Yeah I haven't figured out a solution. If you are mentally ill, legitimately so, then the state should provide for your welfare. If you are homeless and need some sort of drug/alcohol rehabilitation, and are willing, again, we should help. But as you have mentioned, it seems the homelessness situation is far more complicated than maybe any other situation we have going in the US right now.
I have never read up on it in-depth so I'm genuinely asking. I agree that most are mentally ill and/or drug abusers, broken lives in Catholic theology. But what are you basing this statement on regarding the difference in public policy response? I would have guessed that it was an issue of resources. Also curious as to why the homeless gravitate towards certain cities. I would really like to read something on it where they try to figure out the answers beyond soundbites. I have outlook for specifically but neither have I come across it. I know it's powerful politically, but I'm not real sure whether public policy does anything to cause it or what could resolve it. I would love to know more
She (not he) is likely right there with Florida and our leadership. “PORTLAND, ORE.—Christine Drazan—a pro-life, pro-gun rights Republican best known for fighting a state climate-change bill—is in a dead heat to become the next governor of Oregon.”
Well then I wouldn’t support her. If I got a vote I would support the moderate third party candidate.
I don't condone property crime or violence in any way. But incarcerating people for drug use shouldn't be the answer. Drug use and overdoses are a problem in many places.
I am basing some my musings based upon person observation with a daughter who has suffered mental illness and then later drug abuse, and my interactions with some of the people she was hanging around. Also, some of my opinions are based on a few articles and podcasts I have heard on homelessness. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/author/sam-quinones/ Sam Quinones On Addiction And Bouncing Back More directly to your questions. Transcript: Michael Shellenberger On Homelessness, Addiction, Crime
To follow, one movement re homelessness is housing first Housing First There are differing opinions on this approach but in the west coast where housing is in short supply and very expensive, and NIMBY, insistence on this approach has apparently lead to deprioritization of shelters. The result is fewer shelters and more homeless. The question becomes do you provide housing first or treatment first? From what I have seen people that are mentally I’ll and drug addicted can’t take care of themselves, so trying to house them before dealing with their issues is cart before the horse.
Do you think she lies? Or do you just pass on any source that does not cater to your preferred narrative?
I disagree. I listen to her podcast. Yes, she does cater to a niche, disaffected liberals and centrists and topics of “wokeness”, and at times she will frustrate me, but by and large I think her takes are honest and informative. She also has had discussions around Trump idiocy and that right wing hysteria, although that isn’t her primary focus. How can you have a balanced view if you dismiss anybody with a different perspective?
First of all, my deep empathy on your personal experiences with her daughter. Not my intention to go there. So first walk, I completely accept and don't need to read up on the statement the drug abuse and mental illness are the primary drivers of current homelessness. That's so intuitive that I'd have to a well respected analysis trying to counter that conclusion. And I read Quinones longform in the Atlantic. Obvious you haven't read the book in the last five minutes. A lot of data, primarily anecdotal, but persuasive, about the fact that meth in its current form is something you causing law this problem. But in terms of why some cities seem to have much more homelessness in what could be done in terms of public policy to address it, this is all I saw Tents themselves seem to play a role in this phenomenon. Tents protect many homeless people from the elements. But tents and the new meth seem made for each other. With a tent, the user can retreat not just mentally from the world but physically. Encampments provide a community for users, creating the kinds of environmental cues that the USC psychologist Wendy Wood finds crucial in forming and maintaining habits. They are often places where addicts flee from treatment, where they can find approval for their meth use. In Los Angeles, the city’s unwillingness, or inability under judicial rulings, to remove the tents has allowed encampments to persist for weeks or months, though a recent law allows for more proactive action. In this environment, given the realities of addiction, the worst sorts of exploitation have sometimes followed. In 2020, I spoke with Ariel, a transgender woman then in rehab, who had come to Los Angeles from a small suburb of a midsize American city four years before. She had arrived hoping for gender-confirmation surgery and saddled with a meth habit. She eventually ended up alone on Hollywood’s streets. “There’s these camps in Hollywood, on Vine and other streets—distinct tent camps,” she said, where women on meth are commonly pimped. “A lot of people who aren’t homeless have these tents. They come from out of the area to sell drugs, move guns, prostitute girls out of the tents. The last guy I was getting worked out by, he was charging people $25 a night to use his tents. He would give you girls, me and three other people. He’d take the money and we’d get paid in drugs.” So in terms of public policy, it seems that permitting tent cities may not be wise. I'm willing to accept that although I like to read more than just this little bit. and that may explain why homeless gravitate towards Los Angeles. But I don't know that it explains the pervasiveness of homelessness generally. It seems that the problem would still exist in equal or near equal amount even if Los Angeles tore up the tents, which obviously seemed to have an un-dignifying result as well. The closest thing I have read briefly, and not to a level that would make me confident in my conclusions, is that NIMBYism prevents the construction of low cost structures that would never be considered normally appropriate for habitation would not passcode but would be much better than having the house must be on the streets or in tents. But if tents allow the homeless to withdraw and also allow those who wish to pray on them to join the area in a tent and exploit them, would not be the same thing if we were to permit shipping containers or something similar that I have seen that should be supposedly permitted. and of course this can be hard to get them there if you're going to put it way out of the way. They panhandle for limited support, and it's going to be hard to remove them from locations that could be accomplished. Just some thoughts. I'm still open to reading more. His point seems solid but a very very small part of the overall issue.
Nobody has a balanced view. What's important is to seek news from a diverse and reliable group of news sources. Bari Weiss isn't a news source. She's an opinion source. You like her for the same reasons many liberals like Maddow or many "conservatives" like Hannity. You may deem her more credible than Hannity, and indeed, she might be. But what she's selling are her opinions. And I don't care for them.
Oh, I'm sure some people want it to disapear from thier view (meaning brutal police crackdowns and busting up encampments), but I suppose "emergency powers" is the polite euphemism for squishy lib types. Its safe to say a Republican isnt going to use emergency powers to you know, provide housing and such.
Using the cops to disperse or harrass homeless people is also a NIMBY policy, they just go somewhere else and become someone else's problem
I haven’t read his (Sam Q) book but did read that article and listen to the interview back when they came out, and they resonated with me from what I was experiencing. I am thankful I read them as they motivated me even more to try to get my daughter out of that cycle. Thankfully she is back on a better path and has been mostly sober the past 6 months. But she has a lot of resources supporting her - good insurance and parents with some money. And she still lives to a degree “on the edge”. It can all fall apart any minute. I didn’t specifically remember the impact of tents but that is interesting and kind of makes sense. This article that I just found somewhat explains what I have read/heard elsewhere. East Coast offers homeless insights as West Coast struggles Right or wrong, NYC relies more on shelters, where the west coast tends to less so, due to high housing costs, NIMBY, and a political philosophy that wants a longer term solution and views shelters as an obstacle to them.
“The city (NYC)had fewer than 4,000 unsheltered homeless in an official count taken in January, a number that might have been deflated somewhat by winter weather. But that amounts to only about 1 in 20 homeless people being unsheltered. That compares with 15 of every 20 homeless people in Los Angeles sleeping on the streets or in tents, vehicles or abandoned buildings. In California, Oregon and Washington combined, 12 out of every 20 homeless people have no shelter at night. New York City has more people in shelters than the three West Coast states combined - and about the same number living on the street as Oakland, a city that has just 5 percent the population of New York”
Putting aside the comparison of American cities and even states, has any of you looked into the homelessness issue from an international perspective? If we have greater problems, presumably it would be based upon higher rates of addiction and mental illness, but that would seem to indicate where we should be focusing our efforts. And even then, maybe we could learn from how other countries address these issues as well.
