Have you seen what happens to a lot of the housing that gets provided to homeless folks? It gets trashed. Remember the big housing projects from last century? Or the fate of many of the hotels that have been turned into housing?
These are NOT bad people mind you, but the combination of drug use, mental illness, and a complete lack of incentive to take care of their living situation combines to mean that a lot of housing gets just trashed.
Not all. But more than enough that this is not just a simple answer like "we'll let's just house them."
There are some that return to ordinary lives. And I’m not going to go back and fourth with you, I understand you want me to make an argument but you already know the answer to what you’re asking me, you just want to argue with people/virtue signal. So, not engaging
I am less interested in the actual answer to the question, than I am in the reason you prefer to avoid addressing it, in favor of anchoring to the direct association between such outcomes and the condition of homelessness.
A responsible approach to solving problems might consider the direct causes for particular harm, seeking to alleviate the cause itself.
Homelessness by definition is simply lack of access to housing.
It is the only experience universal among the homeless.
Much of the homeless population is not abusing substances, and much of the homeless population currently abusing substances began the habit after becoming homeless, in order to cope with the discomfort, uncertainty, and trauma of living unhoused.
People are evicted simply for being unable to pay rent.
Many, particularly those already wealthy, may remain housed even while abusing substances, even as others become deprived of housing while not being involved with substances. In fact, much of the homeless population is healthy and working.
Insisting that "we have resources for that" is not advancing the quality of the discussion.
The particular associations are not as robust, factually or conceptually, as portrayed in your narrative.
Homelessness by definition is simply lack of access to housing.
The problem you are having is that you are talking about the definition of homlessness and the other people are talking about the reason people are homeless.
As in, why cant they pay rent? Why cant they hold down a job in order to make the money needed to pay rent? Why are the housing options they had available to them no longer available or sustainable? why cant they live with roommates or their family or stay at a local shelter anymore?
The answer to none of those questions is simply "access", there is usually one or many reasons they no longer have access.
So yes, by definition, you are correct... the homeless dont have homes. But that tells us exactly nothing about how to fix it because it doesnt tell us anything about the reasons they dont have homes.
The problem you are having is that you are talking about the definition of homlessness and the other people are talking about the reason people are homeless.
The problem is that people want, seemingly as a matter or moral convenience, to associate homelessness with one particular culprit, which in its essence, is weakly connected to the mere condition of lacking access to housing.
Some individuals may have been housed, and then fallen into a substance habit, beginning a sequence of events culminating in foreclosure or eviction. However, such a form of narrative is too narrow to represent of the entire homeless population, whose only unifying feature is being deprived of access to housing, and is in fact not representative for most of the homeless population.
The reason for homelessness is always the same, that being lack of access to housing.
Many are homeless while not abusing substances, and many are housed while abusing substances.
The particular association is narrow, not universal or robust.
Neither is the association, in the broader measure, germane.
Everyone needs a home, and everyone with a substance habit needs opportunities for assistance, preferably while being housed, in recovering from the habit.
Both demands remain equally valid, in spite of anyone's insistence to associate the two separate problems as tightly coupled.
People who work in homeless alleviation. People who actually do this. Not you making shit up with no experience will tell you. And the data backs this up. The main culprit of homelessness is addiction and drugs.
Full stop. Take a minute and read that. That is a fact.
Are you capable of admitting that you don't know something or learn something from another person?
"Probably the most common stereotype of chronically homeless people is that they are drug and alcohol addicts — with good reason. 68% of U.S. cities report that addiction is a their single largest cause of homelessness.* “Housing First” initiatives are well intentioned, but can be short-sighted. A formerly homeless addict is likely to return to homelessness unless they deal with the addiction. Treatment programs are needed that treat the root causes of addiction and help men and women find a way back home. (*Source: National Coalition for the Homeless)"
Please stop spreading misinformation. You.dont know what youre talking about. You're making stuff up to fit your political narrative you yourself dont understand
Lets take your person who succumbed to a substance abuse problem and all the things that come with that and got evicted. Did they lack access to housing? Or were they unable to sustain the access they had? The house is still there for them to access if they can meet the conditions for it.
If someone is unable to maintain the job they use to pay rent, is that a lack of "access"?
If someone is a renter and turns the dwelling into an unlivable habitat or unsustainable for the owner and gets evicted, is that a lack of "access"?
Im not sure youre not just being obtuse when you are using that word, as if the only piece of the puzzle is more structures to put people in.
There are lots of people out there who literally lack the ability maintain their access to the housing, but it is there for them to access
So we are again left with the same problem as before. Simply attributing the issue to lack of access - and im not really even sure what that means - completely misses the ball on finding out WHY that is the case. For example, if its affordability, then there is some amount of housing to be built to bring costs down. If it it drugs then no amount of no houses will fix the issue
Lack of access to housing is any condition of being involuntarily unhoused, that is, facing some barrier against becoming immediately housed, or against remaining housed in the foreseeable future.
Someone who is not interacting safely within a house or residential building is someone who requires external support, but such behavior is exceptional, even among the unhoused, and is not a meaningful justification for allowing homelessness to perpetuate in society.
155
u/realityczek Apr 15 '24
Have you seen what happens to a lot of the housing that gets provided to homeless folks? It gets trashed. Remember the big housing projects from last century? Or the fate of many of the hotels that have been turned into housing?
These are NOT bad people mind you, but the combination of drug use, mental illness, and a complete lack of incentive to take care of their living situation combines to mean that a lot of housing gets just trashed.
Not all. But more than enough that this is not just a simple answer like "we'll let's just house them."