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

[Joe Bryant]

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

That's a fair point. 

I would answer that part of the goal with the longer term housing is establishing independence and removing a rule like this is part of the process. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

And I'll also stress again I am far from feeling like I have the right answers on this. It's complicated and intertwined and messy. 

I am certain though about my feeling on the over arching goal is not just help but restoring some dignity. I think that's a big deal. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

LIke here's a small thing that illustrates the point maybe.

On one night we do BBQ. On another night we do hot dogs. 

But they're not the mystery hot dogs where you can buy a zillion for $10. They're Ball Park Franks all beef hot dogs. They're the kind of hot dogs I'd serve my friends if I was serving hot dogs. Granted, they're still a hot dog. But they're the best I can do there.

I put my BBQ rub on them and put them in the BBQ smoker for about an hour and they're delicious.

When we serve, we have pump top containers of mustard and ketchup. 

The old way before I got there that they served hot dogs was every hot dog got mustard and ketchup and went out to be served. It was like an assembly line.

If I were serving you guys hot dogs, that's now how I'd do it. I'd let you put what you want on it. The correct answer of course is mustard only. But not everyone agrees with me.

So when I started doing hot dogs, I changed it so the person is served the hot dogs and they are asked if they'd like mustard or ketchup or both or nothing and then we serve them what they want. 

One night I walked over to the line and there was a (somewhat grumpy) volunteer lady throwing mustard and ketchup both on every hot dog and sending it down the line.

I said, "Don't do that. Ask them what they want and then give them what they ask for."

She looked at me like I was crazy and said, "Nope. That'll take too long".

I said, "I don't care if it takes you all night, you ask them what they want and then give them what they ask for."

She said angrily, "Why do YOU get to decide how this goes?"

I said, "Because I bought every one of these 800 hot dogs and buns and all the mustard and ketchup". 

And that was that. 

It was a small thing but I think a bigger point. That goes way back to the original point. It's not about the hot dogs. Or the mustard or ketchup. It's about the dignity.

These people are already down. I can only imagine what it must have felt like for them to think, "I'm standing in line for a hot dog and I don't even have the power to decide what goes on it". That sucks and I'm not going to allow that. I can't do much. But I can change that. 

 

[Thorpe]

There is a big difference between being allowed to do something and it being the right thing to do.

There is no constitutional right to being allowed to drink, so the city can do what they want.  

There is a right to be free from religion, so the city can't make you attend church services to stay in the housing.

If it were me making the rules, I'd allow them to drink, but try to discourage them from being sloppy drunk in public. 

 

[Zow]

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

From a treatment perspective, a shelter is supposed to be short-term. It's not unreasonable or impossible to ask an addict to be sober for a very short period of time. Many of them can do it. My training indicates that generally anything short of 30 days isn't terribly difficult. Plus, most shelters are not set up like actual apartments so bodies are close to one another where disputes are probably more likely and the shelter isn't equipped to deal with it. 

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

This is not the same in several ways, but this discussion reminds me of the debates about requiring drug-testing to receive welfare.  On its face it seems like a sensible policy that a lot of people immediately agree with, but in reality I think it's been proven to be an ineffective waste of resources, and further serves to degrade a class of people who are already at the bottom of society.  Are we trying to help people or not?  While abstaining from alcohol is arguably best, drinking in stable housing is sure to lead to better outcomes for all involved than drinking on the streets.  Citing alcohol-related things like violence and disorderly public behavior seems like a nonissue, as those are already illegal - the housing doesn't need to be conditioned on a prohibition of alcohol, you can treat these incidents as they arise.  But I think a compassionate society would give people the means and the opportunity to succeed, and not punish them prematurely for the crime of being poor. 

 

[Zow]

@Joe Bryant, your point about the dignity is a big one when it comes to rehabilitation/treatment (and huge kudos to you btw for recognizing it). That's a nice microcosm for my post on the last page. If it's only restrictions and negative reinforcement than the good will gets lost with the individual being helped. And, as I'm sure we've all experienced, if you treat somebody as less than human they will act accordingly - which defeats the entire purpose of subsidized housing in the first place. 

ETA: And damn right it's mustard only. And, ideally, sweet white onions. 

 

[Zow]

This is not the same in several ways, but this discussion reminds me of the debates about requiring drug-testing to receive welfare.  On its face it seems like a sensible policy that a lot of people immediately agree with, but in reality I think it's been proven to be an ineffective waste of resources, and further serves to degrade a class of people who are already at the bottom of society.  Are we trying to help people or not?  While abstaining from alcohol is arguably best, drinking in stable housing is sure to lead to better outcomes for all involved than drinking on the streets.  Citing alcohol-related things like violence and disorderly public behavior seems like a nonissue, as those are already illegal - the housing doesn't need to be conditioned on a prohibition of alcohol, you can treat these incidents as they arise.  But I think a compassionate society would give people the means and the opportunity to succeed, and not punish them prematurely for the crime of being poor. 

Or for being an addict. 

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Or for being an addict. 

Sure, or mentally ill, or whatever the circumstances that led them to literally living on the street.  That's got to be about as low as you can get.  We're supposedly this wealthy, civilized Western society.  Getting these people help, a chance to succeed and as Joe has mentioned, some basic human dignity, should be a high priority for us.  Attaching strings to the help should be much, much lower and just ensures that fewer people will benefit.  

 

[TLEF316]

Very interesting topic.

I tend to lean towards the "its ok to ban booze" side of the argument, but the simple matter is that some of these folks will sadly choose drunk under a bridge over sober with a real roof over their heads. Its freaking tragic and I honestly dont know what the right answer is.

Bottom line, these people need help. But the line between "treating them with compassion" and "enforcing positive behavior" is a really fine one to walk. 

So tough.

 

[Dezbelief]

Very interesting topic.

I tend to lean towards the "its ok to ban booze" side of the argument, but the simple matter is that some of these folks will sadly choose drunk under a bridge over sober with a real roof over their heads. Its freaking tragic and I honestly dont know what the right answer is.

Bottom line, these people need help. But the line between "treating them with compassion" and "enforcing positive behavior" is a really fine one to walk. 

So tough.

Truth

 

[Joe Bryant]

Very interesting topic.

I tend to lean towards the "its ok to ban booze" side of the argument, but the simple matter is that some of these folks will sadly choose drunk under a bridge over sober with a real roof over their heads. Its freaking tragic and I honestly dont know what the right answer is.

Bottom line, these people need help. But the line between "treating them with compassion" and "enforcing positive behavior" is a really fine one to walk. 

So tough.

I've got a good bit of experience with this and it's often not really all that simple. 

Knoxville has a well run Homeless Shelter 1,000 yards from where we set up to do the BBQ ministry thing. 

A regular part of conversations I'll have with people will be, "Where you at tonight?". Meaning are they at the shelter or are they camping.

A large portion will be camping. 

And I always ask, "Why not the Mission?"

The replies are almost always like this:

"I don't like sleeping in a room with 200 guys snoring and coughing"

"They treat us like cattle there"

"I got some PSTD stuff going on and it weirds me out to be around that many people"

"It seems like I get sick whenever I go in there"

"My stuff got stolen last time I was there"

"I got banned there for a scuffle where a guy stole something from me and I got in his face and now I can't go back". 

"I don't like having to take a shower there".

Basically, most everyone has a completely understandable reason. 

It's a long ways from dude would just rather be drunk than warm and dry. 

 

[[icon]]

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

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

Bingo 

Nobody is saying you can't drink. Just can't drink or store booze on the property.

Sometimes people need help beyond just the roof. Hopefully for some this would be a push toward drinking less and getting their lives back on track. This type of housing would be for those who want to do that. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

If there's one thing I was struck by in getting to know Homeless folks, it's how relatively regular they are. There are certainly several dealing with mental illness and talking to people that aren't there and such. But the vast majority are pretty regular people that have burned through their "safety nets". 

I could have been busted with a DUI when I was 25 and my Dad would have killed me, but he would have helped me through it. When guy with out any support system gets a DUI, he goes to jail for a few days and loses his job and then who knows. 

So I was just lucky to have the support system I had. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Il split the apple, yes if it’s public housing, no if it’s subsidized.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Il split the apple, yes if it’s public housing, no if it’s subsidized.

Can you elaborate on your definitions?

In this case, my question was should a facility that offers housing to formerly homeless people at rent that is 50% reduced market price to free be allowed to have a no alcohol policy? What do you think there?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can you elaborate on your definitions?

In this case, my question was should a facility that offers housing to formerly homeless people at rent that is 50% reduced market price to free be allowed to have a no alcohol policy? What do you think there?

Hi Joe. - Yes, strictly who owns the property. Is it city/government owned, or is it private property with a subsidy?

I guess these were the two examples I saw in the OP:

1. A company offers a company car to employees.... but they put in strict tracking and limitations of what can be done with it or in it. - I'm totally ok with that. Just don't take the car IMO or just use it strictly for business like they instruct and use your car for personal stuff.

But if it's say a reimbursement where the company pays for the gas and repairs on your car? No, I don't think so.

2.

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

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

Because alcohol abuse is something some homeless people face, the city asked to have a rule prohibiting alcohol in the apartments they provide. 

- I guess my perspective on this is New Orleans. We have gone through this whole thing especially after Katrina of tearing down legacy housing projects and building new homes with prettier Southern styles, with more space, green area.... but with strings attached in terms of who can live there and even who can go in there and what can be done in there. 

I guess you know Nola Brewery. That actually used to be a pretty rough area potentially. St. Thomas project was not far from there and Magazine Street was on occasion a sort of skid row around there, potentially dangerous without much if any business. Tearing down the project was very controversial but frankly it helped revitalize the street and made things like Nola Brewery even possible. (There had been an old brewery at the corner of Jackson and Tchoup decades ago but that was the sort of thing that existed pre-project).

I guess my point is that an urban planning/renewal POV is where I'm coming from. If the city owns that property even partially yeah I think they should be able to make rules.

However hypothetically if it's private property and the city is just paying 50% of the rent? No, I don't think they should be able to make demands or restrictions. There it's a private property and freedom thing to me.

 

[-OZ-]

LIke here's a small thing that illustrates the point maybe.

...

These people are already down. I can only imagine what it must have felt like for them to think, "I'm standing in line for a hot dog and I don't even have the power to decide what goes on it". That sucks and I'm not going to allow that. I can't do much. But I can change that. 

That's a great point, relevant to whether the city / facility SHOULD have the policy.  Your original question is whether the city should be allowed to have the policy.  I'm very much of the "the entity can have any non-discriminatory policy they want if they're responsible for whatever they're doing" mindset.  So yes, the policy should be allowed.  But perhaps the city shouldn't enact it. 

Sure, or mentally ill, or whatever the circumstances that led them to literally living on the street.  That's got to be about as low as you can get.  We're supposedly this wealthy, civilized Western society.  Getting these people help, a chance to succeed and as Joe has mentioned, some basic human dignity, should be a high priority for us.  Attaching strings to the help should be much, much lower and just ensures that fewer people will benefit.  

fair point.  We seem to be arguing over whether the city should have the policy.  Unless you believe the Federal Government (or states) should outlaw all policies they would consider bad. 

Can you elaborate on your definitions?

In this case, my question was should a facility that offers housing to formerly homeless people at rent that is 50% reduced market price to free be allowed to have a no alcohol policy? What do you think there?

again, the "be allowed" part is a resounding yes - unless it's state funded and the state doesn't want the policy.    

 

[Leroy Hoard]

If something is 100% privately funded they should make their own rules, jus like a private club. But once you bring taxpayer money into it, it changes the whole way you have to look at rules that exclude.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The more I have thought about this, the more I realize this should just be a numbers game.

If the rule in place means the place sits half empty then it is a bad rule. If the place is full then the rule is fine.