In the richest nation on earth, it’s a disgrace that we still have people living on the streets. The solution is simple: give homeless people homes. Not only is it the humane thing to do, it’s savestaxpayer’s money.
I’ve seen elsewhere that we have vastly more abandoned homes than homeless people. We just have to convince them to move to Detroit.
And what do you do if, when you give them homes, some of them don’t accept them? What if someone moves into one of these homes, invited in an abusive partner, and then has to leave again to escape the partner? Homelessness is a more complicated problem than you realize.
^^^ What Chronos said. While we definitely should do more to provide adequate shelter (encourage SROs?), shelter is not a cure for mental illness. And not all homeless would accept homes.
We definitely could significantly REDUCE homelessness. Of course, that costs $.
The problem for most of the long-term, chronically homeless is not that they don’t have a place to live, it’s that they are schizophrenic and/or chemically dependent.
If you give them a place to live, they are still going to panhandle to get booze money and/or trade their rent vouchers for crack. And I don’t think it would reduce their emergency room visits and hospitalization all that much. If the Haldol doesn’t work, or they won’t take it, they are still going to be wandering the streets getting arrested for public intoxication/urination/petty crimes.
Regards,
Shodan
Arrest them.
While I normally would oppose arresting people for vagrancy (it seems unfair to criminalize being poor), I would support it if we lived in a system where everybody had access to housing. In that case, it truly would be a choice to live on the street.
I’m not expert on domestic abuse, but I can imagine a lot of people stay in abusive relationships because they lack the means to move away. My answer is the same: give the abused partner their own individual dwelling space.
You’re okay with jailing everyone who makes that choice? For no other reason than they didn’t like squatting in the abandoned blight home you forced them into as much as sleeping on the beach?
It’s not a home if they are prohibited by law from leaving. It’s just a different jail. Choosing one jail over another is no choice at all.
Even though it is a good idea to house the homeless because it is cheaper and more humane, there is going to be pushback from a lot of people who can barely pay rent getting upset that homeless people get room/board for free.
Also as others have said, the root cause of chronic homelessness tends to be mental illness, substance abuse, psychological issues, etc. Housing people won’t solve these problems.
Also I’d assume the kinds of people who end up chronically homeless will also be the kinds of people who tear a house apart if they live in it.
Having a roof over your head won’t magically cure mental illness or addiction, but it can sure do a lot to mitigate many of the problems arising from mental illness and addiction.
I don’t want to see anyone who is down on their luck or addicted or mentally ill and unable to work being out in the street freezing in the winter. If we could give each of them a clean safe room and a place to shower and sleep, they might be able to put their lives back in order and even if they can’t, it’s still the right thing to do.
This reminds me of the documentary about how to cure all known diseases - Monty Python - How To Do It - YouTube
As others have said, the world is a messy place. Simple solutions to complex problems rarely work, and there would all sorts of unintended consequences. Your current proposed solution seems worse than the problem, at least for some percentage of the population.
There should be some minimal standards for housing, such as adequate heat, electricity, running water, functioning flush toilets, etc. Blight homes aren’t what I have in mind.
I want to allow freedom of travel and movement, and the homeless should have some choice as to where they live. But I don’t see why we should let people sleep on park benches.
Yes, they will still have problems that need to be addressed. Universal housing is not a panacea. But it’s better to be an alcoholic with a roof over one’s head than an alcoholic shivering in the cold.
If they’re mentally ill, put them in a mental institution. If they’re simply assholes, throw them in jail for destruction of property.
“The Perfect is the enemy of The Good”. Do you think the net effect would be really bad, slightly bad, no real effect overall, slightly good or really good? If it is one of the first three, then forget it, but if it the next to last option we should look into it and, if it looks really good I say we should get behind it. Few(if any) social adjustment programs are perfect, but they can be fiddled with if need be to make them better.
The OP’s claim is:
“In the richest nation on earth, it’s a disgrace that we still have people living on the streets. The solution is simple: give homeless people homes.”
Do you agree that it’s simple to end homelessness by doing what the OP says? That is the point that Chronos was making, I believe. He’s not saying “do nothing”. He’s saying “it’s not so simple to end homelessness, and your solution will fall short of the goal”.
It might not be as simple as that, but I still look at it as a major step in the right direction.
I never said that giving people homes is bad. I said that it wouldn’t end homelessness. We could probably decrease it some, and that would be a good thing, but we wouldn’t decrease it by all that much, and we certainly wouldn’t eliminate homelessness entirely. And we could do a lot more good by addressing the actual root causes, instead of just treating the symptom.
Must those root causes be treated before stopgap measures are used…and in this current political/sociological climate, is it even possible to address those root causes without vast differences of opinion as to what those root causes even are?
What is your best estimation as to when those root causes will finally be addressed, if ever?
edited to add: You don’t have to pick one over the other.
Exactly this. Most all of these homeless shelters and housing require the homeless seeking shelter to abide by a fairly minimal set of behavioral standards (such as drug use, cigarette smoking, appreciation of your fellow tenants lives (noise, etc.) A lot of homeless people are homeless for pretty specific reasons: untreated (or self-treated) mental illness. These people will/cannot abide by many of these rules and actually prefer the freedom that homelessness provides.
There’s lots of claims in this thread that are bordering on “Homeless people love being homeless! Being homeless is awesome! Virtually nobody would live in a house given a chance!”
I find that position to be somewhat difficult to believe. Is there any actual data that supports this?