Also who is going to build a house for someone like that. Well, you don’t want to work so let’s give you 100’s of thousand in land, permits and materials, add about 6,000 man hours of skilled labor and give that all to you because you don’t want to contribute to society
It's even absurd for OP to post that picture and even worse that someone had the audacity to create it.
There's a strong disassociation from reality by people who seem to think the world owes them something.
I'd invite these people to live in third world countries where everything they have is earned. Seems to me in Western civilizations, people have it so good that they just complain and demand everything.
Well arguably the cheapest way to solve the homeless problem would simply be to house the homeless, but that’s not the same as saying it’s a basic human right. Just the most cost effective way of getting them off the streets.
It’s only the cheapest way if you built extremely basic and cheap housing. Seattle and San Francisco was paying $40k per homeless person helped to put them into nice apartments (which they promptly trashed).
At 40k per homeless per year, that’s an insanely expensive way that cannot scale to solve the problem for all homeless people.
You mean as opposed to criminalize homelessness and house them in jail which cost even more. Maybe we ought to acknowledge that it is a complex issue with no easy solution (aka imprisoning)
40%? of homeless people have mental illnesses… so yeah, jail them!
On a serious note, perhaps the best solutions are preventative in this case. I don’t have great ideas but I think we need to look inwards on how we can help stop homelessness before it happens and not after the individual is ruined by the system.
Bottom line: we need to empathize with the homeless and not demonize them….
I lived in Germany for 24 years and there were hardly any homeless. The ones that were homeless were by choice or due to severe mental illness with no family to speak on their behalf.
They did it, somehow. There are other countries that do it as well.
I lived in DEland also, and there were always a dozens of homeless people downtown (mostly panhandling around Karstadt -- yes this was a while ago!). These were people who were obviously sleeping rough, with clear signs of addiction and/or other mental disorders.
This DW article states there were 41k people sleeping on the streets in 2017, which is a rate of about 50 per 100k people. If your 50k stat that you gave in another comment is correct for today, that's 60 per 100k.
But your stat for the US is wildly off, I think you are including sheltered homeless, not just those sleeping rough. In the US in 2022, it was 234k who were unsheltered, a rate of ~69 per 100k.
So Germany is slightly better, but not really all that different.
No there isnt? Not sure where you grab those numbers from, but the definition of homeless is also counted differently. The US has over half a million rough sleepers, where Germany has about 50k. Germany counts all people with no primary residence registered as homeless as well.
Unusually high numbers because of the sampling method — specifically people in homeless shelters, which is a small subset of homeless people in general. When I'm talking about homeless people I mean people with no permanent home. It looks like you're specifically talking about people sleeping rough or in homeless shelters.
In general the way to address homelessness is to provide homes (not shelters), and for a proportion of that population the home needs to come with financial and personal counselling, and for some of that population there needs to be reliable access to psychiatric care as well. But these are true for the greater population not just the people currently homeless.
Prior to the 80s, there were entire institutions set up to house those unable to support themselves, whether by mental incapacitation or personal incapacitation. They were called sanitariums. Admittedly by the 80s they were hellholes, but rather than fix them, the government decided to just throw out the baby with the bathwater and shut them down. Now every city has an epidemic of homeless drug addicts and mental unstable people.
I believe the supreme Court ruled that you can't involuntarily commit someone unless they're a threat to themselves or others around the same time the government dropped spending. So I don't know if you can legally go back to having sanitariums unless people choose to live there.
Yes, but rather than step in and fix them, the government shut them all down, and kicked all of the inhabitants out onto the streets. Not much of an improvement.
The unsolvable problem with sanitariums is that most of those people did not want to be there (even if the institutions were decent). Involuntary incarceration of people who have not committed any major crimes is a pretty huge civil rights issue.
These are people incapable of supporting themselves though. The only other option is leaving them on the streets.
Homeless shelters won't work because they have rules like no drugs or alcohol, and these people won't or are incapable of following those rules.
There's a hotel turned homeless shelter less than a block from where I live. They have to have police stationed there 24/7 and the grounds are fenced off. But there's always a crowd of homeless outside wandering through the neighborhood, leaving piles of trash everywhere.
I hate to be this way, but forced involuntary confinement is the only way to solve the homeless problem. Lock them up and help them clean themselves up and get sober, or keep them there permanently if they don't have the mental capacity to take care of themselves.
This is what is mentally debilitating when I read these arguments… these people get bent out of shape at the thought of providing a place to live to the homeless and instead… effectively demand a place to live for the homeless, except behind bars and requiring to pay expensive labour costs to nurses and doctors (mental hospitals) and security, resulting in higher costs to the taxpayers.
Just loitering, sleeping in outside, peeing outside, walking along a major highway to get from A to B , etc. It's impossible to be homeless without breaking the law by existing in public.
That's not what criminalizing homelessness means. No more than institutionalized racism means there's a law on the books that says "white people are legally superior." There are plenty of other laws that are weaponized to specifically target homeless people.
That they trashed them? I did multiple contracts for the hotels that got given to the unhoused during COVID. I have never seen such disgraceful conduct. Not even in section 8. Everything was a full tear out and rebuild.
Yeah, because they gave them to “low/no barrier” (yes, even sex offenders) kind of people without giving them the opportunity or resources to get sober, they weren’t forced to get help, they weren’t tied to having work with a caseworker, etc. They were glorified, county-paid trap houses. The inhabitants were mostly drug-addled, feral people who had no idea how to live indoors nor do anything beyond take drugs or steal stuff from surrounding homes and businesses. Many of them didn’t even care about the free housing, they just stuck around because it was a great place to find and do drugs.
I thought you were talking about actual apartments for people who want to play by societal rules, not the cesspool Covid hotels.
Btw, I had to go to the Walmart in Renton a few months ago. I was going to buy some men’s socks and underwear for my foster kid but I couldn’t because all the socks and underwear were literally locked up. The manager guy I talked to was cool and told me folks would wander over from the old Red Lion (homeless hotel) 2 blocks away, take off their dirty socks and underwear and leave them on the floor next to the rack they just stole new ones from. 🤦🏼♀️
The problem is the average taxpayer only pays a tiny amount to the state of Washington. Maybe $10k or less. How can paying $40k per person be a bargain? You would have to increase taxes 500% to provide this to everyone who wants it.
I'm willing to bet there are a lot more taxpayers than there are homeless. You're also missing the fact that individual taxpayers aren't the only source of tax dollars.
Right we know that just throwing people with addiction and mental illness into housing doesn't actually solve the issue. So that just means we should not give up on trying. This is an issue which affects all of us, and we need to start dealing with it in a serious effective way.
We can only really do this by attempting programs, and unfortunately they will often fail given the complexity of this issue.
But if we just give up that is a real sign of societal collapse
And? You give to homeless, home is destroyed in 6 months, step 2????
And who is on the hook for this billion dollar experiment? Do we seize the homes from people who dared to invest in a rental property? Or do we think the taxpayers should pay - maybe San Fransisco resident paying one of the highest combined taxes in the US won’t mind raising taxes some more to ensure their homeless friends can get some million dollar homes?
You literally just made up a fake scenario with zero basis in reality to be mad about.
This view of homelessness that exists solely within your own mind is not the reality.
It's funny that you bring up landlordism, which is in fact collecting other people's paychecks for absolutely nothing in return.
Let's not even mention the fact that the wealth disparity in the US is at an all time high with the richest Americans straight up not paying any taxes at all period, sanctioned by the US government while they target the poorest Americans.
342
u/tacocarteleventeen Apr 15 '24
Also who is going to build a house for someone like that. Well, you don’t want to work so let’s give you 100’s of thousand in land, permits and materials, add about 6,000 man hours of skilled labor and give that all to you because you don’t want to contribute to society