What are we going to do about the homeless?

Well, from what I remember of what President Biden said, affordable housing means multi-family homes. Specifically, Duplexes, which, if anyone doesn't know what that means, it means two identical houses joined side-to-side.

Even Archie Bunker, in the affordable age, 'lived' in a Duplex. You can see examples of those types of houses in the All in the Family closing credits:


Affordable housing is supposed to be available to everyone, poor and middle-class. But there's just not enough affordable houses out there for everyone to have one. It's due to run-a-way prices from all the new real estate investment packages that are expected to turn a profit for investors on a regular basis. It's runaway capitalism!

While I think the idea of housing people in more affordable locations has merit, I think that we should avoid putting people in what are called food deserts where there isn't a local grocery store. And medical care, don't forget medical care! Which means we can't just drive them up to some cabin in the woods, far in the wilderness, and drive off and leave them there alone to fend for themselves.

 

What plan is that?!

 

So not every residence in an area, just some? It couldn't be all residences, since that would mean no property market, and investors would take their money elsewhere. No more private rentals! And again, who gets to have the cheap place? Who decides, and on what criteria? The whole thing is freaking preposterous. Unjust, unfair, anti-equality, terrible for business, terrible for property investment (which is essential for the provision of rentals, meaning more homelessness), and just very very bad.

Affordable areas are not 'cabins in the woods'. There are plenty of suburban locations which aren't expensive, outside a handful of coastal capital cities. As for food availability, that's part of the deal. If you're not one of these greedy souls who demands cheap housing in those expensive capital cities, you accept that finding food is on you. Besides, if you're not in the inner city, you can produce enough food for a family on a quarter acre plot. The poorest people in America (and elsewhere) have always had to raise their own produce and chickens, to live without tangible income. The house is owned outright via hard work or inheritance, and the food is grown. That's the honourable way to do it.

 

I thought about that, and it did happen to me, many years ago, and I looked at how I averted homelessness, though I was technically homeless for a number of hours.

If someone is not mentally ill, one will always have resources of some kind, even if that resource is that of friends one has maintained over a life time.

It happened to me, I was without more than 4 bucks to my name, and a suitcase, homeless for about 8 hours. Friends helped me out of it.

So, if someone has no friends, something's wrong with that person, in my view. Mentally ill? I say at least a 5150 to decide the issue, and appropriate handling therefrom. I recognize some people are stupid and lack wisdom, and that shouldn't be illegal, per se, but if it results in homelessness which is a threat to a health risk to the neighborhood, I can't think of another solution other than what I expressed.

 

It takes a certain amount of initiative to even apply for free job programs, we have them in CA, under the ROP (Regional Occupation Program). However, many homeless lack initiative, for any of the reasons I mentioned prior, to even do something about it. So, the state must act, or we wind up with the current situation.

I don't see building homes for homeless is the solution, they will just ruin the homes and homes inhabited by previously homeless people will become a shooting gallery. I might see something constructive, a program for those who still have a modicum of self worth and initiative, but that is rare among homeless people as it is the reason they became homeless, they are destitute, lost souls, most of them.

No, in my view, rehab/mental institutions, with gardens and nice surroundings, not those scary things we see in movies, are the answer.

 

Well said.

 

This conversation is going to sound similar to one I had not that long ago about mass incarcerations. The solution that we agreed on to prevent crime, in this case, homelessness, was education, stable family life, environment and guidance. In a perfect world, it would work. But you have to start with education first. Then the rest will fall into place. But it's the current situation of the unfortunate that obviously needs to be addressed.
To stop a one-time offender from moving up to the next level, perhaps examples would need to be made. I suggested that those that commit capital crimes, receive capital punishment. That was for crime, how would that work for the homeless? I think prevention would be the best option for this, as many people are homeless by circumstance and not something they just decided that's the lifestyle they want. But some get comfortable by adapting to their current situations, these would be the trouble makers. But to Identify these ones, certain criteria would need to be met, such as the longevity of their circumstance. If say their situation has not improved within 12 months, their benefits can be revoked.
I still think prevention through better education would be the better option than outright punishing them for messing up their lives. It comes back onto the system, not the individual.
As for the mentally ill, that is definitely a departmental problem that needs adressing.

 

The market was openned to investors by the govt for the express purpose of making homes less affordible, not more. Thats what 'increasing the value' literally means. People go on and on about how the evils of capitalism drive wealth into the hands of the rich while they ignore the ciritically enabling role that govt plays in it as well.

You asked what we can do about the homeless... seems to me reducing the cost of housing might help at least a little. We seem intent as a society of enabling the govt to enable the investors to do precisely the opposite.

 

homelessness is a public health problem. i like the idea of requiring the homeless to accept whatever help they need, as determined by appropriate public health officials, to get off of the street.

there may be civil liberties concerns and of course money, but this has gone on long enough.

 

you were right the first time. i am serious that there needs to be a roundup and a truage into groups of addicts (send them to rehab) psychological cases ( appropriate treatment) and those who just need a hand (subsidized apartments and jobs.)

there may be civil liberties concerns with this approach but the public health concerns are paramount.

 

The government creates the problem, then offers a solution to it. Yay.

The problem with 'reducing the cost of housing' can, and likely will, demolish equity for those who purchased in the last 3 years or so. And the result will be exactly what we had going on during the housing collapse. People walking away from houses, others filing bankruptcy, banks overloaded with foreclosures. Considering the dollar has been downgraded to toilet paper as of late, the selection of people or entities to purchase the flood of houses is likely whittled down to a very limited few, one of which has the ability to print even more toilet paper to purchase the housing.

There are a number of local/state/federal buildings that sit empty for a multitude of reasons. With a bit of clean up and rehab, a number of them could be used for temporary housing, and perhaps some for permanent housing. But, once again, homeless people cannot be forced into it, they must do it voluntarily.

The company I work for has hired a number of 'homeless' people, and part of the issue is usually they don't have a fixed mailing address, some lack ID or proof of citizenship. A number of groups have been helping in our area with the homeless to get ID's, birth records, and even 'permanent' mailing addresses.

Leaving the problem in the hands of the government is not always the best avenue.

 

An addict has to want to quit. Forcing them into rehab doesn't do diddly squat.

 

then we leave them on the street? or maybe find innovative incentives to make them want to quit?

 

Too late to head it off at the pass. Every housing bubble that bursts creates more, and we're about to have another big one. This has been building for years. Thank you Wall Street.

 

Incentives could be a possibility. I have no idea which one's though.

 

me either, it seems that some very smart people are studying addiction (not all are seeking a cure) and the choices always come down to a carrot or a stick.

 

Based in part on some of the other ideas I've read in this thread, I think there is justification to create a 'ward of the state' status for some of these people, so long as that status is voluntary -no snatching of people and hauling them off without their consent unless their danger is established via due process!

This 'ward of the state' status would come with an entitlement to a quality of taxpayer provided housing, food, healthcare(+mental), security, entertainment and amenities and perhaps most critically- access to drugs. This would first require a substantial easing of current drug laws and an effective end (or maybe we could call it a dramatic shift in strategy away from enforcement and toward encentivization) to 'the war on drugs.' This 'ward of the state' status would also come with a reduction in civil liberties (why it must be consented to), such as random inspections, constant surveillance, mandated health(+mental) monitoring, mandated attendence (not participation- thats slavery) to work and/or education programs, etc. There would need to be a multitude of avenues to leave this program as well, set upon objective benchmarks such as sobriety and gainful employment, to avoid the danger of the program becoming monopolized for general control of the population.

Its likely the 'access to drugs' part would be encentivization enough on its own to guarantee the desired level of participation. Its also possible that over time, mere legalization would negate the need for this program at all...

It should also be noted that this program is very likely to, at least in part, become a sort of 'voluntary submission to hospice' as most certainly some of those who consent to it will do so for the purposes of existing in a permanent drug-induced stupor until they die...

 

have there ever been homeless mass shooters? or serial killers? i can't think of any. their crimes are probably mostly shoplifting and other petty theft.

 

Have you not seen what has happened in Sti Lanka? Riots in the streets caused by food shortages directly resulting from the left's flirtation with "sustainable agriculture". You can bet the bank that the minute the high mukie-muks hang the word sustainable in front of anything it becomes a synonym for rolling disaster. Everything the left does carries with it unintended, at least I'd like to think they're unintended, consequences. For Instance the unintended consequences of rent control is a shortage of affordable housing. The consequence of the housing crunch is that there is no place to send EBT cards and the consequence of that is food insecurity among the homeless, which results in mass theft of food, the failure to incarcerate the criminal element puts a drain on grocery stores and makes food scarce for everyone. And of course the California response to food shortages is to limit availability of water and fertilizer to farmers.

 

I agree with this. Most of these people will never get better without intervention. And that intervention is going to need to entail custody in most cases if it is to be effective.

 

Mass shooters- probably, though likely of the 'gang shooting' variety that don't make the news. Probably not of the 'school assault' variety that dominate the narrative. Certainly there have been homeless serial killers. Most notably Richard Ramirez, the LA 'Night Stalker', although its somewhat debated whether he was legitimately a 'serial' killer since his victims were primarily targets of opportunity and/or random. He may have technically just been a mass murderer (and theif, rapist, child molester, etc). But his domestic status is most commonly referred to as 'nomadic', in his case, a mix of couch surfing and squatting.

 

Bold by me.

And who will be funding the liability insurance for those that OD or do other bodily harm to themselves or others with State supplied drugs?

And that's just for starters....

 

The consent to the program would presumably need to include a signed waiver of certain liabilities.

 

Most people who are homeless are destitute, mentally ill and destitute/mentally ill and are addicts or alcoholics or both. I don't see them improving their lot, because to do that, takes initiative, a quality they lack which led to their situation in the first place. You might find a few that have enough initiative to get out of their situation if given a chance, but those are nowhere near as common as the destitute who mostly fill those ranks.

 

More mental health services; more substance abuse services; more shelters; more roving packs of rabid dogs. IDK.