Portlanders with disabilities sue city, say tents on sidewalk violate ADA (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

Would be something if this is finally the cover these cities need to get rid of these encampments.

 

[Caveman33]

The encampments are annoying but I imagine this lawsuit will be dismissed. I want to pre-emptively sue the city over allowing motorized vehicles on sidewalks. It's bad enough when cyclists are on the sidewalk but now there are a bunch of people zipping around on those motorized scooters. A small miscalculation and they could easily destroy someone's ankle.

 

[the rover]

The encampments are annoying but I imagine this lawsuit will be dismissed. I want to pre-emptively sue the city over allowing motorized vehicles on sidewalks. It's bad enough when cyclists are on the sidewalk but now there are a bunch of people zipping around on those motorized scooters. A small miscalculation and they could easily destroy someone's ankle.

Why would it get dismissed?

 

[Snotbubbles]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

 

[Caveman33]

The encampments are annoying but I imagine this lawsuit will be dismissed. I want to pre-emptively sue the city over allowing motorized vehicles on sidewalks. It's bad enough when cyclists are on the sidewalk but now there are a bunch of people zipping around on those motorized scooters. A small miscalculation and they could easily destroy someone's ankle.

Why would it get dismissed?

I don't know the law so I'm just speculating and dismissed is almost certainly wrong. I think most cities like Portland do sweep the streets and do period cleaning which forces the camps to move and then return later that day. They also offer shelter to the people in these tents, and their offers are usually rejected. So I guess it's a matter of how frequently they force out the tent dwellers and what punishments they can actually levy upon them.

 

[the rover]

The encampments are annoying but I imagine this lawsuit will be dismissed. I want to pre-emptively sue the city over allowing motorized vehicles on sidewalks. It's bad enough when cyclists are on the sidewalk but now there are a bunch of people zipping around on those motorized scooters. A small miscalculation and they could easily destroy someone's ankle.

Why would it get dismissed?

I don't know the law so I'm just speculating and dismissed is almost certainly wrong. I think most cities like Portland do sweep the streets and do period cleaning which forces the camps to move and then return later that day. They also offer shelter to the people in these tents, and their offers are usually rejected. So I guess it's a matter of how frequently they force out the tent dwellers and what punishments they can actually levy upon them.

seems like a pretty legit claim, and ADA remedies are pretty strong. The city may have a duty to keep those sidewalks clear all the time.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

 

[Snotbubbles]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

Their people, if they aren't in that location, they're in a location elsewhere.

 

[timschochet]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

OK. I’m not necessarily opposed to what you’re suggesting. But what becomes of the homeless people that were there? What are you expecting to happen to them? They’re not just going to magically disappear.

 

[Desert_Power]

I want to pre-emptively sue the city over allowing motorized vehicles on sidewalks. It's bad enough when cyclists are on the sidewalk but now there are a bunch of people zipping around on those motorized scooters. A small miscalculation and they could easily destroy someone's ankle.

I hate this too. Charlotte, at least pre pandemic, had a law against it on certain streets. However, never saw it enforced.

 

[General Malaise]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

OK. I’m not necessarily opposed to what you’re suggesting. But what becomes of the homeless people that were there? What are you expecting to happen to them? They’re not just going to magically disappear.

Miami has a plan to move them over to an island. I like it. I'm sure we have some old cruise ships laying around. Get 'em out to sea. But gosh damn, get them off the sidewalks. Enough already. What happened to vagrancy laws?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

The encampments are annoying but I imagine this lawsuit will be dismissed. I want to pre-emptively sue the city over allowing motorized vehicles on sidewalks. It's bad enough when cyclists are on the sidewalk but now there are a bunch of people zipping around on those motorized scooters. A small miscalculation and they could easily destroy someone's ankle.

then eventually everyone will need a scooter and thus the problem solves itself.

 

[FairWarning]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

OK. I’m not necessarily opposed to what you’re suggesting. But what becomes of the homeless people that were there? What are you expecting to happen to them? They’re not just going to magically disappear.

Miami has a plan to move them over to an island. I like it. I'm sure we have some old cruise ships laying around. Get 'em out to sea. But gosh damn, get them off the sidewalks. Enough already. What happened to vagrancy laws?

California could rehab Alcatraz and shuttle some of their homeless there.

 

[Snotbubbles]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

OK. I’m not necessarily opposed to what you’re suggesting. But what becomes of the homeless people that were there? What are you expecting to happen to them? They’re not just going to magically disappear.

Miami has a plan to move them over to an island. I like it. I'm sure we have some old cruise ships laying around. Get 'em out to sea. But gosh damn, get them off the sidewalks. Enough already. What happened to vagrancy laws?

California could rehab Alcatraz and shuttle some of their homeless there.

Part of the problem is that the homeless population is made up of mostly drug abusers and people with mental health issues. If the solution was to simply find housing for them, it would have been solved already.

 

[the moops]

Part of the problem is that the homeless population is made up of mostly drug abusers and people with mental health issues. If the solution was to simply find housing for them, it would have been solved already.

Finding a home for them should be the first step, coupled with treatment. But we can't all agree on the first step, so I don't believe the bolded to be true at all

 

[General Malaise]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

OK. I’m not necessarily opposed to what you’re suggesting. But what becomes of the homeless people that were there? What are you expecting to happen to them? They’re not just going to magically disappear.

Miami has a plan to move them over to an island. I like it. I'm sure we have some old cruise ships laying around. Get 'em out to sea. But gosh damn, get them off the sidewalks. Enough already. What happened to vagrancy laws?

California could rehab Alcatraz and shuttle some of their homeless there.

Part of the problem is that the homeless population is made up of mostly drug abusers and people with mental health issues. If the solution was to simply find housing for them, it would have been solved already.

Doesn't help that a state like Oregon decriminalized all drugs so homeless from other states are incentivized to loiter here and poop on our sidewalks. Neat.

 

[FairWarning]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

OK. I’m not necessarily opposed to what you’re suggesting. But what becomes of the homeless people that were there? What are you expecting to happen to them? They’re not just going to magically disappear.

Miami has a plan to move them over to an island. I like it. I'm sure we have some old cruise ships laying around. Get 'em out to sea. But gosh damn, get them off the sidewalks. Enough already. What happened to vagrancy laws?

California could rehab Alcatraz and shuttle some of their homeless there.

Part of the problem is that the homeless population is made up of mostly drug abusers and people with mental health issues. If the solution was to simply find housing for them, it would have been solved already.

Doesn't help that a state like Oregon decriminalized all drugs so homeless from other states are incentivized to loiter here and poop on our sidewalks. Neat.

I'm sure a lot of the ones in California were outsiders also.

 

[General Malaise]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

OK. I’m not necessarily opposed to what you’re suggesting. But what becomes of the homeless people that were there? What are you expecting to happen to them? They’re not just going to magically disappear.

Miami has a plan to move them over to an island. I like it. I'm sure we have some old cruise ships laying around. Get 'em out to sea. But gosh damn, get them off the sidewalks. Enough already. What happened to vagrancy laws?

California could rehab Alcatraz and shuttle some of their homeless there.

Part of the problem is that the homeless population is made up of mostly drug abusers and people with mental health issues. If the solution was to simply find housing for them, it would have been solved already.

Doesn't help that a state like Oregon decriminalized all drugs so homeless from other states are incentivized to loiter here and poop on our sidewalks. Neat.

I'm sure a lot of the ones in California were outsiders also.

Doesn't hurt that the weather is rarely too hot or too cold on the west coast. Much tougher to be homeless in Fargo.

 

[whoknew]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

OK. I’m not necessarily opposed to what you’re suggesting. But what becomes of the homeless people that were there? What are you expecting to happen to them? They’re not just going to magically disappear.

Miami has a plan to move them over to an island. I like it. I'm sure we have some old cruise ships laying around. Get 'em out to sea. But gosh damn, get them off the sidewalks. Enough already. What happened to vagrancy laws?

California could rehab Alcatraz and shuttle some of their homeless there.

Part of the problem is that the homeless population is made up of mostly drug abusers and people with mental health issues. If the solution was to simply find housing for them, it would have been solved already.

I don't think this is completely accurate. "Housing first" seems to be working well in Houston.


--
During the last decade, Houston, the nation’s fourth most populous city, has moved more than 25,000 homeless people directly into apartments and houses. The overwhelming majority of them have remained housed after two years. The number of people deemed homeless in the Houston region has been cut by 63 percent since 2011, according to the latest numbers from local officials.
--
Houston has gotten this far by teaming with county agencies and persuading scores of local service providers, corporations and charitable nonprofits — organizations that often bicker and compete with one another — to row in unison. Together, they’ve gone all in on “housing first,” a practice, supported by decades of research, that moves the most vulnerable people straight from the streets into apartments, not into shelters, and without first requiring them to wean themselves off drugs or complete a 12-step program or find God or a job.

 

[urbanhack]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

OK. I’m not necessarily opposed to what you’re suggesting. But what becomes of the homeless people that were there? What are you expecting to happen to them? They’re not just going to magically disappear.

Miami has a plan to move them over to an island. I like it. I'm sure we have some old cruise ships laying around. Get 'em out to sea. But gosh damn, get them off the sidewalks. Enough already. What happened to vagrancy laws?

California could rehab Alcatraz and shuttle some of their homeless there.

Part of the problem is that the homeless population is made up of mostly drug abusers and people with mental health issues. If the solution was to simply find housing for them, it would have been solved already.

How Houston Is Eliminating Chronic Homelessness

Taking a comprehensive ‘Housing First’ approach, the city of Houston has cut homelessness by 63 percent in the last decade.

www.planetizen.com

 

[Rubiobot]

I don't think this is completely accurate. "Housing first" seems to be working well in Houston.


--
During the last decade, Houston, the nation’s fourth most populous city, has moved more than 25,000 homeless people directly into apartments and houses. The overwhelming majority of them have remained housed after two years. The number of people deemed homeless in the Houston region has been cut by 63 percent since 2011, according to the latest numbers from local officials.
--
Houston has gotten this far by teaming with county agencies and persuading scores of local service providers, corporations and charitable nonprofits — organizations that often bicker and compete with one another — to row in unison. Together, they’ve gone all in on “housing first,” a practice, supported by decades of research, that moves the most vulnerable people straight from the streets into apartments, not into shelters, and without first requiring them to wean themselves off drugs or complete a 12-step program or find God or a job.

 

[Snotbubbles]

The problem is, even if they win, there really isn't much you can do about it. Once you sweep an area, they just pop up again.

They wont pop up again if you clean sweep it every time.

In Aurora they cleared out an area with snowplows. They gave three weeks warning. Then cleared. Then they cleared it everyday for a few weeks. Maybe 1-2 tents have popped up since always immediately cleared.

The key to keeping these from growing is to always clear them when the first tent pops up. No safety in numbers then. No protest groups.

Cities just ignore them and cross their fingers. Once they get big, it takes forever to get rid of them.

Protesters wont go protest for one tent.

OK. I’m not necessarily opposed to what you’re suggesting. But what becomes of the homeless people that were there? What are you expecting to happen to them? They’re not just going to magically disappear.

Miami has a plan to move them over to an island. I like it. I'm sure we have some old cruise ships laying around. Get 'em out to sea. But gosh damn, get them off the sidewalks. Enough already. What happened to vagrancy laws?

California could rehab Alcatraz and shuttle some of their homeless there.

Part of the problem is that the homeless population is made up of mostly drug abusers and people with mental health issues. If the solution was to simply find housing for them, it would have been solved already.

I don't think this is completely accurate. "Housing first" seems to be working well in Houston.


--
During the last decade, Houston, the nation’s fourth most populous city, has moved more than 25,000 homeless people directly into apartments and houses. The overwhelming majority of them have remained housed after two years. The number of people deemed homeless in the Houston region has been cut by 63 percent since 2011, according to the latest numbers from local officials.
--
Houston has gotten this far by teaming with county agencies and persuading scores of local service providers, corporations and charitable nonprofits — organizations that often bicker and compete with one another — to row in unison. Together, they’ve gone all in on “housing first,” a practice, supported by decades of research, that moves the most vulnerable people straight from the streets into apartments, not into shelters, and without first requiring them to wean themselves off drugs or complete a 12-step program or find God or a job.

That would make sense. I didn't say that no one would take advantage of housing. It can reduce the homeless population, but it doesn't solve the problem.

 

[whoknew]

That would make sense. I didn't say that no one would take advantage of housing. It can reduce the homeless population, but it doesn't solve the problem.

Yea I don't think its possible to eliminate homelessness entirely. I mean - I guess theoretically it is. I am NOT an expert, but I think there are two major types of folks experiencing homelessness:

1) Temporary - through whatever reason, they have fallen on very hard times. Maybe they lost a job, had large outstanding bills, major life event, whatever. Many of these folks (its my understanding) can recover quickly when the life event is corrected/solved. It seems to me that a housing first program is ideal for them.

2) Chronically homeless - These are the folks who have been on the streets a long time and can't seem to get off of them. It seems like this is broken down into a) drug addicted, b) mentally sick, and maybe c) ne'er-do-wells? This seems like the much harder group to address. Someone who is more knowledgeable than me can maybe enlighten us on these groups? Does housing first work well for them? Do they immediately need treatment and support? Should some be in a hospital? I don't really know those answers.

 

[The Commish]

Yea I don't think its possible to eliminate homelessness entirely. I mean - I guess theoretically it is. I am NOT an expert, but I think there are two major types of folks experiencing homelessness:

1) Temporary - through whatever reason, they have fallen on very hard times. Maybe they lost a job, had large outstanding bills, major life event, whatever. Many of these folks (its my understanding) can recover quickly when the life event is corrected/solved. It seems to me that a housing first program is ideal for them.

2) Chronically homeless - These are the folks who have been on the streets a long time and can't seem to get off of them. It seems like this is broken down into a) drug addicted, b) mentally sick, and maybe c) ne'er-do-wells? This seems like the much harder group to address. Someone who is more knowledgeable than me can maybe enlighten us on these groups? Does housing first work well for them? Do they immediately need treatment and support? Should some be in a hospital? I don't really know those answers.

I'm not an expert on this either but I have worked with the homeless for 20+ years in 4 different states. This is how I choose to do my community service. I see it all the time here and elsewhere the assertion that people are homeless because of drugs/alcohol and "poor decision making". Study after study pushes back on this. While it's true that drugs/alcohol are a variable in the equation, well over 80% of the time, they are introduced after the person becomes homeless and they are introduced as a coping mechanism. They turn to the drugs after some large life-altering event that renders them homeless. Yes, there are situations where drugs/alcohol contribute, but those situations aren't as large as people want to make them. The group you listed above has had multiple studies in multiple states alone showing this. It's a great group to work with by the way and they are making a HUGE difference in people's lives.

Putting a roof over the heads should be priority number one. I firmly believe this. That can be done in conjunction with rehab should that also be a variable. There's also study after study showing the success of rehab if they know they have a place to call home vs if they are in rehab and know they have nowhere to go when they get out. The difference is night and day. I could go on and on with examples that I have witnessed personally, but I'd rather people read the studies. It's a complex issue, but if you read enough of them and their conclusions the pattern is pretty clear if you're applying the 80/20 rule.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I

Part of the problem is that the homeless population is made up of mostly drug abusers and people with mental health issues. If the solution was to simply find housing for them, it would have been solved already

Which is exactly why allowing encampments to form is a terrible idea.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I

Part of the problem is that the homeless population is made up of mostly drug abusers and people with mental health issues. If the solution was to simply find housing for them, it would have been solved already

Which is exactly why allowing encampments to form is a terrible idea.

Don't disagree. But where do the people go, they don't just magically disappear.

 

[Caveman33]

Yea I don't think its possible to eliminate homelessness entirely. I mean - I guess theoretically it is. I am NOT an expert, but I think there are two major types of folks experiencing homelessness:

1) Temporary - through whatever reason, they have fallen on very hard times. Maybe they lost a job, had large outstanding bills, major life event, whatever. Many of these folks (its my understanding) can recover quickly when the life event is corrected/solved. It seems to me that a housing first program is ideal for them.

2) Chronically homeless - These are the folks who have been on the streets a long time and can't seem to get off of them. It seems like this is broken down into a) drug addicted, b) mentally sick, and maybe c) ne'er-do-wells? This seems like the much harder group to address. Someone who is more knowledgeable than me can maybe enlighten us on these groups? Does housing first work well for them? Do they immediately need treatment and support? Should some be in a hospital? I don't really know those answers.

I'm not an expert on this either but I have worked with the homeless for 20+ years in 4 different states. This is how I choose to do my community service. I see it all the time here and elsewhere the assertion that people are homeless because of drugs/alcohol and "poor decision making". Study after study pushes back on this. While it's true that drugs/alcohol are a variable in the equation, well over 80% of the time, they are introduced after the person becomes homeless and they are introduced as a coping mechanism. They turn to the drugs after some large life-altering event that renders them homeless. Yes, there are situations where drugs/alcohol contribute, but those situations aren't as large as people want to make them. The group you listed above has had multiple studies in multiple states alone showing this. It's a great group to work with by the way and they are making a HUGE difference in people's lives.

Putting a roof over the heads should be priority number one. I firmly believe this. That can be done in conjunction with rehab should that also be a variable. There's also study after study showing the success of rehab if they know they have a place to call home vs if they are in rehab and know they have nowhere to go when they get out. The difference is night and day. I could go on and on with examples that I have witnessed personally, but I'd rather people read the studies. It's a complex issue, but if you read enough of them and their conclusions the pattern is pretty clear if you're applying the 80/20 rule.

Could you link to one of these studies? I'd like to see how they make these determinations. Do they interview a segment of the homeless population and trust that what they are being told is accurate? In my experience, there are some homeless people who do not abuse drugs. They take advantage of the various programs that are available and are able to mingle in society, often without even being recognized as homeless.

The overwhelming majority of the homeless who live in tents on the street are abusing drugs. Giving them free housing where they can do drugs and make a mess would improve the quality of life of everyone else who wants to be able to walk around the city in peace. So I agree with housing first. But the more services you offer, the more homeless you will attract. If you build it, they will come. Here is an article from the LA Times that seems to have twisted this around to conclude that lack of affordable housing is what causes homelessness. They found that the most expensive cities like SF, SD, and LA have the highest rates of homelessness per capita. These cities have the best weather, offer the most services, and are the most friendly towards drug addicts. They are a homeless Mecca. And contrary to the reports that claim something like 80% of the homeless are local, nearly all of the homeless I talk to moved from somewhere else. Many of us now have a California ID because we get them for free through the homeless services.

Cause of homelessness? It's not drugs or mental illness, researchers say

A lack of affordable housing is a key factor, according to a study of the nation's major areas.

www.latimes.com

They also looked at the claim that homeless people move to areas with greater public assistance, something they judged by comparing the state variations in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. They found that states that provided more dollars in the program did not have higher rates of homelessness.

I've never seen a family living in a tent on the street. From what little I have seen of families, they get red carpet treatment and automatically go straight into housing. Kids are a golden ticket in the homeless world. So while those parents are certainly guilty of poor decision making, they are not the ones doing drugs and making a mess on the sidewalks.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Don't disagree. But where do the people go, they don't just magically disappear.

Maybe it means they are spread out all over and have to move around all the time. Maybe a certain % end up in a shelter. Maybe some end up in jail temporarily. Maybe some move back to the state they came from.

I don't have all the answers for that, but it is absolutely criminal what is happening to some neighborhoods and businesses. At least eliminating the encampments would reduce theft(can't steal and hord) and make it so the burden is not only taken on by a select unlucky geographic few.

 

[The General]

I don’t know the answers (there aren’t any perfect answers is my thought) but I know the solution isn’t to have people living in tents on sidewalks or middle of public parks long term.

 

[The Commish]

Yea I don't think its possible to eliminate homelessness entirely. I mean - I guess theoretically it is. I am NOT an expert, but I think there are two major types of folks experiencing homelessness:

1) Temporary - through whatever reason, they have fallen on very hard times. Maybe they lost a job, had large outstanding bills, major life event, whatever. Many of these folks (its my understanding) can recover quickly when the life event is corrected/solved. It seems to me that a housing first program is ideal for them.

2) Chronically homeless - These are the folks who have been on the streets a long time and can't seem to get off of them. It seems like this is broken down into a) drug addicted, b) mentally sick, and maybe c) ne'er-do-wells? This seems like the much harder group to address. Someone who is more knowledgeable than me can maybe enlighten us on these groups? Does housing first work well for them? Do they immediately need treatment and support? Should some be in a hospital? I don't really know those answers.

I'm not an expert on this either but I have worked with the homeless for 20+ years in 4 different states. This is how I choose to do my community service. I see it all the time here and elsewhere the assertion that people are homeless because of drugs/alcohol and "poor decision making". Study after study pushes back on this. While it's true that drugs/alcohol are a variable in the equation, well over 80% of the time, they are introduced after the person becomes homeless and they are introduced as a coping mechanism. They turn to the drugs after some large life-altering event that renders them homeless. Yes, there are situations where drugs/alcohol contribute, but those situations aren't as large as people want to make them. The group you listed above has had multiple studies in multiple states alone showing this. It's a great group to work with by the way and they are making a HUGE difference in people's lives.

Putting a roof over the heads should be priority number one. I firmly believe this. That can be done in conjunction with rehab should that also be a variable. There's also study after study showing the success of rehab if they know they have a place to call home vs if they are in rehab and know they have nowhere to go when they get out. The difference is night and day. I could go on and on with examples that I have witnessed personally, but I'd rather people read the studies. It's a complex issue, but if you read enough of them and their conclusions the pattern is pretty clear if you're applying the 80/20 rule.

Could you link to one of these studies? I'd like to see how they make these determinations. Do they interview a segment of the homeless population and trust that what they are being told is accurate? In my experience, there are some homeless people who do not abuse drugs. They take advantage of the various programs that are available and are able to mingle in society, often without even being recognized as homeless.

The overwhelming majority of the homeless who live in tents on the street are abusing drugs. Giving them free housing where they can do drugs and make a mess would improve the quality of life of everyone else who wants to be able to walk around the city in peace. So I agree with housing first. But the more services you offer, the more homeless you will attract. If you build it, they will come. Here is an article from the LA Times that seems to have twisted this around to conclude that lack of affordable housing is what causes homelessness. They found that the most expensive cities like SF, SD, and LA have the highest rates of homelessness per capita. These cities have the best weather, offer the most services, and are the most friendly towards drug addicts. They are a homeless Mecca. And contrary to the reports that claim something like 80% of the homeless are local, nearly all of the homeless I talk to moved from somewhere else. Many of us now have a California ID because we get them for free through the homeless services.

Cause of homelessness? It's not drugs or mental illness, researchers say

A lack of affordable housing is a key factor, according to a study of the nation's major areas.

www.latimes.com

They also looked at the claim that homeless people move to areas with greater public assistance, something they judged by comparing the state variations in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. They found that states that provided more dollars in the program did not have higher rates of homelessness.

I've never seen a family living in a tent on the street. From what little I have seen of families, they get red carpet treatment and automatically go straight into housing. Kids are a golden ticket in the homeless world. So while those parents are certainly guilty of poor decision making, they are not the ones doing drugs and making a mess on the sidewalks.

I'll see what I can find. I've posted many in these threads over the years, but my subscriptions aren't what they used to be, so I'll see if I can find some that are free to read.

While I look, you can start off at https://www.addictioncenter.com/ looking at their site for 10,000 foot view.

 

[Caveman33]

Yea I don't think its possible to eliminate homelessness entirely. I mean - I guess theoretically it is. I am NOT an expert, but I think there are two major types of folks experiencing homelessness:

1) Temporary - through whatever reason, they have fallen on very hard times. Maybe they lost a job, had large outstanding bills, major life event, whatever. Many of these folks (its my understanding) can recover quickly when the life event is corrected/solved. It seems to me that a housing first program is ideal for them.

2) Chronically homeless - These are the folks who have been on the streets a long time and can't seem to get off of them. It seems like this is broken down into a) drug addicted, b) mentally sick, and maybe c) ne'er-do-wells? This seems like the much harder group to address. Someone who is more knowledgeable than me can maybe enlighten us on these groups? Does housing first work well for them? Do they immediately need treatment and support? Should some be in a hospital? I don't really know those answers.

I'm not an expert on this either but I have worked with the homeless for 20+ years in 4 different states. This is how I choose to do my community service. I see it all the time here and elsewhere the assertion that people are homeless because of drugs/alcohol and "poor decision making". Study after study pushes back on this. While it's true that drugs/alcohol are a variable in the equation, well over 80% of the time, they are introduced after the person becomes homeless and they are introduced as a coping mechanism. They turn to the drugs after some large life-altering event that renders them homeless. Yes, there are situations where drugs/alcohol contribute, but those situations aren't as large as people want to make them. The group you listed above has had multiple studies in multiple states alone showing this. It's a great group to work with by the way and they are making a HUGE difference in people's lives.

Putting a roof over the heads should be priority number one. I firmly believe this. That can be done in conjunction with rehab should that also be a variable. There's also study after study showing the success of rehab if they know they have a place to call home vs if they are in rehab and know they have nowhere to go when they get out. The difference is night and day. I could go on and on with examples that I have witnessed personally, but I'd rather people read the studies. It's a complex issue, but if you read enough of them and their conclusions the pattern is pretty clear if you're applying the 80/20 rule.

Could you link to one of these studies? I'd like to see how they make these determinations. Do they interview a segment of the homeless population and trust that what they are being told is accurate? In my experience, there are some homeless people who do not abuse drugs. They take advantage of the various programs that are available and are able to mingle in society, often without even being recognized as homeless.

The overwhelming majority of the homeless who live in tents on the street are abusing drugs. Giving them free housing where they can do drugs and make a mess would improve the quality of life of everyone else who wants to be able to walk around the city in peace. So I agree with housing first. But the more services you offer, the more homeless you will attract. If you build it, they will come. Here is an article from the LA Times that seems to have twisted this around to conclude that lack of affordable housing is what causes homelessness. They found that the most expensive cities like SF, SD, and LA have the highest rates of homelessness per capita. These cities have the best weather, offer the most services, and are the most friendly towards drug addicts. They are a homeless Mecca. And contrary to the reports that claim something like 80% of the homeless are local, nearly all of the homeless I talk to moved from somewhere else. Many of us now have a California ID because we get them for free through the homeless services.

Cause of homelessness? It's not drugs or mental illness, researchers say

A lack of affordable housing is a key factor, according to a study of the nation's major areas.

www.latimes.com

They also looked at the claim that homeless people move to areas with greater public assistance, something they judged by comparing the state variations in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. They found that states that provided more dollars in the program did not have higher rates of homelessness.

I've never seen a family living in a tent on the street. From what little I have seen of families, they get red carpet treatment and automatically go straight into housing. Kids are a golden ticket in the homeless world. So while those parents are certainly guilty of poor decision making, they are not the ones doing drugs and making a mess on the sidewalks.

I'll see what I can find. I've posted many in these threads over the years, but my subscriptions aren't what they used to be, so I'll see if I can find some that are free to read.

While I look, you can start off at https://www.addictioncenter.com/ looking at their site for 10,000 foot view.

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

I googled and was reading this LA County Homeless Count

2059 - 2018 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count Presentation

www.lahsa.org

Within their slides they claim that 65% of the homeless population has lived there for 20 years and 75% lived in LA before becoming homeless. I suppose that's possible but the information is based upon the limited conservations that they actually conduct. I found it suspicious that 2018 was the only recent year that the homeless count declined and their slide presentation was quick to link it to Measure H passing and funds being distributed. They had also revised the previous year's count so that there was a massive 20% jump between 2016 and 2017 and then 4% decline between 2017 and 2018.

2018 to 2019 reported a 12% increase. They also adjusted their methodology for how they determine "the count."

LAHSA uses a well-established methodology for determining the total homeless population for each neighborhood.

The first step is to gather the number of individuals and families observed by the 7,000+ volunteers who canvassed every street in the Los Angeles Continuum of Care (CoC) during the “Street Count.” They also recorded on tally sheets how many “dwellings” they saw, which includes cars, vans, RVs, tents and makeshift shelters (CVRTM). Because volunteers were asked to keep a respectful distance from anyone experiencing homelessness, they were not able to see how many people were living inside the dwellings.

The second step is then to make this determination of how many people were in the dwellings.

• A “multiplier” for each type of dwelling is statistically derived by the results of approximately 4,000 demographic surveys conducted across the CoC. These surveys ask respondents where they sleep at night and if others were also living with them at that time. The multipliers are calculated annually by LAHSA’s statistical consultants at USC because they change from year to year.
• Once they are derived, the sum for each type of dwelling found on all the tally sheets for each city is multiplied by this factor.

The third step is adding in the unsheltered number found by “special teams.” These are made up of LAHSA street outreach teams and other trained professionals from local homelessness service providers who were assigned to check out difficult-to-reach areas such as along riverbeds. Their tally sheets were then included with those completed by the community volunteers.

 

[Joe Mammy]

Miami has a plan to move them over to an island.

My cousin works for the city of Portland in the planning division. I'm gonna ask her to step up plans to gather homeless and send them to Sauvie.

 

[The Commish]

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

What I posted is a good summary of how homelessness starts and the common factors that contribute to it. If we attack the various factors (roots of the problems as identified by the homeless themselves) then the problems begin to fix themselves. The site was NOT meant to be a commentary on any specific situation. And I apologize, but right now I am coming up empty on sites I still have subscriptions to. I'll have to look here in FBG to see if I can find some links to the "free" ones I had posted some time back

 

[Caveman33]

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

What I posted is a good summary of how homelessness starts and the common factors that contribute to it. If we attack the various factors (roots of the problems as identified by the homeless themselves) then the problems begin to fix themselves. The site was NOT meant to be a commentary on any specific situation. And I apologize, but right now I am coming up empty on sites I still have subscriptions to. I'll have to look here in FBG to see if I can find some links to the "free" ones I had posted some time back

No worries. I did look at the site before responding and it was advertising rehab and offering an 800 number to speak to a treatment provider. There was nothing regarding homelessness on the homepage or any of the tabs so I was confused. I believe homelessness ties into the thread about opportunity. We all have opportunities but they are not equal. Everyone experiences different challenges and some people can't overcome the ones facing them. It appears that the studies which minimize the impact of drug addiction and poor life choices are based around surveys of homeless people. It's almost like conducting crime studies based on surveys that ask individuals how many crimes they committed. I don't find that to be very reliable. We don't like to take responsibility for our situation, it's easier to place the blame elsewhere.

The most problematic homeless people for society are the ones living in tents on the sidewalks. I believe that providing them housing and drugs, alongside stronger disincentives for violating the public peace would be money well spent. The vast majority of them will always be a drain on society so it's important that we minimize their negative impact. In California, over $50K per homeless person is poured into the homeless industry. In my opinion, a large percentage of this money is squandered on "experts." So long as the experts are in charge and personally profiting from the system, the homeless problem is only going to get worse and worse.

 

[The Commish]

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

What I posted is a good summary of how homelessness starts and the common factors that contribute to it. If we attack the various factors (roots of the problems as identified by the homeless themselves) then the problems begin to fix themselves. The site was NOT meant to be a commentary on any specific situation. And I apologize, but right now I am coming up empty on sites I still have subscriptions to. I'll have to look here in FBG to see if I can find some links to the "free" ones I had posted some time back

No worries. I did look at the site before responding and it was advertising rehab and offering an 800 number to speak to a treatment provider. There was nothing regarding homelessness on the homepage or any of the tabs so I was confused. I believe homelessness ties into the thread about opportunity. We all have opportunities but they are not equal. Everyone experiences different challenges and some people can't overcome the ones facing them. It appears that the studies which minimize the impact of drug addiction and poor life choices are based around surveys of homeless people. It's almost like conducting crime studies based on surveys that ask individuals how many crimes they committed. I don't find that to be very reliable. We don't like to take responsibility for our situation, it's easier to place the blame elsewhere.

The most problematic homeless people for society are the ones living in tents on the sidewalks. I believe that providing them housing and drugs, alongside stronger disincentives for violating the public peace would be money well spent. The vast majority of them will always be a drain on society so it's important that we minimize their negative impact. In California, over $50K per homeless person is poured into the homeless industry. In my opinion, a large percentage of this money is squandered on "experts." So long as the experts are in charge and personally profiting from the system, the homeless problem is only going to get worse and worse.

I am not sure I've ever run across a study that minimizes or dismisses drug abuse as a problem. Every single one that I can ever remember reading has drugs/addictions as one of the top 5 factors in a person's homelessness. In my view, what is important in those findings is WHEN the drugs/addiction come into the picture. In well over half the readings I've ever done, that part comes in AFTER they become homeless and it's introduced as a coping mechanism. Of course, in a social study like that, we have to get the person's story. We have to rely on them to tell us the honest truth. There's no getting around that. If one is going to start in a position of pessimism and say "Well, I think what REALLY happened here was....." then no study is going to convince them and they're going to insist that drugs is the driving factor because that's what they want to believe, not because it's true. It would also mean that all these homeless people all over the country have somehow gotten on the same page to "trick" the researchers as a great many all come out with similar findings. In my view, that isn't a coincidence.

 

[General Malaise]

Miami has a plan to move them over to an island.

My cousin works for the city of Portland in the planning division. I'm gonna ask her to step up plans to gather homeless and send them to Sauvie.

Not Sauvie, Sauvie is beautiful. Government Island is where it's at. Even the name is perfect.

Local sports radio guy has been pushing his idea for "Bum Voyage" where the homeless are rounded up on cruise ships and sent out to sea, complete with reality tv camera crews to film all the hijinks. Go poop in the Pacific. Stop pooping on our sidewalks.

 

[Caveman33]

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

What I posted is a good summary of how homelessness starts and the common factors that contribute to it. If we attack the various factors (roots of the problems as identified by the homeless themselves) then the problems begin to fix themselves. The site was NOT meant to be a commentary on any specific situation. And I apologize, but right now I am coming up empty on sites I still have subscriptions to. I'll have to look here in FBG to see if I can find some links to the "free" ones I had posted some time back

No worries. I did look at the site before responding and it was advertising rehab and offering an 800 number to speak to a treatment provider. There was nothing regarding homelessness on the homepage or any of the tabs so I was confused. I believe homelessness ties into the thread about opportunity. We all have opportunities but they are not equal. Everyone experiences different challenges and some people can't overcome the ones facing them. It appears that the studies which minimize the impact of drug addiction and poor life choices are based around surveys of homeless people. It's almost like conducting crime studies based on surveys that ask individuals how many crimes they committed. I don't find that to be very reliable. We don't like to take responsibility for our situation, it's easier to place the blame elsewhere.

The most problematic homeless people for society are the ones living in tents on the sidewalks. I believe that providing them housing and drugs, alongside stronger disincentives for violating the public peace would be money well spent. The vast majority of them will always be a drain on society so it's important that we minimize their negative impact. In California, over $50K per homeless person is poured into the homeless industry. In my opinion, a large percentage of this money is squandered on "experts." So long as the experts are in charge and personally profiting from the system, the homeless problem is only going to get worse and worse.

I am not sure I've ever run across a study that minimizes or dismisses drug abuse as a problem. Every single one that I can ever remember reading has drugs/addictions as one of the top 5 factors in a person's homelessness. In my view, what is important in those findings is WHEN the drugs/addiction come into the picture. In well over half the readings I've ever done, that part comes in AFTER they become homeless and it's introduced as a coping mechanism. Of course, in a social study like that, we have to get the person's story. We have to rely on them to tell us the honest truth. There's no getting around that. If one is going to start in a position of pessimism and say "Well, I think what REALLY happened here was....." then no study is going to convince them and they're going to insist that drugs is the driving factor because that's what they want to believe, not because it's true. It would also mean that all these homeless people all over the country have somehow gotten on the same page to "trick" the researchers as a great many all come out with similar findings. In my view, that isn't a coincidence.

The article about a homeless study that I shared a few posts above ran this headline: "Causes of homelessness? It's not drugs or mental illness, researchers say."
I didn't arrive at my position of thinking that drug abuse and poor life choices are the driving factor for the homeless people who live in tents on sidewalks because that's what I want to believe. It is based on my experiences with them and what I learned of their background. This is a sample size in the tens, not hundreds or thousands, so it could be all the ones I've gotten to know well enough are the exception to the rule. But it doesn't take a conspiracy for homeless people to collectively deceive researchers. When reflecting on my own past, all the drugs that I took while housed were just me having fun, no different than all the other housed, working people who take drugs recreationally. Once I was no longer working and without a fixed home, then my drug use became a coping mechanism for my horrible situation. So you see, it was lack of housing that caused my drug abuse, not the other way around.

 

[The Commish]

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

What I posted is a good summary of how homelessness starts and the common factors that contribute to it. If we attack the various factors (roots of the problems as identified by the homeless themselves) then the problems begin to fix themselves. The site was NOT meant to be a commentary on any specific situation. And I apologize, but right now I am coming up empty on sites I still have subscriptions to. I'll have to look here in FBG to see if I can find some links to the "free" ones I had posted some time back

No worries. I did look at the site before responding and it was advertising rehab and offering an 800 number to speak to a treatment provider. There was nothing regarding homelessness on the homepage or any of the tabs so I was confused. I believe homelessness ties into the thread about opportunity. We all have opportunities but they are not equal. Everyone experiences different challenges and some people can't overcome the ones facing them. It appears that the studies which minimize the impact of drug addiction and poor life choices are based around surveys of homeless people. It's almost like conducting crime studies based on surveys that ask individuals how many crimes they committed. I don't find that to be very reliable. We don't like to take responsibility for our situation, it's easier to place the blame elsewhere.

The most problematic homeless people for society are the ones living in tents on the sidewalks. I believe that providing them housing and drugs, alongside stronger disincentives for violating the public peace would be money well spent. The vast majority of them will always be a drain on society so it's important that we minimize their negative impact. In California, over $50K per homeless person is poured into the homeless industry. In my opinion, a large percentage of this money is squandered on "experts." So long as the experts are in charge and personally profiting from the system, the homeless problem is only going to get worse and worse.

I am not sure I've ever run across a study that minimizes or dismisses drug abuse as a problem. Every single one that I can ever remember reading has drugs/addictions as one of the top 5 factors in a person's homelessness. In my view, what is important in those findings is WHEN the drugs/addiction come into the picture. In well over half the readings I've ever done, that part comes in AFTER they become homeless and it's introduced as a coping mechanism. Of course, in a social study like that, we have to get the person's story. We have to rely on them to tell us the honest truth. There's no getting around that. If one is going to start in a position of pessimism and say "Well, I think what REALLY happened here was....." then no study is going to convince them and they're going to insist that drugs is the driving factor because that's what they want to believe, not because it's true. It would also mean that all these homeless people all over the country have somehow gotten on the same page to "trick" the researchers as a great many all come out with similar findings. In my view, that isn't a coincidence.

The article about a homeless study that I shared a few posts above ran this headline: "Causes of homelessness? It's not drugs or mental illness, researchers say."
I didn't arrive at my position of thinking that drug abuse and poor life choices are the driving factor for the homeless people who live in tents on sidewalks because that's what I want to believe. It is based on my experiences with them and what I learned of their background. This is a sample size in the tens, not hundreds or thousands, so it could be all the ones I've gotten to know well enough are the exception to the rule. But it doesn't take a conspiracy for homeless people to collectively deceive researchers. When reflecting on my own past, all the drugs that I took while housed were just me having fun, no different than all the other housed, working people who take drugs recreationally. Once I was no longer working and without a fixed home, then my drug use became a coping mechanism for my horrible situation. So you see, it was lack of housing that caused my drug abuse, not the other way around.

Oh, make no mistake. I'm sure there are ones out there that do just as you suggest. To me that's incorrect and I'd read with an incredible amount of caution. Any study out there that says "the problem " is "x" or "y" should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not a single thing and it's incredibly complicated. I run into TONS of people who just dismiss the "problem" as being such and dump it all on drugs/mental issues. That's just as wrong as saying drugs/mental issues have nothing to do with it.

 

[Caveman33]

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

What I posted is a good summary of how homelessness starts and the common factors that contribute to it. If we attack the various factors (roots of the problems as identified by the homeless themselves) then the problems begin to fix themselves. The site was NOT meant to be a commentary on any specific situation. And I apologize, but right now I am coming up empty on sites I still have subscriptions to. I'll have to look here in FBG to see if I can find some links to the "free" ones I had posted some time back

No worries. I did look at the site before responding and it was advertising rehab and offering an 800 number to speak to a treatment provider. There was nothing regarding homelessness on the homepage or any of the tabs so I was confused. I believe homelessness ties into the thread about opportunity. We all have opportunities but they are not equal. Everyone experiences different challenges and some people can't overcome the ones facing them. It appears that the studies which minimize the impact of drug addiction and poor life choices are based around surveys of homeless people. It's almost like conducting crime studies based on surveys that ask individuals how many crimes they committed. I don't find that to be very reliable. We don't like to take responsibility for our situation, it's easier to place the blame elsewhere.

The most problematic homeless people for society are the ones living in tents on the sidewalks. I believe that providing them housing and drugs, alongside stronger disincentives for violating the public peace would be money well spent. The vast majority of them will always be a drain on society so it's important that we minimize their negative impact. In California, over $50K per homeless person is poured into the homeless industry. In my opinion, a large percentage of this money is squandered on "experts." So long as the experts are in charge and personally profiting from the system, the homeless problem is only going to get worse and worse.

I am not sure I've ever run across a study that minimizes or dismisses drug abuse as a problem. Every single one that I can ever remember reading has drugs/addictions as one of the top 5 factors in a person's homelessness. In my view, what is important in those findings is WHEN the drugs/addiction come into the picture. In well over half the readings I've ever done, that part comes in AFTER they become homeless and it's introduced as a coping mechanism. Of course, in a social study like that, we have to get the person's story. We have to rely on them to tell us the honest truth. There's no getting around that. If one is going to start in a position of pessimism and say "Well, I think what REALLY happened here was....." then no study is going to convince them and they're going to insist that drugs is the driving factor because that's what they want to believe, not because it's true. It would also mean that all these homeless people all over the country have somehow gotten on the same page to "trick" the researchers as a great many all come out with similar findings. In my view, that isn't a coincidence.

The article about a homeless study that I shared a few posts above ran this headline: "Causes of homelessness? It's not drugs or mental illness, researchers say."
I didn't arrive at my position of thinking that drug abuse and poor life choices are the driving factor for the homeless people who live in tents on sidewalks because that's what I want to believe. It is based on my experiences with them and what I learned of their background. This is a sample size in the tens, not hundreds or thousands, so it could be all the ones I've gotten to know well enough are the exception to the rule. But it doesn't take a conspiracy for homeless people to collectively deceive researchers. When reflecting on my own past, all the drugs that I took while housed were just me having fun, no different than all the other housed, working people who take drugs recreationally. Once I was no longer working and without a fixed home, then my drug use became a coping mechanism for my horrible situation. So you see, it was lack of housing that caused my drug abuse, not the other way around.

Oh, make no mistake. I'm sure there are ones out there that do just as you suggest. To me that's incorrect and I'd read with an incredible amount of caution. Any study out there that says "the problem " is "x" or "y" should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not a single thing and it's incredibly complicated. I run into TONS of people who just dismiss the "problem" as being such and dump it all on drugs/mental issues. That's just as wrong as saying drugs/mental issues have nothing to do with it.

I agree that there are multiple factors playing into it and the impact of each factor varies by individual. I'm just pushing back against what I perceive to be a newer trend of making excuses for our individual choices. And there is a decent chance I will be fully homeless in the future. I have many scars and unfortunate experiences but it doesn't negate the fact that my choices have directly caused my situation. All that aside, I still think providing subsidized housing is the most economical and humane solution for society.

 

[The Commish]

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

What I posted is a good summary of how homelessness starts and the common factors that contribute to it. If we attack the various factors (roots of the problems as identified by the homeless themselves) then the problems begin to fix themselves. The site was NOT meant to be a commentary on any specific situation. And I apologize, but right now I am coming up empty on sites I still have subscriptions to. I'll have to look here in FBG to see if I can find some links to the "free" ones I had posted some time back

No worries. I did look at the site before responding and it was advertising rehab and offering an 800 number to speak to a treatment provider. There was nothing regarding homelessness on the homepage or any of the tabs so I was confused. I believe homelessness ties into the thread about opportunity. We all have opportunities but they are not equal. Everyone experiences different challenges and some people can't overcome the ones facing them. It appears that the studies which minimize the impact of drug addiction and poor life choices are based around surveys of homeless people. It's almost like conducting crime studies based on surveys that ask individuals how many crimes they committed. I don't find that to be very reliable. We don't like to take responsibility for our situation, it's easier to place the blame elsewhere.

The most problematic homeless people for society are the ones living in tents on the sidewalks. I believe that providing them housing and drugs, alongside stronger disincentives for violating the public peace would be money well spent. The vast majority of them will always be a drain on society so it's important that we minimize their negative impact. In California, over $50K per homeless person is poured into the homeless industry. In my opinion, a large percentage of this money is squandered on "experts." So long as the experts are in charge and personally profiting from the system, the homeless problem is only going to get worse and worse.

I am not sure I've ever run across a study that minimizes or dismisses drug abuse as a problem. Every single one that I can ever remember reading has drugs/addictions as one of the top 5 factors in a person's homelessness. In my view, what is important in those findings is WHEN the drugs/addiction come into the picture. In well over half the readings I've ever done, that part comes in AFTER they become homeless and it's introduced as a coping mechanism. Of course, in a social study like that, we have to get the person's story. We have to rely on them to tell us the honest truth. There's no getting around that. If one is going to start in a position of pessimism and say "Well, I think what REALLY happened here was....." then no study is going to convince them and they're going to insist that drugs is the driving factor because that's what they want to believe, not because it's true. It would also mean that all these homeless people all over the country have somehow gotten on the same page to "trick" the researchers as a great many all come out with similar findings. In my view, that isn't a coincidence.

The article about a homeless study that I shared a few posts above ran this headline: "Causes of homelessness? It's not drugs or mental illness, researchers say."
I didn't arrive at my position of thinking that drug abuse and poor life choices are the driving factor for the homeless people who live in tents on sidewalks because that's what I want to believe. It is based on my experiences with them and what I learned of their background. This is a sample size in the tens, not hundreds or thousands, so it could be all the ones I've gotten to know well enough are the exception to the rule. But it doesn't take a conspiracy for homeless people to collectively deceive researchers. When reflecting on my own past, all the drugs that I took while housed were just me having fun, no different than all the other housed, working people who take drugs recreationally. Once I was no longer working and without a fixed home, then my drug use became a coping mechanism for my horrible situation. So you see, it was lack of housing that caused my drug abuse, not the other way around.

Oh, make no mistake. I'm sure there are ones out there that do just as you suggest. To me that's incorrect and I'd read with an incredible amount of caution. Any study out there that says "the problem " is "x" or "y" should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not a single thing and it's incredibly complicated. I run into TONS of people who just dismiss the "problem" as being such and dump it all on drugs/mental issues. That's just as wrong as saying drugs/mental issues have nothing to do with it.

I agree that there are multiple factors playing into it and the impact of each factor varies by individual. I'm just pushing back against what I perceive to be a newer trend of making excuses for our individual choices. And there is a decent chance I will be fully homeless in the future. I have many scars and unfortunate experiences but it doesn't negate the fact that my choices have directly caused my situation. All that aside, I still think providing subsidized housing is the most economical and humane solution for society.

In my experience its not either/or. I know both scenarios are legit.

 

[Caveman33]

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

What I posted is a good summary of how homelessness starts and the common factors that contribute to it. If we attack the various factors (roots of the problems as identified by the homeless themselves) then the problems begin to fix themselves. The site was NOT meant to be a commentary on any specific situation. And I apologize, but right now I am coming up empty on sites I still have subscriptions to. I'll have to look here in FBG to see if I can find some links to the "free" ones I had posted some time back

No worries. I did look at the site before responding and it was advertising rehab and offering an 800 number to speak to a treatment provider. There was nothing regarding homelessness on the homepage or any of the tabs so I was confused. I believe homelessness ties into the thread about opportunity. We all have opportunities but they are not equal. Everyone experiences different challenges and some people can't overcome the ones facing them. It appears that the studies which minimize the impact of drug addiction and poor life choices are based around surveys of homeless people. It's almost like conducting crime studies based on surveys that ask individuals how many crimes they committed. I don't find that to be very reliable. We don't like to take responsibility for our situation, it's easier to place the blame elsewhere.

The most problematic homeless people for society are the ones living in tents on the sidewalks. I believe that providing them housing and drugs, alongside stronger disincentives for violating the public peace would be money well spent. The vast majority of them will always be a drain on society so it's important that we minimize their negative impact. In California, over $50K per homeless person is poured into the homeless industry. In my opinion, a large percentage of this money is squandered on "experts." So long as the experts are in charge and personally profiting from the system, the homeless problem is only going to get worse and worse.

I am not sure I've ever run across a study that minimizes or dismisses drug abuse as a problem. Every single one that I can ever remember reading has drugs/addictions as one of the top 5 factors in a person's homelessness. In my view, what is important in those findings is WHEN the drugs/addiction come into the picture. In well over half the readings I've ever done, that part comes in AFTER they become homeless and it's introduced as a coping mechanism. Of course, in a social study like that, we have to get the person's story. We have to rely on them to tell us the honest truth. There's no getting around that. If one is going to start in a position of pessimism and say "Well, I think what REALLY happened here was....." then no study is going to convince them and they're going to insist that drugs is the driving factor because that's what they want to believe, not because it's true. It would also mean that all these homeless people all over the country have somehow gotten on the same page to "trick" the researchers as a great many all come out with similar findings. In my view, that isn't a coincidence.

The article about a homeless study that I shared a few posts above ran this headline: "Causes of homelessness? It's not drugs or mental illness, researchers say."
I didn't arrive at my position of thinking that drug abuse and poor life choices are the driving factor for the homeless people who live in tents on sidewalks because that's what I want to believe. It is based on my experiences with them and what I learned of their background. This is a sample size in the tens, not hundreds or thousands, so it could be all the ones I've gotten to know well enough are the exception to the rule. But it doesn't take a conspiracy for homeless people to collectively deceive researchers. When reflecting on my own past, all the drugs that I took while housed were just me having fun, no different than all the other housed, working people who take drugs recreationally. Once I was no longer working and without a fixed home, then my drug use became a coping mechanism for my horrible situation. So you see, it was lack of housing that caused my drug abuse, not the other way around.

Oh, make no mistake. I'm sure there are ones out there that do just as you suggest. To me that's incorrect and I'd read with an incredible amount of caution. Any study out there that says "the problem " is "x" or "y" should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not a single thing and it's incredibly complicated. I run into TONS of people who just dismiss the "problem" as being such and dump it all on drugs/mental issues. That's just as wrong as saying drugs/mental issues have nothing to do with it.

I agree that there are multiple factors playing into it and the impact of each factor varies by individual. I'm just pushing back against what I perceive to be a newer trend of making excuses for our individual choices. And there is a decent chance I will be fully homeless in the future. I have many scars and unfortunate experiences but it doesn't negate the fact that my choices have directly caused my situation. All that aside, I still think providing subsidized housing is the most economical and humane solution for society.

In my experience its not either/or. I know both scenarios are legit.

I don't understand what this means.

 

[The Commish]

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

What I posted is a good summary of how homelessness starts and the common factors that contribute to it. If we attack the various factors (roots of the problems as identified by the homeless themselves) then the problems begin to fix themselves. The site was NOT meant to be a commentary on any specific situation. And I apologize, but right now I am coming up empty on sites I still have subscriptions to. I'll have to look here in FBG to see if I can find some links to the "free" ones I had posted some time back

No worries. I did look at the site before responding and it was advertising rehab and offering an 800 number to speak to a treatment provider. There was nothing regarding homelessness on the homepage or any of the tabs so I was confused. I believe homelessness ties into the thread about opportunity. We all have opportunities but they are not equal. Everyone experiences different challenges and some people can't overcome the ones facing them. It appears that the studies which minimize the impact of drug addiction and poor life choices are based around surveys of homeless people. It's almost like conducting crime studies based on surveys that ask individuals how many crimes they committed. I don't find that to be very reliable. We don't like to take responsibility for our situation, it's easier to place the blame elsewhere.

The most problematic homeless people for society are the ones living in tents on the sidewalks. I believe that providing them housing and drugs, alongside stronger disincentives for violating the public peace would be money well spent. The vast majority of them will always be a drain on society so it's important that we minimize their negative impact. In California, over $50K per homeless person is poured into the homeless industry. In my opinion, a large percentage of this money is squandered on "experts." So long as the experts are in charge and personally profiting from the system, the homeless problem is only going to get worse and worse.

I am not sure I've ever run across a study that minimizes or dismisses drug abuse as a problem. Every single one that I can ever remember reading has drugs/addictions as one of the top 5 factors in a person's homelessness. In my view, what is important in those findings is WHEN the drugs/addiction come into the picture. In well over half the readings I've ever done, that part comes in AFTER they become homeless and it's introduced as a coping mechanism. Of course, in a social study like that, we have to get the person's story. We have to rely on them to tell us the honest truth. There's no getting around that. If one is going to start in a position of pessimism and say "Well, I think what REALLY happened here was....." then no study is going to convince them and they're going to insist that drugs is the driving factor because that's what they want to believe, not because it's true. It would also mean that all these homeless people all over the country have somehow gotten on the same page to "trick" the researchers as a great many all come out with similar findings. In my view, that isn't a coincidence.

The article about a homeless study that I shared a few posts above ran this headline: "Causes of homelessness? It's not drugs or mental illness, researchers say."
I didn't arrive at my position of thinking that drug abuse and poor life choices are the driving factor for the homeless people who live in tents on sidewalks because that's what I want to believe. It is based on my experiences with them and what I learned of their background. This is a sample size in the tens, not hundreds or thousands, so it could be all the ones I've gotten to know well enough are the exception to the rule. But it doesn't take a conspiracy for homeless people to collectively deceive researchers. When reflecting on my own past, all the drugs that I took while housed were just me having fun, no different than all the other housed, working people who take drugs recreationally. Once I was no longer working and without a fixed home, then my drug use became a coping mechanism for my horrible situation. So you see, it was lack of housing that caused my drug abuse, not the other way around.

Oh, make no mistake. I'm sure there are ones out there that do just as you suggest. To me that's incorrect and I'd read with an incredible amount of caution. Any study out there that says "the problem " is "x" or "y" should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not a single thing and it's incredibly complicated. I run into TONS of people who just dismiss the "problem" as being such and dump it all on drugs/mental issues. That's just as wrong as saying drugs/mental issues have nothing to do with it.

I agree that there are multiple factors playing into it and the impact of each factor varies by individual. I'm just pushing back against what I perceive to be a newer trend of making excuses for our individual choices. And there is a decent chance I will be fully homeless in the future. I have many scars and unfortunate experiences but it doesn't negate the fact that my choices have directly caused my situation. All that aside, I still think providing subsidized housing is the most economical and humane solution for society.

In my experience its not either/or. I know both scenarios are legit.

I don't understand what this means.

It means that there are some where they bring it on themselves through their poor decision making and drugs/addiction ARE the initial problem and there are some that have other circumstances that put them on their path to homelessness (typically out of their control) and then they turn to drugs/alcohol as a coping mechanism. Both scenarios exist and we shouldn't be coming up with solutions based on what we believe is to be more prevelant. We need to take the time to understand every single situation and offer help based on the individual's circumstances.

 

[Caveman33]

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

What I posted is a good summary of how homelessness starts and the common factors that contribute to it. If we attack the various factors (roots of the problems as identified by the homeless themselves) then the problems begin to fix themselves. The site was NOT meant to be a commentary on any specific situation. And I apologize, but right now I am coming up empty on sites I still have subscriptions to. I'll have to look here in FBG to see if I can find some links to the "free" ones I had posted some time back

No worries. I did look at the site before responding and it was advertising rehab and offering an 800 number to speak to a treatment provider. There was nothing regarding homelessness on the homepage or any of the tabs so I was confused. I believe homelessness ties into the thread about opportunity. We all have opportunities but they are not equal. Everyone experiences different challenges and some people can't overcome the ones facing them. It appears that the studies which minimize the impact of drug addiction and poor life choices are based around surveys of homeless people. It's almost like conducting crime studies based on surveys that ask individuals how many crimes they committed. I don't find that to be very reliable. We don't like to take responsibility for our situation, it's easier to place the blame elsewhere.

The most problematic homeless people for society are the ones living in tents on the sidewalks. I believe that providing them housing and drugs, alongside stronger disincentives for violating the public peace would be money well spent. The vast majority of them will always be a drain on society so it's important that we minimize their negative impact. In California, over $50K per homeless person is poured into the homeless industry. In my opinion, a large percentage of this money is squandered on "experts." So long as the experts are in charge and personally profiting from the system, the homeless problem is only going to get worse and worse.

I am not sure I've ever run across a study that minimizes or dismisses drug abuse as a problem. Every single one that I can ever remember reading has drugs/addictions as one of the top 5 factors in a person's homelessness. In my view, what is important in those findings is WHEN the drugs/addiction come into the picture. In well over half the readings I've ever done, that part comes in AFTER they become homeless and it's introduced as a coping mechanism. Of course, in a social study like that, we have to get the person's story. We have to rely on them to tell us the honest truth. There's no getting around that. If one is going to start in a position of pessimism and say "Well, I think what REALLY happened here was....." then no study is going to convince them and they're going to insist that drugs is the driving factor because that's what they want to believe, not because it's true. It would also mean that all these homeless people all over the country have somehow gotten on the same page to "trick" the researchers as a great many all come out with similar findings. In my view, that isn't a coincidence.

The article about a homeless study that I shared a few posts above ran this headline: "Causes of homelessness? It's not drugs or mental illness, researchers say."
I didn't arrive at my position of thinking that drug abuse and poor life choices are the driving factor for the homeless people who live in tents on sidewalks because that's what I want to believe. It is based on my experiences with them and what I learned of their background. This is a sample size in the tens, not hundreds or thousands, so it could be all the ones I've gotten to know well enough are the exception to the rule. But it doesn't take a conspiracy for homeless people to collectively deceive researchers. When reflecting on my own past, all the drugs that I took while housed were just me having fun, no different than all the other housed, working people who take drugs recreationally. Once I was no longer working and without a fixed home, then my drug use became a coping mechanism for my horrible situation. So you see, it was lack of housing that caused my drug abuse, not the other way around.

Oh, make no mistake. I'm sure there are ones out there that do just as you suggest. To me that's incorrect and I'd read with an incredible amount of caution. Any study out there that says "the problem " is "x" or "y" should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not a single thing and it's incredibly complicated. I run into TONS of people who just dismiss the "problem" as being such and dump it all on drugs/mental issues. That's just as wrong as saying drugs/mental issues have nothing to do with it.

I agree that there are multiple factors playing into it and the impact of each factor varies by individual. I'm just pushing back against what I perceive to be a newer trend of making excuses for our individual choices. And there is a decent chance I will be fully homeless in the future. I have many scars and unfortunate experiences but it doesn't negate the fact that my choices have directly caused my situation. All that aside, I still think providing subsidized housing is the most economical and humane solution for society.

In my experience its not either/or. I know both scenarios are legit.

I don't understand what this means.

It means that there are some where they bring it on themselves through their poor decision making and drugs/addiction ARE the initial problem and there are some that have other circumstances that put them on their path to homelessness (typically out of their control) and then they turn to drugs/alcohol as a coping mechanism. Both scenarios exist and we shouldn't be coming up with solutions based on what we believe is to be more prevelant. We need to take the time to understand every single situation and offer help based on the individual's circumstances.

So let's assume there are two individuals living together in a tent on the street, smoking meth and fentanyl. One says his life has always sucked and he started doing drugs as a teen. He's been homeless most of his adult life. The other says he has always worked hard, often three jobs at a time. Then the pandemic caused him to lose everything and he turned to drugs to forget how miserable life was on the streets.

How would the help you offered to these two people differ?

 

[The Commish]

I guess if that site is a 10,000 ft view of the homeless people living in tents, then the times I smoked crack with them was like a 10 ft view.

What I posted is a good summary of how homelessness starts and the common factors that contribute to it. If we attack the various factors (roots of the problems as identified by the homeless themselves) then the problems begin to fix themselves. The site was NOT meant to be a commentary on any specific situation. And I apologize, but right now I am coming up empty on sites I still have subscriptions to. I'll have to look here in FBG to see if I can find some links to the "free" ones I had posted some time back

No worries. I did look at the site before responding and it was advertising rehab and offering an 800 number to speak to a treatment provider. There was nothing regarding homelessness on the homepage or any of the tabs so I was confused. I believe homelessness ties into the thread about opportunity. We all have opportunities but they are not equal. Everyone experiences different challenges and some people can't overcome the ones facing them. It appears that the studies which minimize the impact of drug addiction and poor life choices are based around surveys of homeless people. It's almost like conducting crime studies based on surveys that ask individuals how many crimes they committed. I don't find that to be very reliable. We don't like to take responsibility for our situation, it's easier to place the blame elsewhere.

The most problematic homeless people for society are the ones living in tents on the sidewalks. I believe that providing them housing and drugs, alongside stronger disincentives for violating the public peace would be money well spent. The vast majority of them will always be a drain on society so it's important that we minimize their negative impact. In California, over $50K per homeless person is poured into the homeless industry. In my opinion, a large percentage of this money is squandered on "experts." So long as the experts are in charge and personally profiting from the system, the homeless problem is only going to get worse and worse.

I am not sure I've ever run across a study that minimizes or dismisses drug abuse as a problem. Every single one that I can ever remember reading has drugs/addictions as one of the top 5 factors in a person's homelessness. In my view, what is important in those findings is WHEN the drugs/addiction come into the picture. In well over half the readings I've ever done, that part comes in AFTER they become homeless and it's introduced as a coping mechanism. Of course, in a social study like that, we have to get the person's story. We have to rely on them to tell us the honest truth. There's no getting around that. If one is going to start in a position of pessimism and say "Well, I think what REALLY happened here was....." then no study is going to convince them and they're going to insist that drugs is the driving factor because that's what they want to believe, not because it's true. It would also mean that all these homeless people all over the country have somehow gotten on the same page to "trick" the researchers as a great many all come out with similar findings. In my view, that isn't a coincidence.

The article about a homeless study that I shared a few posts above ran this headline: "Causes of homelessness? It's not drugs or mental illness, researchers say."
I didn't arrive at my position of thinking that drug abuse and poor life choices are the driving factor for the homeless people who live in tents on sidewalks because that's what I want to believe. It is based on my experiences with them and what I learned of their background. This is a sample size in the tens, not hundreds or thousands, so it could be all the ones I've gotten to know well enough are the exception to the rule. But it doesn't take a conspiracy for homeless people to collectively deceive researchers. When reflecting on my own past, all the drugs that I took while housed were just me having fun, no different than all the other housed, working people who take drugs recreationally. Once I was no longer working and without a fixed home, then my drug use became a coping mechanism for my horrible situation. So you see, it was lack of housing that caused my drug abuse, not the other way around.

Oh, make no mistake. I'm sure there are ones out there that do just as you suggest. To me that's incorrect and I'd read with an incredible amount of caution. Any study out there that says "the problem " is "x" or "y" should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not a single thing and it's incredibly complicated. I run into TONS of people who just dismiss the "problem" as being such and dump it all on drugs/mental issues. That's just as wrong as saying drugs/mental issues have nothing to do with it.

I agree that there are multiple factors playing into it and the impact of each factor varies by individual. I'm just pushing back against what I perceive to be a newer trend of making excuses for our individual choices. And there is a decent chance I will be fully homeless in the future. I have many scars and unfortunate experiences but it doesn't negate the fact that my choices have directly caused my situation. All that aside, I still think providing subsidized housing is the most economical and humane solution for society.

In my experience its not either/or. I know both scenarios are legit.

I don't understand what this means.

It means that there are some where they bring it on themselves through their poor decision making and drugs/addiction ARE the initial problem and there are some that have other circumstances that put them on their path to homelessness (typically out of their control) and then they turn to drugs/alcohol as a coping mechanism. Both scenarios exist and we shouldn't be coming up with solutions based on what we believe is to be more prevelant. We need to take the time to understand every single situation and offer help based on the individual's circumstances.

So let's assume there are two individuals living together in a tent on the street, smoking meth and fentanyl. One says his life has always sucked and he started doing drugs as a teen. He's been homeless most of his adult life. The other says he has always worked hard, often three jobs at a time. Then the pandemic caused him to lose everything and he turned to drugs to forget how miserable life was on the streets.

How would the help you offered to these two people differ?

Well, they'd be somewhat similar to start. I'd put a roof over both their heads off the bat. I'd put both in rehab for their drug addictions. For the one with lifelong problems, I'd put in an extensive self support group with a psychologist. For the second guy, once he was through rehab showing he was on the right track and discussion with his counselor, either provide a low rent, safe place to stay or support for buying a home.

Clearly the two people come very different places and have very different paths they've taken even if they end up n the same place. It's important to address those paths, empathize with their past and help them change their perceptions on life and what "normal" looks like.