top | item 46275841

(no title)

lab14 | 2 months ago

(tangent) for those of us who had close experiences with addiction in our families, it's so obvious why "give them money" or "give them homes to live in" isn't a solution to homelesness. A close family member owned 3 properties and still was living in the streets by choice because of his addiction which evolved into a full blown paranoid schizophrenia. He almost lost it all but he was forcefully commited into a mental institution and rehab saved his life.

discuss

order

amanaplanacanal|2 months ago

Just realize your personal experience isn't generalizable. Surveys I've seen report that about a third of homeless have drug problems, which means that the other two thirds may very well benefit from "give them homes to live in".

benzible|2 months ago

UCSF published a comprehensive study of homelessness in California in 2023 [1]. A few relevant points:

The ~1/3 substance use figure holds up (31% regular meth use, 24% report current substance-related problems). But the study found roughly equal proportions whose drug use decreased, stayed the same, or increased during homelessness. Many explicitly reported using to cope with being homeless, not the reverse.

On whether money helps: 89% cited housing costs as the primary barrier to exiting homelessness. When asked what would have prevented homelessness, 90% said a Housing Choice Voucher, 82% said a one-time $5-10K payment. Median income in the 6 months before homelessness was $960/month.

The severe-mental-illness-plus-addiction cases like the family member mentioned exist in the data, but the study suggests they're the minority. 75% of participants lost housing in the same county they're now homeless in. 90% lost their last housing in California. These are mostly Californians who got priced out.

[1] https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2023-06/CA...

Supermancho|2 months ago

Didn't work out well for the river camp in Santa Ana, CA 8 years ago (or so) that had to be bulldozed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhy3zI3wvAo

The vast majority (that accepted accommodation) destroyed the spaces and eventually fled back to the streets. It is generally not productive to simply rehome all the homeless en mass. There are first order drug abuse and mental illness issues that cannot be ignored.

earlyreturns|2 months ago

As with any survey or most research really, it’s the sample the determines the finding. Homelessness is not easy to define precisely. Drug addiction, setting aside the fact that surveys are self reported, is a bit more cut and dried but from your response it’s not clear if alcohol is included, or drug history. Like if someone did some bad shrooms or had a bad acid trip and wound up homeless would that person be in the 2/3rds?

kunley|2 months ago

> Just realize your personal experience isn't generalizable. Surveys I've seen report that about a third of homeless have drug problems, which means that the other two thirds may very well benefit from "give them homes to live in".

non sequitur

mbauman|2 months ago

> "by choice because of"

Goodness, that doesn't look like a choice to me.

mistrial9|2 months ago

sorry for your situation but that description is inconsistent without medical insight

perhaps more importantly, ascribing legal treatment for a class of people ("homeless") based on this particular case is also unwise, at the least

UltraSane|2 months ago

100 years ago people like Rob Reiner's drug addict son would probably have been in an insane asylum.

arevno|2 months ago

100 years ago people like Rob Reiner's drug addict son's dealer would probably have been hanging from a tree.

note: this is not commentary on drug legalization, just commentary that "community efforts" were more involved in addressing negative social externalities than they are now - for better or for worse.

belviewreview|2 months ago

So you claim to know for certain that it virtually never happens that someone winds up homeless for financial reasons, like their rent got raised or they lost their job and couldn't find one that paid enough for the prevailing rents.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how you determined this. Did you for instance survey homeless people in a number of US cities? Or perhaps you used some other method.