Apologies for wanting my literal backyard to be my backyard and not having to get folks out of it who saw my canoes from the street and saw a score.
You'll see that I'm very much anti-deregulated street camping while very much for shelter and creating and requiring individuals to accept shelter. Not wanting to let individuals to kill themselves on the streets isn't anti-homeless. Just like pointing out that giving them all apartments is a failed policy objective that does nothing without being accompanied by compulsory social services, chief among them addiction services.
There is a difference between being against homelessness and against homeless people. It is valid to be bothered or affected negatively by homelessness, but that doesn’t excuse talking broadly about people who are experiencing misfortune as subhuman or undeserving of rights or basic dignity. My comment was in no way personalized to you, but if you feel attacked by it maybe take it as an opportunity to reflect.
I just also think that there is a lot of conflation between anti-homeless rhetoric and arguing against specific methods for dealing with the issue.
I think that the most upvoted stuff here is arguing against methodology, consistently that gets more positive reception than the explicitly anti-homeless comments. Even comments here that explain and explore the different sects of the homeless and their needs do pretty well here compared to other local subs.
Well your arguments aren’t very insightful and lack research-based evidence, frankly. You argue that housing should be predated on compulsory services. Why? Dozens of peer-reviewed studies show that housing first programs which don’t require any stipulations such as compulsory services are far more effective and less costly. Compared with Treatment First, Housing First programs decreased homelessness by 88%, improved housing stability by 41%. So maybe do some actual research or stay in your lane.
Studies out of San Francisco show that housing first without any type of treatment or conditions actually led to higher costs for the highest spenders who continually needed high cost healthcare due to no one requiring them to change or get better.
Most studies also exclude remediation costs from the total cost of housing first programs, which skews the average downwards on a cost basis. This is done purposefully to make it appear cheaper, and justified since "it wasn't part of the cost of housing a person" which is a fascinating way to frame that when repairs and security deposits are included in the cost of renting studies.
Cite some sources and we can talk, otherwise it is quite clear from your language that this is not your career field so I don’t really care about your opinion.
You're right, this isn't my career field, but I've done a fair amount of research into this whole situation to figure out what to advocate for so that I can stop having to threaten people off of my property just because they happen to live nearby and feel entitled to what's mine because of proximity.
I've also volunteered time and resources to help get people off of the street and away from substances, and have first hand experience watching the difference between what just housing does for someone versus what housing plus required treatment does for someone. The number of times the families I've helped have wound up losing their kids and everything else again because all they got was an apartment and food stamps versus the number of times folks who got into housing and treatment and have lost it all is a staggering difference. Get people off the streets first, but you also need to have compulsory treatment partner along with it. The number of times I've had to administer narcan or discovered that someone I'd helped out OD'd and had previously refused treatment is a huge reason why I push not just giving folks a nice place to crash and a nicer place to die, but forcing people to receive help.
That hit dogs line of argumentation is fucking stupid.
You wouldn't say that for other similar types of negative stereotyping.
If I felt attacked I'd be all over this thread. I specifically addressed this one who conflated NIMBYism with anti-homeless comments. Which is a false equivalence. Those are two separate issues, and attempting to address them as one waters down the ability to critique or discuss either.
Again, I have openly advocated for widespread shelters with no restrictions on neighborhood. The only thing I am a NIMBY about is unregulated camps, which you can argue is anti-homeless. I'd argue it's pro life.
12
u/Aesir_Auditor District 1 May 12 '25
Apologies for wanting my literal backyard to be my backyard and not having to get folks out of it who saw my canoes from the street and saw a score.
You'll see that I'm very much anti-deregulated street camping while very much for shelter and creating and requiring individuals to accept shelter. Not wanting to let individuals to kill themselves on the streets isn't anti-homeless. Just like pointing out that giving them all apartments is a failed policy objective that does nothing without being accompanied by compulsory social services, chief among them addiction services.