What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Should City Be Allowed To Have A No Alcohol Policy In Housing They Provide Or Subsidize? (1 Viewer)

Should City Be Allowed To Have A No Alcohol Policy In Housing They Provide Or Subsidize?

  • Absolutely Yes

    Votes: 33 26.8%

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 19.5%

  • Probably Yes

    Votes: 16 13.0%

  • On the fence

    Votes: 10 8.1%

  • Probably No

    Votes: 11 8.9%

  • No

    Votes: 14 11.4%

  • Absolutely No

    Votes: 15 12.2%
  • Total voters
    123
Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Interesting discussion here about the rights a company has to monitor a company car. 

Here's another "strings attached" type question.

A city wanted to address their homeless problem and renovated a housing complex.

The idea is that homeless people who qualify will be able to live there for drastically reduced rent. Or even free. 

Because alcohol abuse is something some homeless people face, the city asked to have a rule prohibiting alcohol in the apartments they provide. It would be a No Alcohol policy. Even for people of legal age.

The question then is: Should City Be Allowed To Have A No Alcohol Policy In Housing They Provide Or Subsidize?

What do you think?

 
Voted "probably yes" but I'm not entirely sure that's how I feel.  Unlike the other thread, where a company surely has the right to track their own property, this deals with government and socioeconomic class, etc. and that feels like it introduces thornier issues.  

 
If the rent is reduced and/or eliminated then I see no issue with making rules to meet the conditions to obtain the benefit.  Similar to an insurance company giving you a discount for not smoking.  

Nobody is forced into this subsidized housing.  If you want to take advantage of the reduced costs then no alcohol in the complex is the condition to be met.

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Voted "probably yes" but I'm not entirely sure that's how I feel.  Unlike the other thread, where a company surely has the right to track their own property, this deals with government and socioeconomic class, etc. and that feels like it introduces thornier issues.  
Click to expand...
State universities are government funded, yet they don't allow alcohol in student housing.  Granted, a large portion of those students are underage, but it's still a unilateral requirement regardless of the student's age.

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
How would they even know if a tenant has had a beer in the privacy of their apartment, in order to determine whether or not to pay them $X? 
Click to expand...
Random tests? 

Honestly they probably wouldn't. But if a resident got in trouble for drunk and disorderly conduct, DUI, etc then they would cut the payment easily.

 
encaitar said:
State universities are government funded, yet they don't allow alcohol in student housing.  Granted, a large portion of those students are underage, but it's still a unilateral requirement regardless of the student's age.
Click to expand...
Unless things have changed a lot in 20 years (I realize in many ways they have) that rule is rarely enforced unless problems arise.

 
-OZ- said:
Random tests? 

Honestly they probably wouldn't. But if a resident got in trouble for drunk and disorderly conduct, DUI, etc then they would cut the payment easily.
Click to expand...
None of that proves that they were drinking at the complex.

 
Cjw_55106 said:
None of that proves that they were drinking at the complex.
Click to expand...
If it's drunken behavior at the complex, I'm okay with the presumption. Perhaps not for DUI, but that (no alcohol related misconduct, including DUI) can be part of the agreement. 

I'm thinking more of a comprehensive, if you want to live here without paying, total prohibition. They're free to stay and consume in moderation, and not get the subsidy. 

Fwiw, I'm generally against government intrusion. But if the person is voluntarily getting a benefit, that's a choice. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In NYC, treatment programs (for alcoholism or drug addiction) often accompany the process of getting a housing voucher. It’s not a requirement but getting people the help they need is always an option. Most voucher programs have periodic follow up visits.

But that’s quite different than what JB is asking about because 1) it’s not mandatory; each individual has to bring themself to Step One, and 2) here in the city we don’t segregate the homeless but rather attempt to integrate them back into society.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ- said:
If it's drunken behavior at the complex, I'm okay with the presumption. Perhaps not for DUI, but that (no alcohol related misconduct, including DUI) can be part of the agreement. 

I'm thinking more of a comprehensive, if you want to live here without paying, total prohibition. They're free to stay and consume in moderation, and not get the subsidy. 

Fwiw, I'm generally against government intrusion. But if the person is voluntarily getting a benefit, that's a choice. 
Click to expand...
I mean, if you want to change what the OP asked, sure. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Interesting discussion here about the rights a company has to monitor a company car. 

Here's another "strings attached" type question.

A city wanted to address their homeless problem and renovated a housing complex.

The idea is that homeless people who qualify will be able to live there for drastically reduced rent. Or even free. 

Because alcohol abuse is something some homeless people face, the city asked to have a rule prohibiting alcohol in the apartments they provide. It would be a No Alcohol policy. Even for people of legal age.

The question then is: Should City Be Allowed To Have A No Alcohol Policy In Housing They Provide Or Subsidize?

What do you think?
Click to expand...
In your specific example, I have no problem with the city setting a No Alcohol policy. Their money, their rules.

However, I also recognize that there's a slippery slope involved.  For example, most governments prohibit people from using food stamps to buy alcohol...but what if we banned food stamp recipients from even possessing alcohol? Should we let the government extend the same restrictions to other forms of welfare? What about unemployment? Student loans?

Anyway, I'd rather see the restrictions linked to specific behavior -- i.e., restrictions should only be placed on people who have been convicted of drug- or alcohol-related offenses.

 
[scooter] said:
In your specific example, I have no problem with the city setting a No Alcohol policy. Their money, their rules.

However, I also recognize that there's a slippery slope involved.  For example, most governments prohibit people from using food stamps to buy alcohol...but what if we banned food stamp recipients from even possessing alcohol? Should we let the government extend the same restrictions to other forms of welfare? What about unemployment? Student loans?

Anyway, I'd rather see the restrictions linked to specific behavior -- i.e., restrictions should only be placed on people who have been convicted of drug- or alcohol-related offenses.
Click to expand...
The no buying alcohol with food stamps rule is a joke.  Party Store owners in Detroit will sell booze, cigarettes, whatever.  And they over charge the customers using the food stamp to buy the booze. This has been going on since I was in my teens.

As far as the no alcohol at all rule that bothers me a bit. A person can`t have a cold beer on a hot day without getting in trouble?  Then again I guess whoever is providing the free housing can make the rules.

 
Da Guru said:
The no buying alcohol with food stamps rule is a joke.  Party Store owners in Detroit will sell booze, cigarettes, whatever.  And they over charge the customers using the food stamp to buy the booze. This has been going on since I was in my teens.

As far as the no alcohol at all rule that bothers me a bit. A person can`t have a cold beer on a hot day without getting in trouble?  Then again I guess whoever is providing the free housing can make the rules.
Click to expand...
They don't get in trouble.  They just cannot live in the subsidized housing.  It is their choice whether the cheaper rent is worth not having a beer at home on a hot day.  They can still have one at a bar.

 
Gally said:
They don't get in trouble.  They just cannot live in the subsidized housing.  It is their choice whether the cheaper rent is worth not having a beer at home on a hot day.  They can still have one at a bar.
Click to expand...
I get it. They can get blasted off premise and then come home.   That is Ok.

 
Should people be allowed to choose to live in an alcohol free apartment complex?  That sounds good to me. 

But 

Should the state take poor people who need housing and struggle with drinking, take them off the list for housing, tell them they have to evict them if they don't comply with the rules? That is the uglier side of this, and it's hard to support. 

I understand the goal, and I think tough love works. But I'm not sure I am ready to have the state choose who will be homeless and who will get shelter based on whether they comply with morals that are not legally mandated for anyone else. 

This really strikes at the heart of the "is housing a fundamental human right" conversation. And I hope anyone who supports this would also be willing to pay their own private dollars to support assisting the people who get kicked out. 

 
bostonfred said:
Should people be allowed to choose to live in an alcohol free apartment complex?  That sounds good to me. 

But 

Should the state take poor people who need housing and struggle with drinking, take them off the list for housing, tell them they have to evict them if they don't comply with the rules? That is the uglier side of this, and it's hard to support. 

I understand the goal, and I think tough love works. But I'm not sure I am ready to have the state choose who will be homeless and who will get shelter based on whether they comply with morals that are not legally mandated for anyone else. 

This really strikes at the heart of the "is housing a fundamental human right" conversation. And I hope anyone who supports this would also be willing to pay their own private dollars to support assisting the people who get kicked out. 
Click to expand...
I admire this post because you do show both sides and it's fair, so many people only like to tell one side of it. 

I think if people grow up in America, with a few exceptions but by and large they have ample opportunities throughout their lives, even if they screw it up when they are young short of committing a felony, most people are not limited beyond their will to achieve thru hard work. And I will give you half the poor that qualify for this type of housing desperately want to work and move ahead, they're not all lazy but there are plenty that want to just devour resources without putting back and so for those model citizens I think a no liquor policy is just fine. 

But there needs to be more rehabilitation and resources poured in to help people get off drugs that want to. I put alcohol right in there with most narcotics. I think you're completely justified in how you feel and you understand both sides, we just feel a little differently about it. 

The bottom line though, is whatever the rules are within reason, this is a good program that could help a lot of people. You gotta have some skin in the game, they're asking for people to be Sober as their price for living there, is that too much to ask? It's an interesting question and I would understand why some folks in certain parts of the World would give their eye teeth for that kind of set up and we are wondering if we're asking too much of homeless people to abstain from liquor. 

 
BobbyLayne said:
In NYC, treatment programs (for alcoholism or drug addiction) often accompany the process of getting a housing voucher. It’s not a requirement but getting people the help they need is always an option. Most voucher programs have periodic follow up visits.

But that’s quite different than what JB is asking about because 1) it’s not mandatory; each individual has to bring themself to Step One, and 2) here in the city we don’t segregate the homeless but rather attempt to integrate them back into society.
Click to expand...
Could you explain this to those of us who don't live in NYC so we can understand the difference from say Los Angeles or San Fran where they have tent cities? How does that not happen in NYC? 

Thanks and I'll hang up and listen. 

 
Ministry of Pain said:
I admire this post because you do show both sides and it's fair, so many people only like to tell one side of it. 

I think if people grow up in America, with a few exceptions but by and large they have ample opportunities throughout their lives, even if they screw it up when they are young short of committing a felony, most people are not limited beyond their will to achieve thru hard work. And I will give you half the poor that qualify for this type of housing desperately want to work and move ahead, they're not all lazy but there are plenty that want to just devour resources without putting back and so for those model citizens I think a no liquor policy is just fine. 

But there needs to be more rehabilitation and resources poured in to help people get off drugs that want to. I put alcohol right in there with most narcotics. I think you're completely justified in how you feel and you understand both sides, we just feel a little differently about it. 

The bottom line though, is whatever the rules are within reason, this is a good program that could help a lot of people. You gotta have some skin in the game, they're asking for people to be Sober as their price for living there, is that too much to ask? It's an interesting question and I would understand why some folks in certain parts of the World would give their eye teeth for that kind of set up and we are wondering if we're asking too much of homeless people to abstain from liquor. 
Click to expand...
It you do want a focus on helping people. I think the most basic things that can help someone get clean and make safer life choices are a steady place to live,  support from their community, opportunities, access to basic resources. 

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Could you explain this to those of us who don't live in NYC so we can understand the difference from say Los Angeles or San Fran where they have tent cities? How does that not happen in NYC? 

Thanks and I'll hang up and listen. 
Click to expand...
I am only referring to long term housing solutions. We don’t build facilities like the OP is referring to, but find affordable housing paid for by the City or HUD (variety of programs) which are in the same building as free market apartments. In some cases LL receives tax abatements for making XX % of unites “affordable.

For short term housing assistance, there are around 650 shelters. The majority are in the Bronx (Manhattan 109, Brooklyn 163, Staten Island 1.) Each night there are 21-24K children in the system, and around 61-65K total. Numbers atm are a bit lower than pre-Covid.

data

 
BobbyLayne said:
I am only referring to long term housing solutions. We don’t build facilities like the OP is referring to, but find affordable housing paid for by the City or HUD (variety of programs) which are in the same building as free market apartments. In some cases LL receives tax abatements for making XX % of unites “affordable.

For short term housing assistance, there are around 650 shelters. The majority are in the Bronx (Manhattan 109, Brooklyn 163, Staten Island 1.) Each night there are 21-24K children in the system, and around 61-65K total. Numbers atm are a bit lower than pre-Covid.

data
Click to expand...
Studies show that the large majority of street homeless New Yorkers are people living with mental illness or other severe health problems. 

From your link, I wish more people understood this. I wanted to speak to you and @Ilov80s on this and share that when I would run nightclubs and we close up in downtown Orlando there were homeless everywhere, we're talking '94-'95 era and you try to help them directly but from my experiences first hand, a bag of money could fall out of the sky and into their lap and many wouldn't know what to do with it. The mental illness is horrific, and I have zero answers on how to fix it but they shouldn't be left on the streets.

Some of our younger readers who don't know their history very well might not know that we used to actually have mental facilities, archaic and as horrific as many were, today it would be worth a try to bring them back with so many updates in medicine and in psychology since the 1970s...just an idea. 

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Studies show that the large majority of street homeless New Yorkers are people living with mental illness or other severe health problems. 

From your link, I wish more people understood this. I wanted to speak to you and @Ilov80s on this and share that when I would run nightclubs and we close up in downtown Orlando there were homeless everywhere, we're talking '94-'95 era and you try to help them directly but from my experiences first hand, a bag of money could fall out of the sky and into their lap and many wouldn't know what to do with it. The mental illness is horrific, and I have zero answers on how to fix it but they shouldn't be left on the streets.

Some of our younger readers who don't know their history very well might not know that we used to actually have mental facilities, archaic and as horrific as many were, today it would be worth a try to bring them back with so many updates in medicine and in psychology since the 1970s...just an idea. 
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more about the lack of investment we are making in adult mental health. Or mental health in general. I think that leads back to most of our many of our societal problems. 

 
I would say that it's ok to have this as a rule but only really to be enforced if the person is causing huge issues. Kind of up to the place to enforce as they see fit.

This is a cop out but I can see the need for strict alcohol rules, but also don't see the need to be crazy if the person is sneaking a beer in there. Probably gets tricky in real life but the hope is the people managing this place are allowed some discretion this way.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Could you explain this to those of us who don't live in NYC so we can understand the difference from say Los Angeles or San Fran where they have tent cities? How does that not happen in NYC? 

Thanks and I'll hang up and listen. 
Click to expand...
They buy them a bus ticket to LA/SF.

 
Ilov80s said:
No, I don't think a government should offer basic necessities with these kinds of strings attached. 
Click to expand...
Disagree.

If an adult is not responsible enough to be able to afford themselves a basic necessity such as shelter, they should not be spending what money they do have on alcohol as this is most certainly not a necessity.  

I wasn't very good at school for sure, but did I miss the part where it was stated that part of the US governments function was to provide housing and basic necessities for all?  Other non-profits that offer housing for the indigent can restrict alcohol, why can't the government?

Further, for some if not many, alcohol and/or drugs is an underlying problem leading to their homelessness.  Perhaps trying to treat these afflictions (and thus giving easy access/free housing) would be more of a benefit?

 
For what it's worth, my position on this evolved over the past 10 years. Initially, I was mostly in the line of thinking, "These are the house rules and this is the deal. The offer is the person gets a free or drastically reduced rent, in turn they have to meet some conditions in order to stay there. Abstaining from alcohol is one of them."

I could go long into Alcohol Abuse and homelessness. Just from 10 years of observation. I contend a ton of the abuse is less true "alcoholism" and more self medication. When people in my neighborhood deal with the issues of anxiety or depression, they go to their doctor paid for by their insurance and get a prescription medicine, likely paid for mostly if not completely by their insurance. 

When the Homeless Guy deals with anxiety or depression, he very likely doesn't have that option. So he does what he can. Which usually means cheap alcohol. It's fun for some to joke about the poor guy drinking malt liquor. Homeless people are an easy target for some. The reality is many drink malt liquor over a beer because it's the most alcohol for the dollar. It's how they medicate.

Now I'm not defending or justifying it. If you've ever been around someone self medicating like this you know it can easily turn into an ugly downward spiral. 

What I'm saying is I understand why they do it. 

Ok, back to the topic,

My thinking on this changed when I talked to my friend who was very involved in the housing project. I asked him what he thought and he said it was clear and obvious. He was adamantly opposed to any sort of restriction like this. 

His whole idea, and this is something that shaped everything I do there now with Homeless folks is this. This is not so much about housing. This is more about dignity. 

If you're going to provide a 50 year old man, maybe a military veteran, with assistance in getting a place to live, you don't tie a bunch of restrictions to it that you wouldn't put on a non homeless person. Yes, they may have to take out the trash or not be loud or whatever you'd ask of anyone else. But the idea that we'd try to prohibit someone from doing something that wouldn't prohibit another non homeless person to do is wrong. 

It was pivotal point for me in how I saw what I was doing with the BBQ ministry thing we do downtown.

It was a complete paradigm shift for me in realizing I wasn't just providing the best BBQ in Knoxville. That had way too much "me" focus in it. What I was providing was some dignity in offering folks that don't normally get the best food in town, a little bit of leveling up. In other words, I could serve bologna sandwiches and do effectively the same work. 

I realized, this wasn't only about food and alleviating a hungry stomach. This was a lot about emotional or spiritual "nutrition" and alleviating a person hungry for some dignity. 

In a little bit of the same way, the city was way over the line in requiring a no alcohol restriction in the apartments. 

Oddly enough, I don't remember the result of what the city decided. This was a while back. I just remember the thing that mattered to me was my mental shift in how I saw this. 

And an over riding priority to restore a bit of dignity to some of these folks who've had a rough ride. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
guru_007 said:
Disagree.

If an adult is not responsible enough to be able to afford themselves a basic necessity such as shelter, they should not be spending what money they do have on alcohol as this is most certainly not a necessity.  I agree, but if the goal is to provide a safe place for the most endangered segments of the population to live then we should spare the moral judgments. Just from my perspective, it would be a lot easier to get clean and turn my life around with an affordable home than it would be if I was homeless. 

I wasn't very good at school for sure, but did I miss the part where it was stated that part of the US governments function was to provide housing and basic necessities for all?  Other non-profits that offer housing for the indigent can restrict alcohol, why can't the government? There is no requirement for the government to provide housing. Which is obvious given how many homeless people we have. 

Further, for some if not many, alcohol and/or drugs is an underlying problem leading to their homelessness.  Perhaps trying to treat these afflictions (and thus giving easy access/free housing) would be more of a benefit? Certainly providing counseling and general mental health benefits would be a positive step. One of the most basic necessities for mental health is a stable and safe place to live. 
Click to expand...

 
Ilov80s said:
I couldn't agree more about the lack of investment we are making in adult mental health. Or mental health in general. I think that leads back to most of our many of our societal problems. 
Click to expand...
In NYS we already have $0 premium, $0 copay health plans which cover mental health therapy. But IMO this needs to addressed after housing stabilization.

 
Ilov80s said:
Disagree.

If an adult is not responsible enough to be able to afford themselves a basic necessity such as shelter, they should not be spending what money they do have on alcohol as this is most certainly not a necessity.  I agree, but if the goal is to provide a safe place for the most endangered segments of the population to live then we should spare the moral judgments. Just from my perspective, it would be a lot easier to get clean and turn my life around with an affordable home than it would be if I was homeless. 

I wasn't very good at school for sure, but did I miss the part where it was stated that part of the US governments function was to provide housing and basic necessities for all?  Other non-profits that offer housing for the indigent can restrict alcohol, why can't the government? There is no requirement for the government to provide housing. Which is obvious given how many homeless people we have. 

Further, for some if not many, alcohol and/or drugs is an underlying problem leading to their homelessness.  Perhaps trying to treat these afflictions (and thus giving easy access/free housing) would be more of a benefit? Certainly providing counseling and general mental health benefits would be a positive step. One of the most basic necessities for mental health is a stable and safe place to live. 
Click to expand...
IME Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing tend to lead to the best long term outcomes.

That said, if I’ve learned anything in the last five years, it’s that at the executive and governmental level, we’re not actually interested in eradicating homelessness. In NYC, it’s a $3 Bn industry. We have doubled expenditures across all levels of funding (federal, state, local, private) in the last six years. We have not succeeded in reducing the population and in fact we have less substance abuse programs. There is a myriad of barriers to appropriate mental health care. What we have succeeded at is creating layers of bureaucracy and most especially, bringing executive compensation closer to private sector levels.

I’m sure that comes across as crass cynicism. I’m just sharing my personal experience. It doesn’t deter me or make me discouraged. I can’t effect change at that level.

What I can do is be faithful with what’s in my hand. I can impact individuals who are in front of me and within my sphere of influence. Investing in people is the best way I know how to help people help themselves. It sometimes takes years, and often I never see the end results. That’s someone else’s work, my role was to plant seeds or water what someone else planted.

I’m OK with that. I’m responsible for what’s in front of me. That’s my lane and I stay in it. I’m not really equipped to end homelessness, but if I can help someone on their journey, that’s immensely rewarding in and of itself.

 
BobbyLayne said:
IME Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing tend to lead to the best long term outcomes.

That said, if I’ve learned anything in the last five years, it’s that at the executive and governmental level, we’re not actually interested in eradicating homelessness. In NYC, it’s a $3 Bn industry. We have doubled expenditures across all levels of funding (federal, state, local, private) in the last six years. We have not succeeded in reducing the population and in fact we have less substance abuse programs. There is a myriad of barriers to appropriate mental health care. What we have succeeded at is creating layers of bureaucracy and most especially, bringing executive compensation closer to private sector levels.

I’m sure that comes across as crass cynicism. I’m just sharing my personal experience. It doesn’t deter me or make me discouraged. I can’t effect change at that level.

What I can do is be faithful with what’s in my hand. I can impact individuals who are in front of me and within my sphere of influence. Investing in people is the best way I know how to help people help themselves. It sometimes takes years, and often I never see the end results. That’s someone else’s work, my role was to plant seeds or water what someone else planted.

I’m OK with that. I’m responsible for what’s in front of me. That’s my lane and I stay in it. I’m not really equipped to end homelessness, but if I can help someone on their journey, that’s immensely rewarding in and of itself.
Click to expand...
Amen.

 
Good intentions aside, this reminds me a little of the old Pullman Town type thing we saw in 100+ years ago. Henry Ford didn't want people drinking either. He even had secret police to monitor his employees personal lives. I am not a fan of this kind of thing whether it is private or public. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NutterButter said:
So they can drink, just not in the provided housing?
Click to expand...
This creates even more problems with DUIs. And what about the guy coming home loud and drunk but has no alcohol in his possession?

 
Joe Bryant said:
For what it's worth, my position on this evolved over the past 10 years. Initially, I was mostly in the line of thinking, "These are the house rules and this is the deal. The offer is the person gets a free or drastically reduced rent, in turn they have to meet some conditions in order to stay there. Abstaining from alcohol is one of them."

I could go long into Alcohol Abuse and homelessness. Just from 10 years of observation. I contend a ton of the abuse is less true "alcoholism" and more self medication. When people in my neighborhood deal with the issues of anxiety or depression, they go to their doctor paid for by their insurance and get a prescription medicine, likely paid for mostly if not completely by their insurance. 

When the Homeless Guy deals with anxiety or depression, he very likely doesn't have that option. So he does what he can. Which usually means cheap alcohol. It's fun for some to joke about the poor guy drinking malt liquor. Homeless people are an easy target for some. The reality is many drink malt liquor over a beer because it's the most alcohol for the dollar. It's how they medicate.

Now I'm not defending or justifying it. If you've ever been around someone self medicating like this you know it can easily turn into an ugly downward spiral. 

What I'm saying is I understand why they do it. 

Ok, back to the topic,

My thinking on this changed when I talked to my friend who was very involved in the housing project. I asked him what he thought and he said it was clear and obvious. He was adamantly opposed to any sort of restriction like this. 

His whole idea, and this is something that shaped everything I do there now with Homeless folks is this. This is not so much about housing. This is more about dignity. 

If you're going to provide a 50 year old man, maybe a military veteran, with assistance in getting a place to live, you don't tie a bunch of restrictions to it that you wouldn't put on a non homeless person. Yes, they may have to take out the trash or not be loud or whatever you'd ask of anyone else. But the idea that we'd try to prohibit someone from doing something that wouldn't prohibit another non homeless person to do is wrong. 

It was pivotal point for me in how I saw what I was doing with the BBQ ministry thing we do downtown.

It was a complete paradigm shift for me in realizing I wasn't just providing the best BBQ in Knoxville. That had way too much "me" focus in it. What I was providing was some dignity in offering folks that don't normally get the best food in town, a little bit of leveling up. In other words, I could serve bologna sandwiches and do effectively the same work. 

I realized, this wasn't only about food and alleviating a hungry stomach. This was a lot about emotional or spiritual "nutrition" and alleviating a person hungry for some dignity. 

In a little bit of the same way, the city was way over the line in requiring a no alcohol restriction in the apartments. 

Oddly enough, I don't remember the result of what the city decided. This was a while back. I just remember the thing that mattered to me was my mental shift in how I saw this. 

And an over riding priority to restore a bit of dignity to some of these folks who've had a rough ride. 
Click to expand...
I guess my viewpoint isn't so much that you are providing housing to "homeless".  You are providing housing at a reduced cost under these stipulations.  It's up to the individual to decide if the stipulations are something they are willing to put up with.  Nobody is forced into this housing (which is where I think the dignity aspect could come into play).  Now if they were rounding up people and putting them in this housing and saying you cannot have x, y, z without giving them a choice I can see where the dignity aspect could come into play.

The way this was presented was that there were complexes being offered at little or no cost and the stipulation is no alcohol will be allowed on the premises.  Now it becomes a choice. 

In addition, alcohol costs money.  It is not a necessity (although I do understand that for some it is self medicating and may seem like a necessity) and takes away resources for things that are necessary to live.  Alcohol can cause issues with other's around you.  Someone gets drunk and starts fights (it is a downer) and has the potential to make the premises unsafe to everyone.  It is much easier/safer to have the black and white rule of no alcohol.  Again, this is a choice.  Nobody is forced to live there.

 
Gally said:
I guess my viewpoint isn't so much that you are providing housing to "homeless".  You are providing housing at a reduced cost under these stipulations.  It's up to the individual to decide if the stipulations are something they are willing to put up with.  Nobody is forced into this housing (which is where I think the dignity aspect could come into play).  Now if they were rounding up people and putting them in this housing and saying you cannot have x, y, z without giving them a choice I can see where the dignity aspect could come into play.
Click to expand...
I understand this argument. It's the "everyone has their eyes wide open going into this - take the deal as it is or don't take it" thing. 

I get that. And for lots of situations I'm down with that. 

This feels different to me. I think it's mostly because of "alternatives". And value of the product or service. Meaning, if the person passes on this deal, what are his alternatives? And what is the value of the product or service. 

I can run this website pretty much like I want to. Sure, there will be a handful of people who will never stop whining that we don't let creepy old guys do the locker room talk about yoga pant girls. Whatever. I have zero problem acknowledging there are plenty of places they can use an alternative to the the FFA. And the value of the product is pretty low.

For a homeless person, if they pass on the free housing deal, their alternative is sleeping under the bridge. That's not a great alternative. Even less so in December. And the product of safe housing has a high value. So I think there becomes some onus on the person offering the product to be more sensitive to the "take it with my rules or leave it" thing. 

And I guess from a human angle, it feels dirty to exercise that kind of leverage on another human. Especially one that is by definition, having a hard time. 

 
This is a difficult question.  On its face, I can certainly understand the position of the general "taxpayer" who thinks that he or she is essentially footing the bill for people to live free so the "no alcohol" requirement seems reasonable because if you can't afford your own house you shouldn't be spending money on alcohol. And, undoubtedly, alcohol enhances/worsens volatile situations (e.g. domestic violence incidents).  Further, from a legal-perspective, since there's no consitutional right to consume alcohol or have your housing paid for, the alcohol requirement probably passes constitutional muster because there's a reasonable, articulable basis for it. 

The above said, this situation just really isn't that easy and my ultimate conclusion is that when you combine the costs of the implentatation of the requirement with the likelihood that the no alcohol order with have a minimal positive impact if at all it isn't worth it. 

I have received significant training regarding rehabilitative measures. Perhaps the most key point from this training is that there is a stark difference between an addict and a substance abuser. The former, especially when combined with mental health issues which hinder the addict's ability to rationally respond to negative reinforcement, which is unfortunately the general makeup of a lot of homeless people, simply do not respond to negative reinforcement. As such, a requirement that one abstain coupled with the threat of a lost home just simply won't deter this group. It will only serve to create a rift between the government and the people they are trying to help. An abuser can be rehabilitated through negative reinforcement, but there's obviously a cost to enforce the rule and I assume the same rift of the "us v. them" mentally will be created. 

The only situation where I've seen an abstain order work is a particularized therapy courts (e.g. a Veterans Court). What makes this work is that there is so much hands on implemenatation of the policies, and the policies are implemented by a group that the addict/abuser trusts (i.e. a judge who was in the military, a sponsor for the military, etc.) that the person identifies with these people, trusts them, and actually doesn't want to let them down. And, when a few inevitably due, the system is set up where the person isn't automatically booted but instead a number of dedicated people get together to try to work even harder to fix that person. Only then does such a program where no alcohol is a requirement seem to actually work. 

In short, unless and until the government wants to essentially implement an ever-present and rehabilitative type program to positively respond to the homeless's substance abuse problems, I don't think the implementation of a strict no alcohol order really accomplishes anything. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I understand this argument. It's the "everyone has their eyes wide open going into this - take the deal as it is or don't take it" thing. 

I get that. And for lots of situations I'm down with that. 

This feels different to me. I think it's mostly because of "alternatives". And value of the product or service. Meaning, if the person passes on this deal, what are his alternatives? And what is the value of the product or service. 

I can run this website pretty much like I want to. Sure, there will be a handful of people who will never stop whining that we don't let creepy old guys do the locker room talk about yoga pant girls. Whatever. I have zero problem acknowledging there are plenty of places they can use an alternative to the the FFA. And the value of the product is pretty low.

For a homeless person, if they pass on the free housing deal, their alternative is sleeping under the bridge. That's not a great alternative. Even less so in December. And the product of safe housing has a high value. So I think there becomes some onus on the person offering the product to be more sensitive to the "take it with my rules or leave it" thing. 

And I guess from a human angle, it feels dirty to exercise that kind of leverage on another human. Especially one that is by definition, having a hard time. 
Click to expand...
I definitely agree on that last part. The yoga pants part, not so much.

 
This comes into play in a real live practical sense for me a couple of times a month. 

There's a regular guy I see at the BBQ and Hot Dog meals we do with the ministry thing each month. Let's call him James.

James is about my age but looks 20 years older. Homeless years are different.

I don't know for sure, but my guess is James abuses alcohol. He's drunk about a third of the times I see him. James is a sweet drunk and never belligerent. On the contrary, he's always exceptionally friendly to me. It's maybe too liberal with the word, but I'd call us friends. I certainly think of him as my friend. 

James lost his wife a few years ago. He was homeless for a good while but in the last few years has been in the housing project I mentioned earlier. 

He's kind and generous and I like him a lot. One time he asked me if I could spare a few dollars for cigarettes and I gave it to him. Now, each time I'm there, I will usually give him $5 after I wrap up. I have no illusions. I know my giving him some money factors into our friendship. But I also think we'd still be friends regardless of whether I gave him money or not. 

I often will say to him, "Dude, please don't use this for alcohol. That good?" 

Whether he's drunk or sober, he says the same thing. "No sir, jus' cigarettes".

Now I know well and good cigarettes are just as bad or worse than malt liquor. But something in my heart says him not drinking is more important right then than him not smoking. And I'll try to influence him a little not to buy more alcohol. 

Am I doing the right thing? I truly don't know. It feels ok though. So I keep doing it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Homeless shelters around here don't allow alcohol, why would a longer term homeless shelter be any different?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #63 (new in 2022)
Replies
1
Views
583
Corporation
Corporation
DJackson10
Need some Work related issue advice on how to settle a matter
Replies
4
Views
341
Ghost Rider
Ghost Rider
DJackson10
Helping my Dad figure out if he can kick someone off the property who not a Tennant suggestions welcomed
2
Replies
98
Views
3K
SWC
SWC

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top