West Coast baby

  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only thing I don’t see is how it would fix people being homeless. Many homeless are unable to be properly housed because they have mental illnesses, trauma, etc. If you put them in an apartment without extensive further help, many will get back on the street and/or destroy the apartment. You can’t solve their problems with just providing housing.

    • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      1. Shelter is critical to survival. The general rule of thumb places it as a higher priority than food or water. Arguing against people having access to reliable shelter, regardless the rational, is arguing for deliberately killing them.

      2. The “they’re defective and will destroy whatever they live. Don’t let them in!!!” is just calling them cockroaches in a different way. It’s fear mongering nonsense and there is no evidence to support that claim.

      3. You’re assuming correlation does not equal causation. It turns out being homeless, even for a relatively short period of time, is devastating to mental health and even if not the root cause (IE genetic predeposition, TBIs, etc.) it can strongly exasperate them and create some nasty co-morbidities.

      Being repeatedly assulted and or raided by police, neighborhood vigilantes and other desperate people is an extremely quick path towards PTSD/other general anxiety disorders. The aggressive de-humunization that occurs can be a potent factor in antisocial disorders. Direct health impacts like physical battery, hypo/hyperthermia, illness, etc. can cause more detect brain damage such as TBIs, etc. Schizophrenia is usually fairly treatable, schizophrenia with PTSD amplified paranoia much less so.

      • Knightfox@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d like to point out that the second item is pointless. You’re making an appeal to authority fallacy and referencing an article to support an opinion which doesn’t need the reference. The portion that needs a reference (if you’re gonna provide one) is the second part of the second point.

        Here is a link to the CAUF society in reasons why homeless people may refuse to go to shelters.

        I think that additional housing isn’t really a solution to homelessness unless you give them unmitigated access. Pretty much, “It’s free and you can do whatever you want.”

        The issue with homelessness isn’t available space, we have tons of open office space where they could stay at night. The problem is that these places have rules and restrictions (no alcohol, no pets, curfew, etc).

        For my own anecdote, there was a homeless guy who stayed by a gas station near my old apartment and I tried to check in on him from time to time and give him some money. He saved up his donations each day for a motel room and I asked him why he didn’t save his money and go to the shelter or share a room with someone else to save money? He stated that he didn’t like sharing a space with other people either in a shelter or as a roommate. The guy would rather sleep outside rather than share space.

        • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The 2nd point is poorly worded, but the point wasn’t to appeal to any authority, but rather that I understand it can be a bit of jump to understand how the rhetoric being parroted by the parsnipwitch is harmful and was trying to provide further reading on that. You are correct in that was not well communicated… my bad…

          I can not prove a lack of evidence (proof of negative) which the original commenter agrees is true: https://feddit.de/comment/3535479

          I would argue that unmitigated access is the correct way to go and that all of the reasons people experiencing homelessness refuse shelter are perfectly valid, rational, and sane reasons. If you disagree I would encourage you to spend a couple nights in an overnight shelter and get your perspective after.

          Also, thank you for helping out gas station guy. I understand that wasn’t the point of your anecdote and it might have felt pointless, but the ability to have a door that locks probably meant the world to him.

          • Knightfox@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I certainly agree with the reasons why people don’t seek help, but it should be acknowledged that they are turning away assistance which makes it difficult to help them fix their problems. Some of these reasons to turn away help are also more addressable than others. If someone is just mentally impaired (mental illness or mentally handicapped) we can’t just force them to accept help.

            The guy at the gas station was a part of my community and people knew him well. He wasn’t a typical beggar and he was super honest. He would flat out tell you, “Hey I need some money for smokes or food.” I’d rather give money to him than the 2 guys who stand at the intersection with signs everyday.

            Unmitigated access probably would be the most successful solution, but if we follow the real world logical steps we also know that that wouldn’t work either. Whether in major high density apartments or in single family houses funding for these properties has to come from somewhere, likely the government. The government is never going to pass legislation which just gives out homes to the homeless, they probably wouldn’t even do it for low income workers who might be viewed as a better investment.

            If we imagined that the government would do such a thing there are problems like maintenance costs, de facto ghettos, de facto red lining, and social discrimination. Sure, the government could address these things as well, but if we have to move to theory just to reach this point we know that’s not going to happen. At a certain point the argument just moves to, “Well ________ country does xyz,” without addressing the social and political differences from wherever that place is. To make these things possible in this way would require a completely different government and thus a completely different social disposition.

            I’m all for social change and ending homelessness, but I think it’s a waste of time pretending that the unrealistic is a solution. Saying just build and give away homes to end homelessness without the social disposition for that to happen is as naive as the right saying to just build a wall to stop illegal immigration.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        This seems to be a general issue on Lemmy that people just love to put you into a group of people to start insulting them. You are so unhinged it’s unreal.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No it is not. Tell me please where I said I was against giving people homes or that I was calling them cockroaches or similar.

            This is a typical issue on Lemmy that people are overly aggressive and want to hate and bully others for no reason whatsoever.

            I don’t know what kind of crazy that is, but you find it here a lot. It’s so extreme I start to think many here aren’t actually people but some type of enrage bot.

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The person alleged I said this:

                The “they’re defective and will destroy whatever they live. Don’t let them in!!!” is just calling them cockroaches in a different way.

                Not only did I not say this, I definitely am not calling homeless people cockroaches. The overall reaction to my post was hostile. What’s a better word to describe this behaviour on Lemmy in general? Because I see it happen quite regularly, not only to me, but others as well.

                • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The hostility wasn’t directed at you personally, it was directed at the specific brainworm of:

                  If you put them in an apartment without extensive further help, many will get back on the street and/or destroy the apartment.

                  What evidence do you have for that claim?

                  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What kind of evidence do you expect?

                    It’s impossible to give a static like “X % of former homeless let their apartment mold”. Or “X % of former homeless have trouble with hording”, “X % of former homeless end up with broken-in front doors”, etc. etc.

                    It’s not only unethical to build such a statistic, it’s also next to impossible because “former homeless” is not a countable group of people. And landlords wouldn’t even be allowed to collect that information.

                    The same goes for the number of people who choose to not go to organisations for help and don’t want to stay in the housing you offer them. These numbers can only be estimates. I can’t show you a proven number of people in this group, because it’s impossible to count these people.

                    If I tell you about my personal experiences, you will claim it doesn’t count.

                    When I tell you the reason the former step-by-step approach exists precisely because of the problems you get when you put people with severe problems into an apartment without further help, you will also claim that doesn’t count.

                    (Or that is what I assume because that’s what you wrote to another person who tried to tell you about these problems.)

                    You already have an opinion made up in your head it seems, and when people tell you what the struggles are in practicality, you build up a strawman that these people must just hate the homeless or something.

                    But these are real problems that really need to be addressed. Because otherwise you just cycle back to the beginning, where people already tried in the past to just put them under a roof in group homes and accomodations, expecting them to magically solve all their problems themselves. Then again think “let’s get them drug free / mentally healthier / out of debt first”, which also doesn’t work. And then you will be at the same point again where most countries are now.

                    The way to approach the problem is not to simply give homes to homeless people, you need a diverse range of systems in place to make it work.

                    If you don’t speak German, perhaps you can make an AI translation of this report: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/66376/ssoar-2018-steffen_et_al-Strategien_sozialraumlicher_Integration_von_Wohnungslosen.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-2018-steffen_et_al-Strategien_sozialraumlicher_Integration_von_Wohnungslosen.pdf

                    It describes, with multiple sources, what is necessary to make it work. For example with weekly visits to be able to step in when first signs of trouble with the housekeeping come up.

    • Andy@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you familiar with the “Housing first” model? It posits that even for people who need medical or living assistance, having shelter, a bed, a bathroom, a refrigerator, and a permanent address will allow them and whoever is providing support to deal with compounding factors and receive regular visits, Conversely, attempts to treat something like dementia or substance abuse on the street are next to impossible.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes I know. And all housing projects I know about pre-select the people they give a home to, often only take in those who are already in the welfare system and all these projects offer extensive additional help.

        I feel like some people deliberately interpret stuff into my post just so that they can get angry (not you but, I got some really angry messages).

        So to make it extra clear: Giving people a home is great! There definitely should be a home for everyone, it’s a human right!

        But just giving people a home will not solve the problem with homeless! Putting people with severe mental illnesses, debt, etc. simply into a home does not work.

        • Andy@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If someone’s a jerk, don’t forget that there’s a “report” button for a reason.

      • Elivey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        A big issue with different social workers and such trying to reach and help homeless people is trying to find them. If they have a fixed address, you know where they will likely be. This makes services to take them to doctor appointments, get them welfare cheques, disability service notifications etc. all become reliable.

      • Moneo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it’s fair to paint homelessness as an urban planning issue just because housing is a part of the solution to both problems.

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s multiple groups of homeless people.

      There’s the long term homeless, who often suffer from issues like mental illness, and short term homeless, who usually don’t.

      High housing prices absolutely causes people to become homeless when they lose their job, become addicted to drugs, etc.

      Being homeless is itself traumatic, and exacerbates most issues homeless people have. Affordable housing and giving homeless people an apartment aren’t a panacea, but it does prevent a ton of issues for newly homeless people.

      • Chr0nos1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know if they’re included in the groups you mentioned, but there is also a vehicle dwelling homeless as well. Last I checked, there are over 3 million Americans living full time in a vehicle, whether it be a car, a bus, a van, an RV, or another type of vehicle. Some of them, it’s by choice, but for some of them, that’s all they can afford because housing prices have skyrocketed in so many places.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          when you said…

          The only thing I don’t see is how it would fix people being homeless.

          Many homeless are unable to be properly housed because they have mental illnesses, trauma, etc.

          If you put them in an apartment without extensive further help, many will get back on the street and/or destroy the apartment.

          You can’t solve their problems with just providing housing.

          That says to me, four times, that you are against giving people homes. Could you clarify how each of those points is a positive?

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Literally none of this says: don’t give people a home. My point is giving them a home is not enough, it won’t solve the problem.

            Is this a weird English language thing? Is this a Lemmy or an internet thing? People seem to deliberately put stuff into posts that aren’t said.

            It’s even in the text you quoted from me that my opinion is just giving them housing won’t solve the problem.

            How the fuck does that say “don’t give them a home”???

            • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think the missing context is that when you write with majority negative phrasing, people assume your argument is against it.

              Consider: “You have to cover apples in sugar and put them in pastry, and then add custard to make me want to consider eating them!”

              This sounds like you hate apples, not that you like apple pie.

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I thought the situation was more like: “If you got apples you can make an apple pie”. And I was: “No, just apples make a bad pie, you also need the other ingredients”. And then people wrote: “How dare you hating apple pie!”

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          not that I don’t believe you, but the reason I asked for studies/sources is I expect to be flooded with stories about how people knows someone who knows someone who knows someone where it didn’t work once or twice (respectfully, this is what your story boils down to), and I hope you won’t be insulted if I can’t consider that a good representation of a much-maligned part of society.

            • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              the study you mentioned, but refused to link to, or quote, agrees with me and not yourself, I quote:

              a longitudinal study in London and three provincial English cities of resettlement outcomes over 18 months for 400 single homeless people. A high rate of tenancy sustain- ment was achieved: after 15/18 months, 78% were still in the original tenancy, 7% had moved to another tenancy, and 15% no longer had a tenancy. The use of temporary accommodation prior to being resettled and the duration of stay had a strong influence on tenancy sustainment. People who had been in hostels or temporary supported housing for more than 12 months immediately before being resettled, and those who had been in the last project more than six months, were more likely to have retained a tenancy than those who had had short stays and/or slept rough intermit- tently during the 12 months before resettlement. The findings are consistent with the proposition that the current policy priority in England for shorter stays in temporar y accommodation will lead to poorer resettlement outcomes, more returns to homelessness, and a net increase in expenditure on homelessness services.

                • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  you buried the “extensive further help” clause a little, and your use of “extensive” makes it sound onerous, which is why I responded assuming you were dead against it.

                  If you had said something like “While I agree housing can help, but there does need to be some support as well” - I probably would’ve taken it differently.

                  You are right that I could have been more generous in interpreting your use of the word “extensive” as negative.

      • Knightfox@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think between their argument and your own, yours is the one in more need of citation. Which is more likely, that giving a house to everyone will solve homelessness or that some people have problems beyond just being homeless? He’s not saying that it wouldn’t help some people, he’s just saying that there would still be some number of people who need help beyond this.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, there aren’t statistics about these people. Just experiences and the experiences of others who work with them.

        Many homeless people refuse to take up help like housing because they do not want to cooperate with helper organisations. And they also don’t want to get interviewed: https://idw-online.de/de/news765112

        We don’t even really know how many there are because there are no reliable statistics. How would you count them anyway?

        All housing first projects pre-select the people they give a home to. The reason is clear. They don’t have homes for everyone, so they take those which will give the best results. In Berlin, Germany they literally have to write applications for the project: https://www.berlin.de/sen/soziales/besondere-lebenssituationen/wohnungslose/wohnen/housing-first-1293115.php

        https://housingfirst.berlin/aufnahme

        And they need to already be in the welfare system!

        The same goes for Finland, which is the model country for a housing first approach. Putting people who already are in the welfare system in homes with help offers has the best results. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol22num2/ch4.pdf

        Best results means it works for about half of homeless people.

        For the other half, they need a step-by-step approach to have them able living in a home again (or for the first time in a long time). You can’t just put them in an apartment with an address for counseling and that will work out.

        Source: you can read about that in the PDF above, for example. Or any other study about the homeless which usually mentions at least the many who fall through the cracks.

        These are migrants without refugee status and people with severe drug and alcohol abuse issues or other mental illness. It won’t work to “put them out of sight out of mind”.

        Homeless people aren’t a homogeneous group of people. And while it works for some, housing first is not the solution. Because it leaves an estimated half of them behind. It also omits that there a still a lot of help going on in the background. It’s not just give them a home and that magically solves all their problems. Far from it …

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even if it has issues, housing first solves far more problems than any other solution. If you are so opposed to housing first initiatives, then propose an alternative solution that will work better.

          I’m waiting.

          You can’t.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Why do you think I am against housing first? I never said that I am against that. I said it does not solve homelessness. You need additional systems in place to solve it.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m on mobile and can’t read German, I’ll have to wait until later to run those articles through a translator to see what they’re getting at.

          But I do wonder about you saying we can only halve homelessness instantly, and the next quarter needs some help, and the next 10% needs a lot of help and after that things get more diffocult: that means it doesn’t work and isn’t worth trying at all

          Wouldn’t halving homelessness be pretty damn successful?

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Of course it is great but it won’t solve homelessness. Which is what the image suggests. And obviously it doesn’t.

            • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What’s your tolerance threshold for a solution? One source I quoted elsewhere said it would solve up to 75% of homelessness.

              People are allergic or immune to penicillin, that doesn’t mean that its not a solution to bacterial infections.

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                If someone said “Penicillin solves bacterial infections” I would also say this is not true. There are bacterial infections which can’t be cured by penicillin and some people can’t take it at all.

                  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I am not sure a vast majority success is correct if people interpret the concept literally (like in the meme).

                    Finland is the country with the best results, afaik.

                    These are the numbers of those homeless who are accounted for and got help (so missing those who are not in welfare for example and therefore the numbers are estimates): https://www.ara.fi/en-US/Materials/Homelessness_reports/Homelessness_in_Finland_2022(65349)#:~:text=At the end of 2022,a decrease of 185 people.

                    They started the housing first approach in 2007. There is a steady decline in homelessness, so I would say it’s an important part of the new solution.

                    But if you look at the organisations which allocate the housing you see they also hired hundreds of extra personal, invested heavily in the help networks, anti-drug abuse and other programs.

                    Many of the housing complexes have staff on site or they visit the scattered apartments.

                    And Finland invested additionally into prevention methods to counter people getting homeless in the first place. They changed laws and built teams and places to help people not get homeless.

                    What do you call it than? It just seems wrong in the way it was put in the meme.

    • Elivey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can’t solve all their problems with just providing housing, but it would some.

      One thing I think people fail to see often when considering programs like this is the generational effect. A program to provide people housing might be considered a failure to some people because many may still choose to do drugs, will ruin their apartment, be violent to their neighbors, etc., some honestly valid concerns. But consider the shockwave 60 years down the line, for the next generations.

      Homelessness and drug abuse are generational. Think of a person who would have been homeless who has a child. Was mentally ill and didn’t take very good of the apartment, but not enough to not raise the child. Despite this, that child now has astronomically better chances at a decent life than if they had been raised on the streets or put into foster care just because they had housing and stability

      You continue generation after generation, and though many people will be considered “failures” of programs like this, the rate of them continues to decrease because the success stories are now out of the system, out of the cycle.

      The problem is half measures, which is what we have today. Bandaid fixes that don’t get to the root of the issues homeless people deal with, keeping them in the cycle but doing… Something? So they can say look we care…

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, you need to provide additional help to keep homeless people off the street. I only have experience with homeless in Germany, though. The reasons for homelessness can be different depending on the country.