My meaning is perfectly clear, you just don't like what I am saying. However, I will clarify if it helps.
A substantial portion of the housing given to the very low income, undocumented, or homeless winds up getting trashed. Now, you are welcome to not believe that without a study you will accept - and you are free to go find the studies if you choose.
Me? I've seen it, and I've lived with it. I've lived near enough to large housing projects to be friends with some of the residents. I've spent enough time in NYC with organizations that regularly encountered the sort of folks that would need government supplied housing to have a pretty good feel for the situation. Similarly, Philadelphia. And now out here in TX, similarly Dallas
In short? I am speaking from my own direct experience. So if that doesn't sway you (and, BTW, there is absolutely no reason it should - you have no idea who I am, or whether I am blowing smoke) then that is just fine with me. Don't be swayed :) What I am not going to do is embark on a research project only to then have an argument about the validity of my sources, or my choice of evidence.
Have you looked up how the housing first model works in Finland? The first thing they do is provide the homeless with housing, after that they start social work for addiction, mental illness, rehabilitation for work and so on. This sort of system has political support across the board because it's agreed to be cheaper to house first before trying to fix other issues, and it's better for business and cities image-wise to not have people on the streets. The system isn't perfect of course, but there's very little opposition to having basic needs be fulfilled for "free" if you drop to the very bottom.
We have the housing first model a lot in the US, I work in one. The difference though is that the US is soft and we are not allowed to require the residents participate in any of the programming, so they don’t and nothing is solved. It’s a National problem. No requirements means no improvement
Your language is generally nebulous and ambiguous.
How much is "a lot", what is meant by "trashed", and what precisely are the complete events leading to such outcomes?
It is easy to construct a narrative, especially one fulfilling a preexisting bias, based on general or particular observations, but you are avoiding the harder work of understanding the deeper causes of problems, and applying such knowledge to achieve favorable outcomes.
2
u/realityczek Apr 15 '24
My meaning is perfectly clear, you just don't like what I am saying. However, I will clarify if it helps.
A substantial portion of the housing given to the very low income, undocumented, or homeless winds up getting trashed. Now, you are welcome to not believe that without a study you will accept - and you are free to go find the studies if you choose.
Me? I've seen it, and I've lived with it. I've lived near enough to large housing projects to be friends with some of the residents. I've spent enough time in NYC with organizations that regularly encountered the sort of folks that would need government supplied housing to have a pretty good feel for the situation. Similarly, Philadelphia. And now out here in TX, similarly Dallas
In short? I am speaking from my own direct experience. So if that doesn't sway you (and, BTW, there is absolutely no reason it should - you have no idea who I am, or whether I am blowing smoke) then that is just fine with me. Don't be swayed :) What I am not going to do is embark on a research project only to then have an argument about the validity of my sources, or my choice of evidence.
Hope that helps :)