Putting them in prison would also work, for certain values of "work". My understanding is that we (the social "we") aren't looking for policies that just "work", but for policies that will improve the situation for everyone involved, which is a much more difficult task. Which is the higher priority, the welfare of the "homeless", or the welfare of Everybody Else?
I agree that what we term "the homeless problem" here in the US, and in particular the west coast, has two discrete negatively affected populations: the homeless, themselves, and everyone else. To date, in my city, much attention, almost all, is spent in alleviating the mostly self-inflicted problems of the homeless, and any relief from the threat and stress from the possibility of having to interact with the homeless, who are unpredictable and non-conforming to social norms, is treated as a secondary goal hardly worthy of mention.
I suggest that the general society reverse this priority. One observation I'd make is that the vast bulk of the visible homeless seem to be a) dysfunctional; and b) without permanent shelter. A way to deal with this is to enforce the necessity of attempting to be more functional, by institutionalizing them as in poor farms, if necessary, and this alone would take many off the streets.
Homelessness is exploding not declining. People need permanent shelter not temporary tent encampments or missions. Some studies have indicated it would cost around $20 billion to provide all homeless American citizens basic shelter. There are millions of homeless in the U.S. not hundreds of thousands as people living their vehicles or couch surfing are also homeless and one step from being on the street. We shouldn’t have any homeless whatsoever in the U.S: or any other wealthy country.
Superb piece. We can have a win-win if we slow down and realize that leaving someone on the side of the road howling at the moon on meth is NOT compassion, and true compassion for those homeless and addicted is 100% compatible with ensuring the public is also safe and healthy. In addition, the lion's share of people who experience homelessness 1) will only experience that temporarily; most will find housing 2) the minority who are addicted and mentally ill and need much more than permanent housing to stay housed. I know many who scored a beautiful subsidized apt. but couldn't keep it because they needed wrap-around care much more than simply a place of their own.
The Homeless Industrial Complex is the problem not the solution.
We should build clean, safe shelters for anyone without a home.
We should require every truly homeless person to use these shelters. Failure is criminal vagrancy and should be strictly enforced.
We should require mandatory facilities for the mentally disturbed homeless
We should require mandatory drug treatment for junkies and alcoholic homelesss
We should strictly enforce laws on theft and shoplifting, imprisoning any homeless who are routine predators
We should revise building codes and prohibit NIMBYism to make housing more affordable (mobile homes and old trailers are a tiny fraction of the cost of new housing in California)
Not every city or county will do all these things. Some will. They will be the ones without vagrants sleeping and pooping in the sidewalks. Those choosing NOT to follow these rules should be prepared to have their cities destroyed. Their choice. Or more accurately as a voter… your choice! Choose wisely.
Putting them in prison would also work, for certain values of "work". My understanding is that we (the social "we") aren't looking for policies that just "work", but for policies that will improve the situation for everyone involved, which is a much more difficult task. Which is the higher priority, the welfare of the "homeless", or the welfare of Everybody Else?
ToA, FST
I agree that what we term "the homeless problem" here in the US, and in particular the west coast, has two discrete negatively affected populations: the homeless, themselves, and everyone else. To date, in my city, much attention, almost all, is spent in alleviating the mostly self-inflicted problems of the homeless, and any relief from the threat and stress from the possibility of having to interact with the homeless, who are unpredictable and non-conforming to social norms, is treated as a secondary goal hardly worthy of mention.
I suggest that the general society reverse this priority. One observation I'd make is that the vast bulk of the visible homeless seem to be a) dysfunctional; and b) without permanent shelter. A way to deal with this is to enforce the necessity of attempting to be more functional, by institutionalizing them as in poor farms, if necessary, and this alone would take many off the streets.
This won't happen though.
Homelessness is exploding not declining. People need permanent shelter not temporary tent encampments or missions. Some studies have indicated it would cost around $20 billion to provide all homeless American citizens basic shelter. There are millions of homeless in the U.S. not hundreds of thousands as people living their vehicles or couch surfing are also homeless and one step from being on the street. We shouldn’t have any homeless whatsoever in the U.S: or any other wealthy country.
.. HOMELESS IS NOT A ISSUE .. IT IS A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS ..
Superb piece. We can have a win-win if we slow down and realize that leaving someone on the side of the road howling at the moon on meth is NOT compassion, and true compassion for those homeless and addicted is 100% compatible with ensuring the public is also safe and healthy. In addition, the lion's share of people who experience homelessness 1) will only experience that temporarily; most will find housing 2) the minority who are addicted and mentally ill and need much more than permanent housing to stay housed. I know many who scored a beautiful subsidized apt. but couldn't keep it because they needed wrap-around care much more than simply a place of their own.
The Homeless Industrial Complex is the problem not the solution.
We should build clean, safe shelters for anyone without a home.
We should require every truly homeless person to use these shelters. Failure is criminal vagrancy and should be strictly enforced.
We should require mandatory facilities for the mentally disturbed homeless
We should require mandatory drug treatment for junkies and alcoholic homelesss
We should strictly enforce laws on theft and shoplifting, imprisoning any homeless who are routine predators
We should revise building codes and prohibit NIMBYism to make housing more affordable (mobile homes and old trailers are a tiny fraction of the cost of new housing in California)
Not every city or county will do all these things. Some will. They will be the ones without vagrants sleeping and pooping in the sidewalks. Those choosing NOT to follow these rules should be prepared to have their cities destroyed. Their choice. Or more accurately as a voter… your choice! Choose wisely.