KALIFORNIA ..... OFICIALMENTE DONE!!!!

[Mr Doof]

The only way to get them into housing is press gangs. Most like being on the streets. When they are in housing, they often destroy it and turn the local neighborhood into a warzone and/or red light district.

A mandatory treatment program might work. I also like what @JSC described - a quick judicial process for dealers followed by hangings. We can copy the weight/drop chart from Singapore's hangman.

Sure, involuntary containment is the authoritarian side of this free housing free drugs things, no wandering around while high/low.

Those wanting to get better have a different path.

Why treat dealers differently than the manufactures....the knowledge part seems more like a point of focus to me.

 

[waxhead]

I am tempted to illustrate absurd examples of how a homeless person decides they want to live in Seacliff in SF but I don't need to go that far to show the fallacy of this approach. Let's a take an addict who decides he wants to live in Daly City, a much less expensive suburb of SF. A house there is about 1 mil on average.

Now you take a young couple who both work, have a small child and they make 250k together. They are barely going to be able to afford that home but this outfit is going to give it to a drug addict who neither works or has any intention of getting clean? Or maybe your only going to spring for a 700k condo or apt? That will make the owners who actually paid for their condo stoked over the diversity their new neighbors have brought to the community.

How about you offer treatment to folks to get clean while they stay in a protected area with modest temporary housing until they can be employed? And if they fail to do that you fly them over the pacific and drop them on an uninhabited island? Because that makes as much sense as giving free housing of their choice to addicts while Joe public has to bust his ass for the same thing.

People need to feel there is at least a chance of equity to buy into a society. There should be a safety net, but it should not encourage or reward bad choices IMO. But I'm in charge of nothing, so the government will continue to feed the homeless industry so they can claim to be solving the problem, while the taxpayers foot the bill and gain almost nothing for their efforts.

Billions are spent the wrong way.

Giving them rooms or putting them in hotels without any structure or support, is not what I meant.

Housing First is More than a Buzzword | Pathways to Housing PA

In systems of care for people who experiencing homelessness, Housing First has achieved buzzword status. More and more housing organizations are adopting the term to describe their work towards ending homelessness. And most of these organizations don’t understand that Housing First is the name...

pathwaystohousingpa.org

• Housing First employs a scattered site model, which means that participants are in homes of their choosing across the region or city they’re in, rather than all together in one building. Those that experience chronic homelessness are often without autonomy and choice for years or even decades; restoring that self-determination is a key principle of Housing First. Choice does not end with the decision of where to live; it continues into every aspect of the participant’s life. Case managers offer support and encouragement, but Housing First participants have complete autonomy over how they want to live their lives.
• Housing First is does not require treatment or abstinence. The third Housing First principle is a recovery orientation, which refers to the employment of harm reduction principles as a means of promoting individualized wellness in the program design.
  
  Essentially, harm reduction is the pragmatic acceptance that substance use and mental illness are a part of some people’s lives. Rather than ignoring or condemning, case managers work with a participant to reduce the harm they could potentially do to themselves and others. Recovery does not always translate to abstinence or medication, and is different for everyone. Housing First promotes recovery in all of its various forms, without requirements.

 

[Mr Doof]

I am tempted to illustrate absurd examples of how a homeless person decides they want to live in Seacliff in SF but I don't need to go that far to show the fallacy of this approach. Let's a take an addict who decides he wants to live in Daly City, a much less expensive suburb of SF. A house there is about 1 mil on average.

I live close to that border.

Now you take a young couple who both work, have a small child and they make 250k together. They are barely going to be able to afford that home...

You're describing me and my spouse, sans small child and the $250K/yr.

.... but this outfit is going to give it to a drug addict who neither works or has any intention of getting clean? Or maybe your only going to spring for a 700k condo or apt? That will make the owners who actually paid for their condo stoked over the diversity their new neighbors have brought to the community.

In my dystopian regime, the free housing free drug shipping containers as housing thing are not located in such places.

How about you offer treatment to folks to get clean while they stay in a protected area with modest temporary housing until they can be employed?

Of course this is part of the plan. Hand out for those who want it and make an effort.

And if they fail to do that you fly them over the pacific and drop them on an uninhabited island? Because that makes as much sense as giving free housing of their choice to addicts while Joe public has to bust his ass for the same thing.

No, you give those as much food and drugs as they want with the understanding they can't leave while high/low. Think along lines of Club Fed.

People need to feel there is at least a chance of equity to buy into a society. There should be a safety net, but it should not encourage or reward bad choices IMO.

Agreed. By the way, I don't think unlimited food and drugs is a reward. Sounds like a deadly trap.

But I'm in charge of nothing, so the government will continue to feed the homeless industry so they can claim to be solving the problem, while the taxpayers foot the bill and gain almost nothing for their efforts.

Yeah, same here, but...

 

[waxhead]

Doof for mayor! Turtle could be your chief of staff.

I live close to that border.



You're describing me and my spouse, sans small child and the $250K/yr.



In my dystopian regime, the free housing free drug shipping containers as housing thing are not located in such places.



Of course this is part of the plan. Hand out for those who want it and make an effort.



No, you give those as much food and drugs as they want with the understanding they can't leave while high/low. Think along lines of Club Fed.



Agreed. By the way, I don't think unlimited food and drugs is a reward. Sounds like a deadly trap.



Yeah, same here, but...

 

[plasticbertrand]

Now you take a young couple who both work, have a small child and they make 250k together. They are barely going to be able to afford that home but this outfit is going to give it to a drug addict who neither works or has any intention of getting clean? Or maybe your only going to spring for a 700k condo or apt? That will make the owners who actually paid for their condo stoked over the diversity their new neighbors have brought to the community.

How about you offer treatment to folks to get clean while they stay in a protected area with modest temporary housing until they can be employed? And if they fail to do that you fly them over the pacific and drop them on an uninhabited island? Because that makes as much sense as giving free housing of their choice to addicts while Joe public has to bust his ass for the same thing.

People need to feel there is at least a chance of equity to buy into a society. There should be a safety net, but it should not encourage or reward bad choices IMO. But I'm in charge of nothing, so the government will continue to feed the homeless industry so they can claim to be solving the problem, while the taxpayers foot the bill and gain almost nothing for their efforts.

That's why I said in the very first post in this thread that this problem will not get solved in the US.

People pretend they want to solve the problem but nobody wants to pay or have these people near them.

The real solution is counterintuitive.
If you really want to solve it, Housing First is proven to work. The problem is that you can't go "why should I pay for it" or "I worked for my house why should someone get it for free".


What you're suggesting has been tried for decades.
Telling people to get clean first, while in some kind of temporary shelter, simply doesn't work.

I supplied a really nice article and a research paper about Housing First but nobody listens to Turtle.

 

[plasticbertrand]

Housing First is the policy in CA. lol.

It's been a disaster. One of the issues - residents are more likely to OD

And then you have rsidents trying to get sober living ariund a bunch of people who are using

Something like 9/10 homeless refuse to even participate.

That's not Housing First.

Housing First employs a scattered site model, which means that participants are in homes of their choosing across the region or city they’re in, rather than all together in one building.

You like to tell us what doesn't work (nothing works) but you are not offering anything. Just vague hyperbole to explain why nothing works.
Like "a lot of homeless...".

I posted the results of an actual research.

A bunch of countries used it successfully.

 

[PJ]

The only way to get them into housing is press gangs. Most like being on the streets. When they are in housing, they often destroy it and turn the local neighborhood into a warzone and/or red light district.

A mandatory treatment program might work. I also like what @JSC described - a quick judicial process for dealers followed by hangings. We can copy the weight/drop chart from Singapore's hangman.

If you ask the Internet will provide - here's a link to the British system which it says is still in use in Singapore and even a US Military Hanging and other execution handbook!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Table_of_Drops

 

[waxhead]

That's why I said in the very first post in this thread that this problem will not get solved in the US.

I agree.

People pretend they want to solve the problem but nobody wants to pay or have these people near them.

True. But we are paying.

The real solution is counterintuitive.
If you really want to solve it, Housing First is proven to work. The problem is that you can't go "why should I pay for it" or "I worked for my house why should someone get it for free".

Why would people work for something that can be had for free? Why should some folks get for free what others have to work for? Equity.......

What you're suggesting has been tried for decades.
Telling people to get clean first, while in some kind of temporary shelter, simply doesn't work.

I'm not suggesting anything. But I don't think giving people housing is going to work. I don't think housing is a human right, which this organization does. You don't have the right to someone else's labor and materials. Hell, we even have to pay for water, which I believe is a human right, but we are going to give away houses?

I supplied a really nice article and a research paper about Housing First but nobody listens to Turtle.

I actually did look at their website. I saw lots of folks with degrees likely making a good salary for themselves. Their mission is something I don't believe in.

 

[hammies]

We're talking about the visible homeless here - the ones living in camps in riverbeds or along the freeway, sleeping in doorways, panhandling, pissing on themselves, yelling at the sky, and so on. Overwhelmingly, they have severe mental health and/or substance abuse issues. IMO only a small percentage of the visible homeless would benefit from any voluntary program such as rehab, mental health, housing that comes with any rules whatsoever, etc. Most are resistant to help and have been that way for a long time.

The only way we can really solve these peoples' problems is to deprive them of their civil rights at some level.

 

[casa_mugrienta]

That's not Housing First.

False.

The policy in CA is Housing First - as dictated by SB 1380.

San Fransicko Chronicle did series on it, and how it has been a total disaster.

This is why it's a waste of time engaging with you - you're either stupid, naive, or willfully dishonest.

 

[plasticbertrand]

I actually did look at their website. I saw lots of folks with degrees likely making a good salary for themselves. Their mission is something I don't believe in.

It's not about beleif, it's about what works.

You may be annoyed by them making a good salary and homeless getting something for free but vindictiveness will not solve the homeless problem.

Like I said, it's counterintuitive.
People just can't get over the whole "why should I pay..." and "why should they get free stuff".
You have to be pragmatic about it, instead of emotional.
That's why we have a problem.

We've been telling homeless to pull themselves by the bootsraps for how long now?
Zero result.

 

[plasticbertrand]

The policy in CA is Housing First.

San Fransicko Chronicle did series on it, and how it has been a total disaster.

This is why it's a waste of time engaging with you - you're either stupid, naive, or willfully dishonest.

What you said about people ODing and using around other people who are trying to sober is absolute bullshit. That's not Housing First.
I even quoted the definition of HF for you.

Scattered housing is the first principle of HF.

All you did this entire thread is shoot down every solution while offering nothing.
So yeah, stupid or dishonest?

 

[casa_mugrienta]

What you said about people ODing and using around other people who are trying to sober is absolute bullshit.

You are lying, again.

The stats out of CA show a higher rate of ODs among people in Housing First sites.

That's not Housing First.

It absolutely is.

Housing First = scattered sites and "congregate" sites.

 

[grapedrink]

That's why I said in the very first post in this thread that this problem will not get solved in the US.

People pretend they want to solve the problem but nobody wants to pay or have these people near them.

The real solution is counterintuitive.
If you really want to solve it, Housing First is proven to work. The problem is that you can't go "why should I pay for it" or "I worked for my house why should someone get it for free".


What you're suggesting has been tried for decades.
Telling people to get clean first, while in some kind of temporary shelter, simply doesn't work.

I supplied a really nice article and a research paper about Housing First but nobody listens to Turtle.

You conveniently ignored the key theme of waxheads post. Who gets to be homeless in Santa Barbara or SF vs Bakersfield? If someone doesn’t want to the free “housing first” in a certain place, are they entitled to it in their favorite city that the rest of us have to bust out asses to afford, and often can’t because prices are so high?

 

[waxhead]

You wrote that it won't be solved and I agree. I don't agree that this type of program will work. People shouldn't get over the whole "why should I pay..." and "why should they get free stuff" Equity baby! You work you eat, you don't F off. You unable because of mental illness or disability, ok we as a society are there to help. You want to sit around and take drugs, F you.

When I see a young person sitting at an intersection with a sign, I think "I'm 65 and I'm driving around town and working, but you want me to give you some of the money I'm earning so you can avoid doing what all working folks are doing?" It's a no for me dog. I've seen toddlers in Guatemala who are missing limbs holding those signs. I want to tell these 30 something losers that they are amatuer beggers compared to those truly in need.

Old heartless boomer, out!

It's not about beleif, it's about what works.

You may be annoyed by them making a good salary and homeless getting something for free but vindictiveness will not solve the homeless problem.

Like I said, it's counterintuitive.
People just can't get over the whole "why should I pay..." and "why should they get free stuff".
You have to be pragmatic about it, instead of emotional.
That's why we have a problem.

We've been telling homeless to pull themselves by the bootsraps for how long now?
Zero result.

 

[EastCoastBrah]

I remember watching a vanlife youtube showing what they have in their van. and they had a shovel and said "sometimes you just cant find a bathroom"

and it got me thinking - are there just a bunch of holes with human feces all over the roads van lifers frequent?

 

[$kully]

Mass housing homeless people in shelters, where they can continue to live in the similar environment doesn't work. It's been tried.

I have a feeling that quite a few people would disagree about making it illegal to spend a night on the street. That would definitely be an unnecessary way to feed the prison industrial complex. And BTW that's been tried too.

I have to say that the tiny home villages that they built in my old area seemed to be working. I haven't been that way in a bit, but the past few times I've been there I didn't see any encampments in the old spot. No unsavory people hanging around the neighborhood and in passing the villages seemed to be clean and well kept. It's hard to say in passing how full the village is. But things seem to be a lot better in the immediate surrounding area which was problematic before it opened up. I know there was some controversy over the cost of these tiny homes but I do think solutions like this along with proper mental healthcare and drug treatment along with job placement can make a big difference. Also there should be more programs and tax incentives for large corporations to hire convicted felons. The best way to get people back on their feet and off the dole is to give help them get jobs and give them a sense of purpose. Our current system is designed to make employment of felons damn near impossible which only increases the odds that they'll fall back into their old ways.

 

[casa_mugrienta]

Also there should be more programs and tax incentives for large corporations to hire convicted felons. The best way to get people back on their feet and off the dole is to give help them get jobs and give them a sense of purpose. Our current system is designed to make employment of felons damn near impossible which only increases the odds that they'll fall back into their old ways.

Agree.

 

[000]

oh i am sure theres a new law being drafted that doubles property taxes and mandates every home house at least one homeless person free

 

[plasticbertrand]

False.

The policy in CA is Housing First - as dictated by SB 1380.

San Fransicko Chronicle did series on it, and how it has been a total disaster.

This is why it's a waste of time engaging with you - you're either stupid, naive, or willfully dishonest.

What you described as a problem is not housing first.

You described addicts living together.

That's not Housing First.

I provided quotes for you twice and you ignored them. I will go with stupid and dishonest.