Where do you build these dorms?
Are there barriers to living in these dorms? Sobriety requirements, job searching, etc?
We should definitely try to solve this but I don't think it is simple at all.
When all of the available shelters are full this is not a relevant question.
> Where do you build these dorms?
Near transit so people that can't afford a car can get around. There's not a shortage of underutilized land in west coast cities.
> Are there barriers to living in these dorms? Sobriety requirements, job searching, etc?
no, none of those situations are improved by leaving someone outside.
> We should definitely try to solve this but I don't think it is simple at all.
There are complex problems in our society, but not having enough bedrooms has a simple solution: build more bedrooms.
Someone is going to have a better chance finding a job if they get a good night sleep and have a place to shower.
It is relevant when we are talking about building more housing. Why build something if people won't use it?
> Near transit so people that can't afford a car can get around. There's not a shortage of underutilized land in west coast cities.
Underutilized land near transit? What do you do about the NIMBYs?
> no, none of those situations are improved by leaving someone outside.
Of course, but do you want to live in a shelter with people doing drugs? Should there be some that are drug friendly and some that aren't?
> There are complex problems in our society, but not having enough bedrooms has a simple solution: build more bedrooms.
Actually providing public housing isn't simple though. We have a long history of trying all kinds of approaches that didn't work for whatever reason. There's no simple answer.
> Someone is going to have a better chance finding a job if they get a good night sleep and have a place to shower.
This assumes they want to find a job though.
If the shelters are full, it's clear people are using them. If we start seeing vacancies in shelters, then we can worry about this.
So what is your proposed solution?
It is not acceptable that we have any number of people sleeping on the street. I realize we can't simply prohibit that. But if we are going to reclaim our public spaces we need solutions that work for everyone. There is never going to be one simple solution to that.
So yeah, build more housing. But what kind? Some of it should simply be affordable housing for gainfully employed people. Some should be dorm style for emergency stays. Some should have a focus on rehab. Some should have a focus on finding employment. There's probably a need for a mix. But we definitely need some places that are safe for vulnerable populations which have more restrictions and different resources than low-barrier-to-entry based shelters or housing.
Should we try to put addicts on a rehab path? Are we willing to ignore that problem to solve homelessness? I don't know. I think it's worth having a conversation.
It's complicated and messy and unclear.
Having been homeless, the needs are best served with a reliable friend network, an emergency place you can stay at that is a step above a shelter/church I never been to a woman’s only shelter, I heard they suck too though.
I prefer staying with friends but hidden spots are fine like hammock in a park, storage units, amenities like showers at the gym, or houses, and a feeling of purpose, growth and not failure. Brahmins take an oath of poverty and are respected, as are monks who beg for food. If you can, understand the needs from dogfooding.
"Underutilized land near transit? What do you do about the NIMBYs?"
Tell them to take a hike. The state needs to get more involved with objective rules so we don't have a game of each neighborhood screaming NIMBY.
> Of course, but do you want to live in a shelter with people doing drugs? Should there some that are drug friendly and some that aren't?
I don't know the answer to this. When we have enough shelters and people have a locked door to sleep behind this will probably be the next problem to solve.
> Actually providing public housing isn't simple though.
Shelters and public housing are different. Any kind of shelter has to be fully maintained with public funds because the people sleeping in them are broke.
There's a countries with large amounts of successful public housing. The theme is that it's well maintained so it's actually desirable for stable, normal people. Allowing a wider range of incomes to move in so that rent can cover operations and maintenance makes it less dependent on the whims of local pols.
Telling NIMBYs to take a hike isn’t simple. How do you actually achieve that?
The question is not if we have enough shelter space. The question is if there are homeless who do not want shelter space. In other words do we have another problem to focus on in parallel.
My ideal solution would be a state agency that funds and builds shelters, supportive housing, public housing etc. Each municipality gets a list of how many beds it needs and can pick the locations. BUT if they refuse to pick sites then the state does it for them. Then the state builds it without any more bottlenecks on local politicians.
imo the key is allowing local choice, but not to say no.
If we make shelters a realistic option and a large number of people won't take them we'll have another problem. But we haven't gotten to that bridge yet.
I'm not opposed to building more shelters. But it's not a complete solution. So what is the rest of the solution?
If it were not for the state promising heavy financial consequences for cities failing to plan appropriately for growth, the cities wouldn’t be doing squat about the problem, and things would continue to get worse. How do we know? Because that’s exactly how the last couple of cycles have gone.
To your point, CA's regional housing needs assessments are state level intervention to undo city level interventions (zoning, permitting) that prohibit housing.
The city built office space for more jobs and prohibits housing for those new workers. That's the problem to solve.
> Why build something if people won't use it?
We know some people will use it since the ones already built are full. If we look at other cities - eg. NYC we see the ratio sheltered to unsheltered are different from SF. The difference? Availability of shelter. SF has hundreds of beds and thousands of homeless. Surely a few hundred more beds would be used.
> Should there be some that are drug friendly and some that aren't?
The article illustrated that the majority of the growth was with people that are not drug users, so this is a big issue, but you can exclude drug users and still make a difference without dealing with this question. (but maybe you should find a way to help them too).
> This assumes they want to find a job though.
Surely some do. If not, they're still a person and we should help them.
I do not believe that we should ignore any group of homeless just because there is a simple solution for some of it.
Maybe there is an argument for building different types of shelters. Maybe some of them are not voluntary. Maybe some allow drugs and some do not.
There is no one-size-fits-all answer here. Pretending this is simple is doing a disservice to everyone involved.
This describes an incredibly miniscule number of people. There are a lot of problems with existing shelters (as mentioned quite a few times in thia thread) so currently it's hard to disentangle "wants to sleep on the streets" from "doesn't want the available alternatives." Yeah, there probably are a few folks like this. Having an oversupply of 1% isn't going to break the bank.
Do you make it non-optional? Do you just accept that there will always be some people living on the street? At what point can a camping ban in public parks be reinstated and enforced? Can it ever be? Should it?
How should we optimize solutions to homelessness? Is there some ideal amount of homelessness? Have we already reached it?
Recall that this thread started with a comment offering a two part solution that does not address an unwillingness to stay in shelters.
For example, I saw in LA camping areas being cleaned by city workers peacefully (with a token police car watching over) and it seemed like a nice middle ground.
Something like https://campsecondchance.rumblecrash.com/ but for tents?
I just think that living without being involved with a building and such is valid, and I'd like to see it recognized.
I believe in harmonious co-existence, so I guess I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way", which is what I've practiced for lack of a better option, though I usually don't use a tent in the city.
I think it is legitimate and valid for an individual to exist and live without being involved in paperwork, joining some kind of program, etc.
And I support anyone going that way.
I think that's a reasonable take.
I don't think that living in a public park is a valid lifestyle choice. Those places can't serve their purpose as public areas for recreation if they are also someone's home. I understand that people do it now because they are desperate. We should provide them with better options. Or at least acceptable options that allow the rest of the citizens of the city to also live their lives.
I am not opposed to dedicated property or areas for tent living, but it can't be in existing parks or other public spaces like sidewalks and transit facilities. And there have to be amenities such as showers, bathrooms and trash service. Essentially a state campground in the city.
I’m not opposed to sleeping in parks. Like, sure, take a nap. But no, you can’t live there.
Take a look at the homeless camps in Seattle parks and greenbelts. That’s not staying out of anyone’s way. There’s nothing harmonious about it.
Basic services are mandatory in camping areas. Without bathrooms we get human waste accumulation and runoff. Without trash service we get fires. This isn’t hypothetical. Go look around Seattle.
Dictating what is done with public spaces is absolutely valid. That is how civilization works. It’s why we even have public spaces.
Without rules on what’s allowed in parks they’d be developed into something else.
What do you think gives you the right to make that call?
There's a city in the Vancouver area which has a radically different approach, that I'd describe as YIMFY. Food bank, needle exchange, shelters, etc are in an otherwise affluent part of town (not coincidentally, there's a police precinct right there too). They don't want to hide the homeless, they want to keep an eye on the problem. And by keeping it in the public view, voters consistently fund the programs to get people help.
Citation needed
They're horrible places designed only for one purpose: keeping the undesirables out of the public eye.
It was that way ~100 years ago when Orwell wrote "Down and Out", and very little has changed since then.
_Where do we build them?_ I bet there are choices we can make that house 100+ people for every 1 person who is mildly inconvenienced.
_Are there barriers to living in these dorms?_ No.
Why should recovering addicts be forced to live in a setting where they are tempted by drugs? Why shouldn't they be given a chance to live in a drug-free setting?
Why should victims of abuse be forced to live near potential abusers? Shouldn't we consider their needs?
Clearly we need shelters suited to the needs of individuals.
But what are those needs, and what do we do if someone refuses the opportunity? I don't think "ignore them" is a satisfactory answer.