> I keep hearing that homeless avoid shelters because of how dangerous the people are there[1].
Well, I didn't say that. That's part of the problem but it's not the whole problem.
In the interview you quoted, the word "dangerous" is used once:
PIRTLE: Part of the reason was, you know, the paranoia and the fear of large groups of people that comes along with schizophrenia, but part of the reason was, and I think this is more generally the case with people, is that you hear a lot of terrible things about shelters, that shelters are dangerous places, that they're full of drugs and drug dealers, that people will steal your shoes, and there's bedbugs and body lice.
And yeah, unfortunately a lot of those things are true.
It's a bit of a stretch to call that evidence of your position, but I'll grant the point and move on I guess.
The interview also says:
PIRTLE: Oh yes, there's - I don't want to say that all shelters are like that. There's a lot of very good shelters in this country. But there are a lot of big warehouses that are just places where we stick people at night and we really don't have any regard for how they live there.
...and:
PIRTLE: I spent most of my time homeless out on the street. It wasn't until the very end of my homelessness that I ended up in a shelter. And I found out that a lot of what I was afraid of was true. I never found out what a body louse was until I got into the shelter. You know, I had my shoes stolen, just like people said you get your shoes stolen, although I will say that there were three people in the shelter who offered to give me a pair of shoes after that happened.
So there is a sense of community there. I don't want to give the impression that everyone in the shelter is bad. But you have a lot of people with a lot of problems, and so when you cram them all together, you just have one big problem. That's why I'm a big fan of smaller, scattered-sized shelters, where people can get more focus on what they need to get help.
Note that the "danger" here isn't "you're going to get murdered", it's theft--a predictable consequence of not having any place to store your personal belongings when you can't actively protect them.
And then there's this part which bears reiterating: But you have a lot of people with a lot of problems, and so when you cram them all together, you just have one big problem.
Do you see why maybe putting people into apartments might actually be a partial solution to this problem?
And you'll note, I'm not actually saying we put them in apartments right next to pre-existing tenants. My actual suggestion would be to build new housing, and repurpose or rebuild unused office and retail space. There's clearly a shortage of housing, and that shortage is being maintained because it serves to inflate housing prices, making a few people rich. If there's anything there should be an excess of, it's basic needs like homes.
So it starts to sound like you're responding to a straw man argument I didn't make, based on an interview that you read very selectively.