Hacker News Reader

Comment by tonymet | Hacker News Reader

Let's say those people on the street moved into the luxury apartment. What do you think the outcome would be? would they suddenly get their life together?

View on HN

1) Many times, yes. If we want to analyze things logically, oftentimes people just need a safe place to stay so that things are stolen from them/they can avoid drugs/they can tell an employer that they live somewhere in order to have a more stable life.

2) Even if they don't suddenly get their life together, that is looking at things too logically in my opinion. In my opinion, it is the moral thing to help out the needy, and that means providing housing. America's big enough to do it.

> 1) Many times, yes. If we want to analyze things logically, oftentimes people just need a safe place to stay so that things are stolen from them/they can avoid drugs/they can tell an employer that they live somewhere in order to have a more stable life.

This ignores the obvious - that people who have start off with a safe place to stay end up on drugs and homeless.

When I consider what I have observed about trauma - I do basically agree that a safe place is part of the solution, but you are also looking at half a decade or more of support and recovery time in addition.

Did you miss the part where the op said those who suggest simple solutions are lying/wrong?

For simplicity sake, my ideal[1] is:

1. Give all the help possible to these people to get them back into being productive members of society. Those that stay, see next step.

2. Offer a relocation program to live, free, out in the woods. This assumes there are some people who don't want to "work", they don't see value in modern society. I think that's valid, but they can't leech off of society either.

3. Finally those that refuse to live "free", and yet still stay in crime and disease filled pools.. well, i don't trust that they are healthy, capable individuals. They need forced mental health treatment and hopeful rehabilitation, because not only is that not a healthy state of being but it's also not a cost society deserves to pay, imo.

Step 3 scares the hell out of me. So i don't like it, to be clear, because it's not really that different than incarceration. However, keep in mind this is my "ideal", and before forced rehabilitation there is very very significant help and options. #1 includes job programs, housing, food, etcetc - very heavy government program. #2 includes alternate lifestyles, allowing people to break free from the confines of modern society if that is what they're trying to achieve.

[1]: Ideal as in, is not be realistic for a variety of reasons. Getting budgets passed alone for Step1 would be a nightmare of political bikeshedding.

edit: To the downvote, please explain? It feels reactionary to be honest, because i don't think i've said anything controversial when you really think about it. Well, i suppose it's controversial to pro-homeless, if anyone is that..?

SF has navigation centers to do step 1. They are really successful for the folks that go through it. https://www.sfpublicworks.org/navigationcenter

On my phone, so can’t find the link easily, but I seem to remember reading that yes, it seems to work that way. Obviously not with 100% success. But yes. Giving someone a home, shower, etc to call their own does in fact help people get on the right track in a way that very little else seems to do.

Simply giving someone a permanent address allows them to access tons of social services that are completely locked away when you're homeless. Food stamps, unemployment, disability, child care assistance, are some of the very important social programs which require a permanent, non-PO Box, non-General Delivery mailing address before you can access them.

that one link that will save the world

Reply on news.ycombinator.com