities and meals. Couples were allowed to stay together and pets were welcome.
It seemed like a good idea.
But we dropped it after a couple of months.
Then we tried something else.“
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on May 25, 2021 0:49:05 GMT
NIMBY will always be a huge issue when dealing with this particular problem.
There are plans to build some affordable housing in my area - it's going to be right near a freeway, and the area is currently a big empty lot. There is a Wal-Mart across the street. The people on Next Door have been going crazy over it - it's going to bring traffic, the properly values will go down, there are going to be too many "trashy people" living in the area, etc.
At the same time, they want their cheap labor to make their Chipotle burrito, bag their groceries, and stock the shelves at WM. I suppose they think "those people" should live in the poor parts of town and then commute 45 minutes each way to come serve them.
It made me so mad to read some of their comments - "We don't want to live near those trashy people, but the city isn't listening to us." Well, Bob, I don't want to live near those racist, ignorant people - but here we are. Nobody asked me MY opinion when you moved in!
They don't get that to the people who live the next rung up on the social ladder, WE are the trashy people they wouldn't want in their neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 25, 2021 1:17:35 GMT
They also interviewed this mayor who thought it would be a good idea to become homeless for a week so he could understand. After his week living with homeless or I should say real homeless folks, his take away was it was a life style choice. When he he was asked what he thought about this “home first” study he dismissed and the said the city has to have a balanced budget. What this mayor said sounds like those 'challenges' that used to go around the internet about "I lived on $25 worth of groceries for a week." Those were all a bunch of hooey, too. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on May 25, 2021 16:41:10 GMT
I don’t think we should automatically jump on the NIMBY people. I live on SoCal where there are large numbers of unhoused people. Our city wants to put in a large amount of high density low income housing for homeless smack in the middle of a residential area. Where they are proposing the housing be built is literally across the street $1,000,000 plus homes. Some of these homes be within 50 feet of this housing. The impact on home prices is huge. Many families, especially those who purchased in the last 5 years, will most likely be upside down. These homes will become unsellable. At the same time, our city won’t do anything when crimes are committed - unhoused people are wandering the streets stealing and the police won’t even come out. Boat covers, car covers and bikes are being stolen for their shelter and transportation. People are worried and scared. This is SoCal - many people in these million plus homes are regular working people living in 1500 square ft homes. These are people who can’t afford a huge financial hit. The residents have asked for discussions with the city - maybe less density, more police presence, etc but no luck. Everyone knows there needs to be a workable solution. Housing and assistance are needed. It’s such a complex issue and trying to solve the issue city by city doesn’t make sense especially in densely populated areas. I believe we need to have state and/or national programs and plan. There needs to be a balance where people get shelter and the assistance the need without destroying families and communities in the process. Okay. But housing needs to be built somewhere. What does saying NO achieve as far as mitigating homelessness and shortage of affordable housing? It’s not enough to just say no; what do NIMBYs propose as an alternative? If cities with homeless crises need to build supportive housing and the residents say no, but at the same time they demand their mayors and city councils do something about the crises, what should a city do? "It’s such a complex issue and trying to solve the issue city by city doesn’t make sense especially in densely populated areas. I believe we need to have state and/or national programs and plan." But there is a plan—The Comeback Plan which includes building new housing for the homeless. But, again, what good is a plan when it cannot be implemented due to NIMBY opposition? |
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on May 25, 2021 18:46:46 GMT
with the faster growing income divide and high cost of living in many places, it makes me think that homelessness will never be eliminated. i also realize there are also many other reasons for homelessness--mental illness, personal choice, etc. i simply don't know how or if our government can resolve it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on May 25, 2021 21:37:52 GMT
I don’t think we should automatically jump on the NIMBY people. I live on SoCal where there are large numbers of unhoused people. Our city wants to put in a large amount of high density low income housing for homeless smack in the middle of a residential area. Where they are proposing the housing be built is literally across the street $1,000,000 plus homes. Some of these homes be within 50 feet of this housing. The impact on home prices is huge. Many families, especially those who purchased in the last 5 years, will most likely be upside down. These homes will become unsellable. At the same time, our city won’t do anything when crimes are committed - unhoused people are wandering the streets stealing and the police won’t even come out. Boat covers, car covers and bikes are being stolen for their shelter and transportation. People are worried and scared. This is SoCal - many people in these million plus homes are regular working people living in 1500 square ft homes. These are people who can’t afford a huge financial hit. The residents have asked for discussions with the city - maybe less density, more police presence, etc but no luck. Everyone knows there needs to be a workable solution. Housing and assistance are needed. It’s such a complex issue and trying to solve the issue city by city doesn’t make sense especially in densely populated areas. I believe we need to have state and/or national programs and plan. There needs to be a balance where people get shelter and the assistance the need without destroying families and communities in the process. Okay. But housing needs to be built somewhere. What does saying NO achieve as far as mitigating homelessness and shortage of affordable housing? It’s not enough to just say no; what do NIMBYs propose as an alternative? If cities with homeless crises need to build supportive housing and the residents say no, but at the same time they demand their mayors and city councils do something about the crises, what should a city do? "It’s such a complex issue and trying to solve the issue city by city doesn’t make sense especially in densely populated areas. I believe we need to have state and/or national programs and plan." But there is a plan—The Comeback Plan which includes building new housing for the homeless. But, again, what good is a plan when it cannot be implemented due to NIMBY opposition? I’m being honest here. I think that in many neighborhoods, if homeless people are housed there, and if there are problems, many residents will sell their homes, get what they can for them, and move. Society has not really changed all that much in many parts of the country. I would hope that it would not happen, but I believe that in many communities, it would. |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on May 25, 2021 23:08:39 GMT
If enough of the NIMBY crowd in a city say no and there is no place to put these folks in the area what is one suppose to do with them.
We are talking about human beings here.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on May 26, 2021 0:13:17 GMT
"Housing and assistance are needed." Okay. But housing needs to be built somewhere. What does saying NO achieve as far as mitigating homelessness and shortage of affordable housing? It’s not enough to just say no; what do NIMBYs propose as an alternative? If cities with homeless crises need to build supportive housing and the residents say no, but at the same time they demand their mayors and city councils do something about the crises, what should a city do? "It’s such a complex issue and trying to solve the issue city by city doesn’t make sense especially in densely populated areas. I believe we need to have state and/or national programs and plan." But there is a plan—The Comeback Plan which includes building new housing for the homeless. But, again, what good is a plan when it cannot be implemented due to NIMBY opposition? I’m being honest here. I think that in many neighborhoods, if homeless people are housed there, and if there are problems, many residents will sell their homes, get what they can for them, and move. Society has not really changed all that much in many parts of the country. I would hope that it would not happen, but I believe that in many communities, it would. That could happen. But they can afford to make a choice, right? We have over half a million people living on our streets—where do we put them? There used to be one Skid Row for the longest time; now there are skid rows all over, some even in the toniest parts. Yes, I know this is an essay, but I have so much to say that it’s easier for me to just do it in one go. It is not meant as a diatribe against you or anyone else. For anyone who doesn’t want to read, just ignore me and move on. At its very core, what is the problem of homelessness? Not having a home. What’s the solution? Provide a home. The other underlying problems like substance abuse, mental illness, committing crimes (because you need money to buy drugs and alcohol), no marketable job skills, job loss, poverty, trauma, etc are too voluminous and complex to try and mitigate while the target population is homeless. Combine that with the systemic problems of gross inequality, very high costs of living and severe shortage of affordable housing in places like San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, Portland, etc and it’s no surprise this is a crisis in many cities. When you think about the staggering wealth produced by places like Cupertino, Menlo Park, Mountain View, etc, it’s impossible to reconcile that with the number of homeless just a stone’s throw away. The reason more and more people are slipping through the cracks is because the cracks keep getting bigger and bigger. That’s why permanent supportive housing has a higher rate of success because it first provides a roof over one’s head at which point the underlying problems can be addressed and alleviated. There’s only so much outreach workers and social workers can do when the very basic problem is not solved first. The failure rate in trying to change an individual’s behavior while that individual is homeless is very high. When you’re living in a tent under a highway, what you’re concerned with is survival and that no one steals your few belongings, and too often, the hopelessness and helplessness attendant upon that living condition over time make you less receptive to changing your circumstance (and I think that’s why some people say it’s become a lifestyle). It’s almost a paradox, but it’s true. You get run-down, and fast. When a homeless person is urinating or defecating or shooting up on the street, that’s hopelessness manifest, where the person has been reduced to such a degree and demoralized to such an extent that there’s no dignity left anymore. Social contracts don’t mean anything anymore. Drugs and alcohol provide the immediate escape from that grinding misery and squalor. A homeless drug addict or alcoholic isn’t concerned about rehabilitating himself or meeting sobriety requirements so he can be vetted as “housing ready.” What he’s concerned about is how and where he can get the money to support his habit. Throwing that individual in jail for stealing does nothing; the cycle just repeats itself over and over. How is a mentally ill person who cannot even navigate daily living going to manage himself enough to meet preconditions for housing? When cities ban the clearing of encampments, there’s always the inevitable furor. I understand it’s not because these homeowners, residents and businesses are evil incarnate by protesting against such ordinances. It’s because they pay taxes, and plenty of it, and they expect their cities to figure out the solutions to the open drug dealing and using, garbage, human waste and used needles, deterioration of their environment, crimes, aggression, etc. New York’s Right to Shelter mandated that there should be a bed indoors for every homeless person. It’s a stop-gap solution and it costs a tremendous amount of money, but they were able to drastically cut down the number of people living out on the streets. But the problem doesn’t go away because there are no homes. What’s the solution when cities have zoning restrictions that prevent building multi-unit buildings and higher-density constructions? Approval of multi-unit housing takes years of overcoming bureaucratic and environmental hurdles. Hearing after hearing after hearing. Battles initiated by NIMBYs are ferocious. How many proposed legislations out of Sacramento would have allowed multi-unit apartment buildings for low-income people? Dozens. Many of them died just like all the other well-intentioned ones. So how is a city in a state like that going to build supportive housing? The city councils already know what works—they see it in other states. They can see how it breaks the cycle of chronic homelessness. Is it successful for every single homeless person? No, it’s not. But the success rate is still very high. And there are many concerns by NIMBYs that are unmoored from evidence. Those who have been moved to supportive housing first, develop the desire to maintain the stability they’ve been given and become more receptive and cooperative in taking advantage of help for their addictions, mental illness, and help with job training/job search via caseworkers. They are provided with food. They are helped in applying for Medicaid so they can get medical care. They are provided with rehab and detox programs. When they get jobs, they pay nominal rent. Those who receive benefits like SSI, social security, etc also pay a portion of their benefit for rent. They are expected to keep their units clean and are expected to get along with neighbors. Their units are inspected regularly because that’s a requirement of the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit. For people who have fallen badly through the cracks, having a roof over their heads, toilets, running water, paying rent and having these expectations to meet give them back their dignity and purpose. And THAT is the humane thing to do. Every city has zoning laws, and zoning by its very definition is exclusionary. But land use in any state should not be exclusionary to the point where only the most privileged are able to take advantage. Whether we like it or not, we all have to share in this world because this is everybody’s world. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on May 26, 2021 0:29:52 GMT
I’m being honest here. I think that in many neighborhoods, if homeless people are housed there, and if there are problems, many residents will sell their homes, get what they can for them, and move. Society has not really changed all that much in many parts of the country. I would hope that it would not happen, but I believe that in many communities, it would. That could happen. But they can afford to make a choice, right? We have over half a million people living on our streets—where do we put them? There used to be one Skid Row for the longest time; now there are skid rows all over, some even in the toniest parts. Yes, I know this is an essay, but I have so much to say that it’s easier for me to just do it in one go. It is not meant as a diatribe against you or anyone else. For anyone who doesn’t want to read, just ignore me and move on. At its very core, what is the problem of homelessness? Not having a home. What’s the solution? Provide a home. The other underlying problems like substance abuse, mental illness, committing crimes (because you need money to buy drugs and alcohol), no marketable job skills, job loss, poverty, trauma, etc are too voluminous and complex to try and mitigate while the target population is homeless. Combine that with the systemic problems of gross inequality, very high costs of living and severe shortage of affordable housing in places like San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, Portland, etc and it’s no surprise this is a crisis in many cities. When you think about the staggering wealth produced by places like Cupertino, Menlo Park, Mountain View, etc, it’s impossible to reconcile that with the number of homeless just a stone’s throw away. The reason more and more people are slipping through the cracks is because the cracks keep getting bigger and bigger. That’s why permanent supportive housing has a higher rate of success because it first provides a roof over one’s head at which point the underlying problems can be addressed and alleviated. There’s only so much outreach workers and social workers can do when the very basic problem is not solved first. The failure rate in trying to change an individual’s behavior while that individual is homeless is very high. When you’re living in a tent under a highway, what you’re concerned with is survival and that no one steals your few belongings, and too often, the hopelessness and helplessness attendant upon that living condition over time make you less receptive to changing your circumstance (and I think that’s why some people say it’s become a lifestyle). It’s almost a paradox, but it’s true. You get run-down, and fast. When a homeless person is urinating or defecating or shooting up on the street, that’s hopelessness manifest, where the person has been reduced to such a degree and demoralized to such an extent that there’s no dignity left anymore. Social contracts don’t mean anything anymore. Drugs and alcohol provide the immediate escape from that grinding misery and squalor. A homeless drug addict or alcoholic isn’t concerned about rehabilitating himself or meeting sobriety requirements so he can be vetted as “housing ready.” What he’s concerned about is how and where he can get the money to support his habit. Throwing that individual in jail for stealing does nothing; the cycle just repeats itself over and over. How is a mentally ill person who cannot even navigate daily living going to manage himself enough to meet preconditions for housing? When cities ban the clearing of encampments, there’s always the inevitable furor. I understand it’s not because these homeowners, residents and businesses are evil incarnate by protesting against such ordinances. It’s because they pay taxes, and plenty of it, and they expect their cities to figure out the solutions to the open drug dealing and using, garbage, human waste and used needles, deterioration of their environment, crimes, aggression, etc. New York’s Right to Shelter mandated that there should be a bed indoors for every homeless person. It’s a stop-gap solution and it costs a tremendous amount of money, but they were able to drastically cut down the number of people living out on the streets. But the problem doesn’t go away because there are no homes. What’s the solution when cities have zoning restrictions that prevent building multi-unit buildings and higher-density constructions? Approval of multi-unit housing takes years of overcoming bureaucratic and environmental hurdles. Hearing after hearing after hearing. Battles initiated by NIMBYs are ferocious. How many proposed legislations out of Sacramento would have allowed multi-unit apartment buildings for low-income people? Dozens. Many of them died just like all the other well-intentioned ones. So how is a city in a state like that going to build supportive housing? The city councils already know what works—they see it in other states. They can see how it breaks the cycle of chronic homelessness. Is it successful for every single homeless person? No, it’s not. But the success rate is still very high. And there are many concerns by NIMBYs that are unmoored from evidence. Those who have been moved to supportive housing first, develop the desire to maintain the stability they’ve been given and become more receptive and cooperative in taking advantage of help for their addictions, mental illness, and help with job training/job search via caseworkers. They are provided with food. They are helped in applying for Medicaid so they can get medical care. They are provided with rehab and detox programs. When they get jobs, they pay nominal rent. Those who receive benefits like SSI, social security, etc also pay a portion of their benefit for rent. They are expected to keep their units clean and are expected to get along with neighbors. Their units are inspected regularly because that’s a requirement of the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit. For people who have fallen badly through the cracks, having a roof over their heads, toilets, running water, paying rent and having these expectations to meet give them back their dignity and purpose. And THAT is the humane thing to do. Every city has zoning laws, and zoning by its very definition is exclusionary. But land use in any state should not be exclusionary to the point where only the most privileged are able to take advantage. Whether we like it or not, we all have to share in this world because this is everybody’s world. I actually agree with you, and I hope that you are right. |
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on May 26, 2021 0:44:17 GMT
I’m being honest here. I think that in many neighborhoods, if homeless people are housed there, and if there are problems, many residents will sell their homes, get what they can for them, and move. Society has not really changed all that much in many parts of the country. I would hope that it would not happen, but I believe that in many communities, it would. That could happen. But they can afford to make a choice, right? We have over half a million people living on our streets—where do we put them? There used to be one Skid Row for the longest time; now there are skid rows all over, some even in the toniest parts. Yes, I know this is an essay, but I have so much to say that it’s easier for me to just do it in one go. It is not meant as a diatribe against you or anyone else. For anyone who doesn’t want to read, just ignore me and move on. At its very core, what is the problem of homelessness? Not having a home. What’s the solution? Provide a home. The other underlying problems like substance abuse, mental illness, committing crimes (because you need money to buy drugs and alcohol), no marketable job skills, job loss, poverty, trauma, etc are too voluminous and complex to try and mitigate while the target population is homeless. Combine that with the systemic problems of gross inequality, very high costs of living and severe shortage of affordable housing in places like San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, Portland, etc and it’s no surprise this is a crisis in many cities. When you think about the staggering wealth produced by places like Cupertino, Menlo Park, Mountain View, etc, it’s impossible to reconcile that with the number of homeless just a stone’s throw away. The reason more and more people are slipping through the cracks is because the cracks keep getting bigger and bigger. That’s why permanent supportive housing has a higher rate of success because it first provides a roof over one’s head at which point the underlying problems can be addressed and alleviated. There’s only so much outreach workers and social workers can do when the very basic problem is not solved first. The failure rate in trying to change an individual’s behavior while that individual is homeless is very high. When you’re living in a tent under a highway, what you’re concerned with is survival and that no one steals your few belongings, and too often, the hopelessness and helplessness attendant upon that living condition over time make you less receptive to changing your circumstance (and I think that’s why some people say it’s become a lifestyle). It’s almost a paradox, but it’s true. You get run-down, and fast. When a homeless person is urinating or defecating or shooting up on the street, that’s hopelessness manifest, where the person has been reduced to such a degree and demoralized to such an extent that there’s no dignity left anymore. Social contracts don’t mean anything anymore. Drugs and alcohol provide the immediate escape from that grinding misery and squalor. A homeless drug addict or alcoholic isn’t concerned about rehabilitating himself or meeting sobriety requirements so he can be vetted as “housing ready.” What he’s concerned about is how and where he can get the money to support his habit. Throwing that individual in jail for stealing does nothing; the cycle just repeats itself over and over. How is a mentally ill person who cannot even navigate daily living going to manage himself enough to meet preconditions for housing? When cities ban the clearing of encampments, there’s always the inevitable furor. I understand it’s not because these homeowners, residents and businesses are evil incarnate by protesting against such ordinances. It’s because they pay taxes, and plenty of it, and they expect their cities to figure out the solutions to the open drug dealing and using, garbage, human waste and used needles, deterioration of their environment, crimes, aggression, etc. New York’s Right to Shelter mandated that there should be a bed indoors for every homeless person. It’s a stop-gap solution and it costs a tremendous amount of money, but they were able to drastically cut down the number of people living out on the streets. But the problem doesn’t go away because there are no homes. What’s the solution when cities have zoning restrictions that prevent building multi-unit buildings and higher-density constructions? Approval of multi-unit housing takes years of overcoming bureaucratic and environmental hurdles. Hearing after hearing after hearing. Battles initiated by NIMBYs are ferocious. How many proposed legislations out of Sacramento would have allowed multi-unit apartment buildings for low-income people? Dozens. Many of them died just like all the other well-intentioned ones. So how is a city in a state like that going to build supportive housing? The city councils already know what works—they see it in other states. They can see how it breaks the cycle of chronic homelessness. Is it successful for every single homeless person? No, it’s not. But the success rate is still very high. And there are many concerns by NIMBYs that are unmoored from evidence. Those who have been moved to supportive housing first, develop the desire to maintain the stability they’ve been given and become more receptive and cooperative in taking advantage of help for their addictions, mental illness, and help with job training/job search via caseworkers. They are provided with food. They are helped in applying for Medicaid so they can get medical care. They are provided with rehab and detox programs. When they get jobs, they pay nominal rent. Those who receive benefits like SSI, social security, etc also pay a portion of their benefit for rent. They are expected to keep their units clean and are expected to get along with neighbors. Their units are inspected regularly because that’s a requirement of the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit. For people who have fallen badly through the cracks, having a roof over their heads, toilets, running water, paying rent and having these expectations to meet give them back their dignity and purpose. And THAT is the humane thing to do. Every city has zoning laws, and zoning by its very definition is exclusionary. But land use in any state should not be exclusionary to the point where only the most privileged are able to take advantage. Whether we like it or not, we all have to share in this world because this is everybody’s world. I completely agree. |
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on May 26, 2021 1:14:30 GMT
I don’t understand the NIMBY thing. I live in an expensive neighborhood in central Seattle (the new condos across the street are priced over $1 million), and there are unhoused people in tents on several of the retail streets here. Go across the bridge to another expensive neighborhood, and there is literally an entire public park in the heart of the retail district that is covered in tents. Nearby, on a strip of restaurants, is a street where dozens of people are living in their cars. These are right by expensive single-family homes. It is not like people who are unhoused are just living under the freeway.
Anyhow, one of my colleagues is a scholar in this area and is a housing first advocate. I do not claim to be an expert, but I did run a quasi-legal clinic at a shelter in NYC for a few years while in law school, and it is pretty clear to me why people would not choose to live in shelters, as well as that the reasons people are unhoused are really diverse. There is no one reason—and often a person will have a number of confounding reasons (I helped out a number of veterans with mental illness and substance use disorders, as well as people with criminal histories that made it hard to find housing or work). But, definitely, the approach of sweeping tents is not one that is helpful.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on May 26, 2021 1:34:14 GMT
“Every city has zoning laws, and zoning by its very definition is exclusionary. But land use in any state should not be exclusionary to the point where only the most privileged are able to take advantage. Whether we like it or not, we all have to share in this world because this is everybody’s world.”
And in many cases who’s behind the zoning laws? The NIMBY crowd.
Many, if not all, of those who vote on zoning laws in the cities and counties are elected officials. So when crowds of people show up at council meetings the council person or supervisor listens to what they have to say and could very well vote the way the masses want.
I googled “NIMBY & Zoning Laws”. Here is a sampling of the stories that popped up.
2018 “NIMBYs dominate local zoning meeting”. This was in Boston.
These are for California...
2020 - “Who are the Bay Area NIMBYs and what do they want”.
2021 - “How to convince a NIMBY to build more housing”
2018 - “ CA election outcomes prove more NIMBY than YIMBY”.
2020 - “ NIMBYs are the biggest impediment to dealing with homelessness “ LA Times.
There is no question one of the first steps to getting folks off the street permanently is putting them stable long term housing.
But the problem is and has been for years is getting past the NIMBY crowd.
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 26, 2021 14:56:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on May 26, 2021 16:03:22 GMT
Many of our homeless would be able to get help and shelter if they were willing to accept help with their mental illness. But how can we expect them to admit they need the help for their illness when they deny they have mental issues? Home first is a great idea, but only if they are given requirements to attend free counseling to help them figure out how they ended up homeless AFTER they are settled into their new home. So does this mean that sometimes someone needs to step up and be the "bad" guy and make the decision that his or her relative, friend or child needs to be involuntarily committed in order to obtain the help needed? I don't know, but I do know if I had a friend who ended up homeless I would do everything I could to help them find help to figure it all out. Most likely they would find a convenient answer that is far from the truth, so would need help in evaluating what the truth really is. I just want to say this is a huge problem. I'm a mother of adult children with mental illness. I have good insurance and a stable environment. I am trying to seek guardianship of my son. Without it, I cannot be involved in his medical care. It's very hard for me to not be allowed to help him get the care he needs. In addition, they will send him to mental health facility after each suicide attempt, but then he is released within a week's time. Not nearly enough time to make sure he is stable on the new meds. Then they are trusting him to follow up with his psychiatrist for care. Many places do not even notify the patient's current psychiatrist. Some of the facilities offer no counseling at all either. It is just like a jail cell with medication. |
|
