There is no “homeless” problem. There’s a drug epidemic problem. Giving homeless people free housing just moves the problem from the sidewalk to a building. A building that will quickly become a slum. The drug problem is what needs to be fixed.
https://www.sightline.org/2022/03/16/homelessness-is-a-housi... https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle...
(I don’t live in CA, but I have somewhat frequently sat on an airplane de-icing pad waiting to travel to CA.)
That’s because drugs are still illegal in those areas. California and Oregon have essentially legalized every drug. If you’re caught on the street smoking meth or fentanyl, it’s more than likely that a police officer walks right past you.
The claim isn’t “there aren’t large drug problems I. California/Oregon” which is what you are correctly stating is true, the claim is “drug problems are not the primary driver of homelessness, housing costs are”.
Saying “California and Oregon have effectively legalized drugs so that’s why there is homelessness” just isn’t an accurate statement. As noted in other parts of the thread, people who use drugs will happily rent a place of it is cheap.
Now is it a contributing factor? Probably a minor one, yes. But the primary driver of the size of the homeless population is housing costs, and for the unsheltered population it’s definitely weather. New York actually has a very sizeable homeless population, the difference with California is that people are much more likely to be living in shelters there.
You're flat out wrong here. It's drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness and in some cases a complete lack of a social safety net. There is free housing, subsidized housing, shared housing, and more available to low/no income people all over California, Oregon and Washington. The majority of the homeless population does not take advantage of these programs because they require addiction therapy. They stay on the streets because drugs can be legally consumed and purchased without consequence. The sooner we listen to the police, fire fighters, and first responders who are on the ground dealing with these issues every single day, the better. Doing yet another study to prove it's housing costs and not the rampant out of control drug problem is worthless.
Listening to the police on this is why there are federal drug, alcohol, and criminal restrictions on federally funded public housing programs, and why most public housing authorities impose even stricter rules than the federal requirements, which serve as a bar for many of the people who need help.
But, sure, lie and claim its that homeless people with current or past drug problems choose not to avail themselves of programs they are banned by official policy from.
Also, the previous rebuttal makes no sense. If an area has a high amount of drug use, what does it matter whether if the law there are legal or illegal, with respect to how that affects homelessness? Was the GP claiming only the well-to-do housed are using drugs there?
The west coast is more lenient on drug use, im guessing that leads to fewer overdoses as a result.
This idea that drugs cause most homeless is largely just confirmation bias. You likely cross paths with many homeless people that you don't realize are homeless. It is the drug addicts and the mentally ill that stand out as obviously homeless. The person who is out on the street because they couldn't make rent, probably isn't noticeably homeless if they spend their nights in a shelter or sleep in a car before showering at a local gym.
[1] - https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/homeles...
You never notice the single mom living in a shelter, who takes her kids to work at a laundromat, or the guy who sleeps in his car and does landscaping jobs during the day.
(Setting aside for now the amount of heavy lifting "if they fixed the homeless problem" is doing there... gee, why did nobody try to fix it ever before, anywhere?)
In the places it has been tried, housing-first solutions have been wildly successful. It turns out getting your shit together is a lot easier when you don't have the constant stressors of living on the street.
In any case, the War on (Some) Drugs has clearly been lost and the drugs aren't going away. What is your solution?
It's not terribly likely at all that anyone will ever get any traction on solving a chemical addition problem when they have dramatically more important and basic near term problems such as finding food and shelter.
I live in Portland, where the overwhelming majority of homeless people deny housing because of this fact. Because they are required to get help.
I absolutely do not think providing more “free” housing is the answer.
Putting them in housing solves a few problems. You know where they are and have a contact and can offer lifelines. Requiring people to get help and removing more control over their lives reduces trust, likely hood of success and they end up hiding the fact. You need to constantly watch them now or drug test them. Easier to live on the street than in your world
What kind of an offer is “come in here, sleep in a crowded room filled with a bunch of other people you may have conflict with, with no place to store your stuff, oh and you’ll be kicked out during the day and have to take all your shit with you”.
And housing doesn’t need to be free, it just needs to be relatively cheap. It wasn’t that long ago that you could afford a basic apartment on a part time job.
What's wrong with a drug-addicted person making their little apartment gross?
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-hous...
Are there people who goad and have addictions? Sure. It’s not like that show is 100% drug addicts though.
In fact that show is literally 0% homeless people. So it’s a complete red herring.
In the US, we've done a spectacular job of pricong working people out of housing, creating a ridiculously incompetent drug policy (simultaneously too lax and too punitive), and closing down all reasonable avenues to mental health care. This dates back to Reagan or before but both left and right-wing parties have considerable blame to carry. You dont have to believe that they were malicious, but the results have been disastrous.
You either fix all three coherently, or none.