I never understood how homeless people could even afford drugs. Shit I have a job and am pretty comfortable and don’t think I could!
Fentanyl is incredibly cheap. As I understand it $5 is more than enough. You'll earn more than enough holding a sign on any street corner and then you won't care that you're sleeping under a bridge for a while. That's why people who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs or healthcare so often wind up in that situation.
Totally agree, they have to be separated and thats one reason why many stay on the street. Many times that person that doest want help doesn't want to be in a shelter where there are rules and a pitch and help way. I know first hand many times my fam member would leave because of basic rules that he wouldn't abide by. Its not a one shoe fits all deal but new approached need to be tried. I have probably been involved with 25 separate council sessions both group and just fam.
That's why shelters are shit and they don't work. Anywhere. It doesn't matter how you change them. I would also rather live under a bridge than follow some arbitrary rules. Fuck that. If we aren't offering people private, secure quarters with freedom to come and go as they please then we aren't a part of any solution.
I agree it's important to provide private shelter assistance with the freedom to come and go, However, that too will require some agreed on order/covenant that would be easy enough to abide by. What you dont want is a flop house with drugs and disturbance going on, thats non productive. There has to be buy in from the person, like I expected from my kids growing up and even when they became adults, or being part of a team, family. Ive shared before that my daughter has squatters next door and they were there for over 6 months, my daughter being the good samaritan she reached out and provided food, clothing and even rides, unfortunately the way they showed their appreciation was to break into the shop and steal and busted their fence down, and partied to we hours in the morning every night, when people had to get ups and go to work. They finally got busted for dealing with drugs and guns from the place and then only did the authorities make sure they left.
No, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. This is not required. As shown in many cases in which housing first policies have eliminated local homeless epidemics In fact, not only are these requirements not necessary, they are actively harmful. As long as they're following the law they should be left alone, aside from being offered care and services. This is an interesting story but it has nothing to do with most homeless people. You are describing people who are breaking the law. I have already said that people who break the law should be punished. You are trying to make this association that these people who are breaking the law are the same as homeless people. And that's simply not the case. *Edit* This is how they eliminated homelessness in Finland. This is how Salt Lake City had eliminated homelessness, before listening to people make these same claims that you are making now and moved away from the housing first policy. And now they have the same homeless problems as we've had in Portland.
They were homeless and thats why they became squatters. You have different categories of homeless people, some just down on luck and want to get back on their feet, some that have mental issue besides addiction that need the kind of help, some that have mental issues and struggle with addiction that requires specialty help and some that are not willing to help themselves and just want to be on the streets and survive. No rules. If you think just providing free everything with no willingness to at least abide by some rules. That will not work! And it's shown not to work. Those squatters were as homeless and could give ashit about them community and society they squat in. I don't have all the answers and either do you. Geez Louise.....
And we have laws that separate the dangerous ones and services which address the rest. Can you provide a source please? Nobody has suggested no rules. Laws are rules. I'm suggesting that is all the rules needed unless the individual breaks them. In which case they should be treated differently based on their specific situation. It has worked pretty much everywhere it has been tried. Better than anything else that has been tried. And it's less expensive. I don't have all the answers. But we have a proven solution to this. I've posted several articles in this very forum of homeless people who have been given free rent in Portland and the landlords are happy with the situation. No additional rules or curfews are needed. People are living there, who would otherwise be homeless and the landlord wants it to continue. Having trouble finding the links now but will post when I do. It's critical that we get rid of this idea that the homeless are less than the rest of us. Many times they've just had a run of bad luck and the toxic shelter system we have doesn't work for a great many.
I understand that there are those that jump at the opportunity for housing and freedom. And many find that as a spring board back to helping themselves. Thats fantastic. I know some those people. It's great we hear about those stories as well as maybe that helps in politicians in improving each year with this issue. My contention is you need to differentiate the different groups ands have a strategy for all. It not a one shoe fits all with such a diverse population of homeless. When I allowed my brother live with us for time it was him that proposed some basic rules for staying in my household. He wanted some boundaries. Hell, I need boundaries according to my wife. Well, eventually he left because he dint want any restrictions, on staying with me and family. He chose his path. he wanted to play iso with the freedom to do so and a coach that would allow it. Doesn't work T ogether E everyone A accomplishes M ore
Nobody is suggesting everyone would get the same treatment. Just that the no strings attached private and secure housing be the first part, along with services. The rest can be determined on a case by case basis. That is how SLC and Finland and many others have been so successful. You can't start out by treating adults like children.
Nobody said and certainly not what I meant treat them like children. When you treat someone like and adult that involves respect both ways but like every group/party there are those that dont know what that means. Its either their way or fuck off.
Laws are the rules society has agreed that adults need to abide by. If you're setting up rules that go further than the law then you are treating them like children or criminals. That is not an inviting precedent and it's why many people "refuse help". They aren't generally refusing help. They are refusing the extra layer of government.
Im get it but even SLC has rules and qualification for free housing and housing can mean shelters too. Obey laws is a no brainer even for you and I.
Yes, they instituted additional "rules" around 2018 and it's been far less successful since then. The cost of enforcing the rules has exploded the cost of the program with no identifiable benefit. Like Florida's law that everyone who was receiving food stamps be drug free. They spebt tens of millions on testing and found that the vast majority of people who needed help were already drug free and they were just making the program far mor expensive by having that requirement. This idea that people need to be punished with less freedom or strict guidelines to accept "help" needs to change.
Pretty recent view of SLC approach and changes. Ive also heard that Sweden has been struggling with their housing first approach. And housing doesmt always mean private accommodations it can mean shelter or centers for help. Good article..... Did 'housing first' for homelessness work in Utah?Deseret Newshttps://www.deseret.com › politics › 2025/02/20 › utah-...
The ones that fail offer temporary shelters with rules. That's not how it originally worked in SLC. People were given a respectable apartment with security and privacy with no strings attached. Same as in Finland. Some of those apartments were in center that offered services. But the services were not mandatory. You can't force people to want to change. And if they don't want to change they will certainly relapse. You can treat them. And if you do many will want to recover and want better. Then they'll get jobs (since they now have an address a phone and a secure location to store their belongings). Then they'll move out and up. The other thing is the glp-1 drugs are being found to help people with recovery from fentanyl. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36031011/ If you get people in respectable housing and get them treatment that's the most successful thing you can do. Salt Lake City had it figured out until they started screwing with it trying to add complexity. The complexity requirements are where the insane cost comes from. Like pretty much all welfare. The simplest thing is the best solution. If people have homes but they need more help the best thing you can do is give them cash. This is why Finland got rid of "shelters" altogether and they focus on permanent housing and treatment.
