> The threat of jail won’t convince him to stay in a shelter, which already feels like jail
So there you have it. Giving them a free bed won't do it. I have a feeling that even giving them a room at the Fairmont wouldn't do it.
I don’t think it’s fair to extrapolate from that statement that people wouldn’t take up the offer of shelter if quality and safety were improved.
There will always be holdouts, but a practical solution will make those the outliers rather than the common case.
Addicts should have a choice: shelter, treatment, or jail. If you bring drugs in the shelter, your choice becomes treatment or jail. Drug encampments on city sidewalks should simply not be an option.
Some chronically homeless people in SF also suffer from mental illness and cannot look after themselves. They may also not do well in shelters. But leaving them outside is not humane. Institutions had a reputation for poor living conditions, but leaving them to suffer in the street is no better. And institutions can be improved.
I have a lot of sympathy for those in this situation. It’s a tough place to be, and many won’t get out of it for a wide variety of reasons.
https://svdp-sf.org/navigation-center/
"Among the unique features of the Center are the capacity for couples to shelter together, bring in pets, and have clients possessions stored. "
Newsom tried this while he was mayor. His conclusion was that for every person they put in housing, two new people showed up on the street.
Another issue was that most people they put into “temporary” supportive housing never moved out. A significant portion of SF’s budget goes towards paying for the housing of formerly homeless people. The city won’t put them out on the street, so why would they ever leave?
to me their sentence reads more like if the shelter is worse than prison, might as well do something to get into prison.
Would you use a shelter where you can't control light switches, get woken up by a siren, get your stuff stolen, probably have to share showers and kitchen with junkies, if you are even allowed to cook your own food?
For most of those, I either don't find any support, or it's actually contradicted ("get your stuff stolen").
"cook your own food" -- how do they manage that if they live on the street?
VDP does mention:
"fully-functioning computer lab
free weekly haircuts
shower and laundry facilities"
So I think you are mostly making stuff up.
I am not homeless and I never have been, but I would MUCH rather sleep in a car or a tent (placed in a spot of my choosing, near people I trust and away from people I distrust) than in a typical homeless shelter surrounded by strangers who might assault me or steal from me in the night. It's not even close.
However, I'd MUCH rather sleep in a hotel room than in a car or a tent. Again, not even close.
is there ANY definition of "housing" under which you'd be willing to compel homeless people to take it, under penalty of fines & jail? Please tell us.
Without threat of violence, housing projects such as the Harlem River Houses have been immensely successful. Other than the US and Canada, do any other first world countries have homelessness problems of the magnitude we're seeing? Why does the US lead the world in homeless and prison populations; if stricter laws were the answer, shouldn't that have worked by now?
The city can offer other options:
- shelters in the city
- shelters outside the city if shelter in the city are full (this is my controversial opinion, but if you can’t afford housing in a specific place, you may need to live in a different place until you can afford it. I’d love to live in Malibu, but I can’t afford it. I don’t think it’s my right to plop myself down on the sidewalk and shoot heroin until the city of Malibu builds me free housing. That’s not a realistic expectation.)
- bus fare return to family
- treatment for addicts
People who claim that "laws do not work" are usually ignoring that laws need ENFORCEMENT.
Context: I’m in your living room and refuse to leave.
Valid. This is a tragedy of the commons. The problem is they’re being used for the private benefit of those camping on them. That will eventually undermine support for funding them.
I am shooting in the dark here, but are you even aware of the various free housing programs that the US already had tried in the past[1]? Those did not solve the issues and the proponents blame them being too cheap on the failure.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_Unit...
When a halfassed attempt fails, do not conclude that a full and honest effort would also fail.
Maybe look at WHY government-built housing is always so lousy. Saying "We need to change the whole system" is just a cop-out.
Thank you, this is a crucial aspect of Harlem that make it such a shining example in my mind. It was undertaken in a period when human dignity was given more weight. And while the apartments themselves seem stark to modern tastes, they were built about a century ago and in their time, contributed to a cultural renaissance.
A big problem is penny-pinching. You can sacrifice a ton of quality and end up only saving a few points on a total build cost, and paying way more in lifetime maintenance and replacement cost. Modern conservativism is penny wise, pound foolish, and that mindset is ever-present.
> Saying "We need to change the whole system" is just a cop-out.
Right on. But I didn't say that and I don't see anybody else saying that here.
Unless the Harlem River House is your answer. So if that were available, THEN you'd be OK with compulsion?
pray tell
A little research shows this to be a New Deal project that doesn't seem particularly replicable or sustainable:
https://www.courthousenews.com/harlem-public-housing-tenants...
https://pix11.com/news/3-big-problems-plague-harlem-river-ho...
there's that juvenile sentiment again. And there "shouldn't" be any burglaries, car thefts, armed robbery, or murder, either. Nevertheless, they've always existed and always will. And compulsion will always be a part of the civilized state.
"There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.
Or, humility. Nothing is certain in civic planning. But I suspect you'd jump on me if I claimed it was a foolproof plan, wouldn't you? But it's observed all over the world: in places where housing is affordable and available, there isn't a homelessness crisis. Most homeless people don't wanna be. Remove them, and the community goes away, and with it, all but a very few diehards that exist in practically every city.
So if they do force people to move on, despite this "affordable and available" housing, that pretty well destroys your argument, doesn't it? Because all compulsion is bad, as you said.
I believe most people would be satisfied if the problem were to simply become rare enough that they didn’t have to think about it.
If that’s the goal, I think improving housing quality can get you close.