I want this person off of the streets for completely selfish reasons to myself.
Recovery program or not, they are going to have to live somewhere. If it's not a publicly funded home then it's going to be a tent in a public park that I am paying taxes for.
Without a recovery program, some people will still just spend their day smashing car windows to get money for drugs, then go home to their free apartment
It might still be worth it regardless, but keep that in mind
There is a way around this dilemma that solves everyone’s problems. People who go around smashing windows etc. are arrested and thrown in jail. If they repeatedly offend, they receive longer and longer sentences, perhaps at some state penitentiary in a more cost effective location. If they are addicted to drugs, they are enrolled in mandatory treatment programs while in prison. This person is hence housed and separated from civil society, with much less incentive to cheat the system.
This even solves the other problem that you haven’t brought up: the person who sleeps on the street smashing windows all day is likely to wreck the free apartment you end up giving them, too.
I mean, there's more complexities here insofar as it seems the prisons need to be run a lot better than they currently seem to be run, and we need to get better about prosecuting petty crimes.
Since we currently aren't doing those things, people are searching for alternate solutions, but there don't seem to be any that show much promise (though I'm sure people can cite a study that "proves" I'm wrong and can explain why the $17B spent by California doesn't count as counterevidence, even though a lot of that money was spent on "housing first" friendly policies)
We've done that for a long time and it doesn't change the outcome. You either pay exorbitant rates for them to sit in jail or you pay exhorbitant collective insurance rates. Worse off cities will usually incentivize those people to stay out of certain areas and in other areas, which also causes equity issues.
We're better off actually helping people. Getting to the root of what's wrong and what threshold we declare someone needs help and of what type is what we're trying to figure out.
I mean SF or LA aren't the only cities with homeless problems. My home city Seattle has them, New York has them, Austin has them. For decades leading up to the 2010s we were convicting and throwing every homeless person we could in jail, but the problem is that it just becomes a revolving door. Either you accept that an entire class of people need to be jailed for life for the crime of being homeless, or you try and fix the revolving door.
Some cities have tried and failed, others haven't tried and also failed. Trying to solve a national problem on a state level is almost always bound to be a failure because the problem has to do with things that occurred 10-20 years ago with Purdue Pharma starting off the whole opioid epidemic. We're just now seeing the height of the problem they kicked off.
The other 'unspoken truth' about this issue is that people in the rust belt and such have just as many problems with drugs and crime. The difference is that they have homes and these issues aren't visible until someone dies from suicide or an OD.
> I mean SF or LA aren't the only cities with homeless problems. My home city Seattle has them…
I mentioned SF and LA because TFA is about California. You can ask my question about any city though: for every 1000 broken car windows, how many convictions (or even arrests) are there? I know that number is extremely low in Seattle as well.
> Either you accept that an entire class of people need to be jailed for life for the crime of being homeless, or you try and fix the revolving door.
It’s not for the crime of being homeless, it’s for the actual crimes they’re committing. What you’re doing here is you’re setting up the homeless as some sort of protected class that’s allowed to victimize the rest of us with impunity. That’s been the cornerstone of policy in cities like Seattle for years and that’s why those cities have the biggest problem.
> Trying to solve a national problem on a state level is almost always bound to be a failure
It’s definitely going to be a failure if you make your city one of the best places in the country to be homeless and commit crimes.
> You can ask my question about any city though: for every 1000 broken car windows, how many convictions (or even arrests) are there? I know that number is extremely low in Seattle as well.
There's two reasons this type of crime occurs: gang activity and homelessness. People turning to gangs represents a crisis in opportunity. Things like hate groups, gangs, etc do not generally occur in places where peoples needs are met and when opportunity to change your circumstances if desired are bountiful.
> That’s been the cornerstone of policy in cities like Seattle for years and that’s why those cities have the biggest problem.
The problem is actually both. Progressive policies fail because progressives are allergic to enforcement, conservative policies fail because conservatives are allergic to addressing underlying causes. It's a tale as old as time.
If you want to improve things you need to address underlying causes like the housing and opportunity crisis. Enforcement can be used in a way that changes their circumstances rather than putting them in a box. You need both.
Conservative policies can succeed if there is a progressive city just across Lake Washington. Why smash windows in a place where the police will harass you if you can be in a place where they don’t? Well, it works locally at least.
I see how treating underlying causes would help, but people are mobile, so doing it with local resources is never going to be a winner. So conservative solutions will show more effect locally than progressive ones, unfortunately, and local voters want to see improvement, not futility.
The other problem is that we are still conflating a drug crisis with a homeless crisis, the people busting your car window and stealing your Amazon packages are more likely in the former category even if they might be in the latter.
I agree, having broader agreement on how tackle these issues is key. We don't do that well right now and I suspect that strongly correlates to rivaling political parties in an age of divisiveness that cannot work together to formulate a cohesive plan.
I'll say this again, as I stated in another comment, there are different reasons for homelessness. Some people are just in a bad rut and need a stable place to go while they sort their lives out. This is the minimum order of difficulty; build damn shelters, and resource centers, and these folks will get help first.
The larger component of homelessness has mental health or drug issues and far more overlap with gang activity root causes. It's worth trying to solve those together and taking an approach that instead of demonizing them for their choices/mistakes seeks to help them set their lives on a more stable path.
Mental health related homelessness requires access to healthcare that can fund whatever they need to be on and courts that can recognize this is the case.
It is true that there are different causes to homelessness, totally agree. But the person pilfering packages, looking for things in cars, or shoplifting at target, is not going to be your typical economic homeless case, their is already a selection beyond being homeless going on at that point.
> far more overlap with gang activity root causes
I have no idea why you are talking about gang activities in retaliation to homelessness, since we have plenty of homelessness in Seattle and virtually no gang activity. I'm guessing that is more of a Californian thing?
> It's worth trying to solve those together and taking an approach that instead of demonizing them for their choices/mistakes seeks to help them set their lives on a more stable path.
We really need to do both? The choices definitely need to be demonized, lest our kids think they are OK choices. My greatest fear would be my kid somehow makes these bad choices in the future because our schools taught him that these people were just victims of society rather than victims also of their choices.
> Mental health related homelessness requires access to healthcare that can fund whatever they need to be on and courts that can recognize this is the case.
We've found this to be problematic because cases will be misdiagnosed as mental health problems when they are really severe substance abuse problems (or the patient will say they don't have a substance abuse problem given the stigma associated with it), to predictable ineffectiveness.
> I'm guessing that is more of a Californian thing?
I live in Portland, but yes, it is more of a Portland thing. The visible things that create opposition to our homelessness policies are:
- Store looting, which is mostly driven by a scheme developed by gangs. Gangs are often enlisting the homeless to carry out these stunts.
- Open air drug use, which requires drugs facilitated by gangs
- Property crime, which is either done by gangs or is incentivized by gang-related activity
"Organized crime" is probably a better term than "gang" here. Gangs are generally recruiting in places where opportunity is low and costs are averagely above peoples means. My point is that there's some overlap with homelessness and we'd benefit by looking at them equally empathetically.
> We really need to do both? The choices definitely need to be demonized, lest our kids think they are OK choices. My greatest fear would be my kid somehow makes these bad choices in the future because our schools taught him that these people were just victims of society rather than victims also of their choices.
What you've said here and what I've said are slightly different. Holding people accountable is important, yes. If they are unwilling to change their ways they should be held accountable. At the same time, when someone struggling with drugs or mental health says, "I want help" there's a short window of time where that help can be transformational. Once they've chosen to right their life, and demonstrated it, we need to provide them capacity to move on, which is where we fall short these days. If you've been convicted of a felony, regardless of whether you're homeless at the time or not, then it'll be difficult if not impossible for the person to gain and maintain meaningful employment that pays their bills in a capitalist society. This situation can put people right back into the cycle of drug use, homelessness, a mental health crisis, or all of the above. Mainly, what I'm saying is when someone has demonstrated reform we need to stop punishing them at some point.
> We've found this to be problematic because cases will be misdiagnosed as mental health problems when they are really severe substance abuse problems (or the patient will say they don't have a substance abuse problem given the stigma associated with it), to predictable ineffectiveness.
I wouldn't call it problematic, I'd call it frustrating, because typically it's both. Again, addressing one problem ends up persisting both problems. I blame this, again, on policy that doesn't understand the systems it's up against.
Oh, ya, there is definitely some organized crime mixed into it, and the fences for stolen goods need to be dealt with. But frankly, it doesn't require a lot of organization when the police are being so lack on their enforcement (mostly because they are understaffed, not because they are lazy or anything). Anyone can do property crime, and there are lots of avenues to convert booty into some cash.
> Mainly, what I'm saying is when someone has demonstrated reform we need to stop punishing them at some point.
Sure, but we aren't asking for that anymore. Its like...ok treatment, but if you don't take it, you still get to walk, so why bother? Jail isn't in the cards anymore unless you at least bash someone's head in, and even then its questionable. Also, our system now seems to be based on financial disincentives (e.g. you get your car towed if you park illegally) and that really doesn't matter to someone who has nothing to lose (e.g. the towing companies won't go near certain vehicles because they know they are never getting paid). We need to do everything possible, maybe throw most of our resources at, people getting to a point that they have nothing to do lose (e.g. make sure felons after jail/prison have a way forward that they don't want to lose).
Let’s set aside the gang question for a bit and stick to homelessness. Homelessness isn’t the root cause of the crimes committed by homeless people. The “invisible homeless” who sleep on a buddy’s couch, sometimes even have jobs, and never smash car windows or anything like that are a silent majority of homeless people.
Instead, for the criminal minority of homeless people, the root cause of their homelessness isn’t a housing shortage or a lack of opportunity; it’s extreme untreated drug addiction or mental illness. This is also the root cause of their criminal behavior. If you try to give those people housing, they will just end up destroying it. These are not functional human beings acting rationally.
If you want to address the root cause here, you’re going to need to involuntarily commit these people to drug rehab or psychiatric treatment. Enforcement and addressing underlying causes go hand in hand here: if you arrest drug-addicted or mentally ill people for the crimes they commit, you already have them in state custody and you can just transfer them into involuntary commitment. We need to build and staff the facilities to do that, but that’s the solution.
Sure, I don't think you and I are saying anything different. Progressive cities must have a plan for enforcement at the same time as having a plan for treatment.
People that are homeless and just need a place to live because they don't make much money are one story, and that does need an alternative but common approach to homeless that are committing crimes. They will all need housing at some point in that flow chart.
I mention gangs because homeless folks with mental health issues and drug addiction commit similar crimes for similar reasons as gangs. I disagree that a "minority" of homeless people commit crime. I live in SouthEast Portland and I watch these folks chop up bicycles, steal property and food, and do drugs openly in parks and on the side walk. That also invites gang activity into an area because the homeless become vectors for more drug use and territory expansion. Ignoring the interconnectedness of these things is a giant mistake, as well as the similarity in their underlying causes.
> People that are homeless and just need a place to live because they don't make much money are one story, and that does need an alternative but common approach to homeless that are committing crimes. They will all need housing at some point in that flow chart.
But at that point you’re talking about housing people who are leaving state custody. It’s not really a common approach because on the one side you’re talking about how you release people from prison or involuntary commitment and on the other side you’re talking about helping peaceable but impoverished people get housing.
> I disagree that a "minority" of homeless people commit crime. I live in SouthEast Portland and I watch these folks chop up bicycles, steal property and food, and do drugs openly in parks and on the side walk.
You wouldn’t see the ones who sleep on a buddy’s couch and mind their own business though.
Homeless activists like to cite a lot of statistics about how the majority of homeless people just can’t afford housing and aren’t mentally ill drug addicts. What they’re missing is that the actual social problem people care about is the crime and public disorder.
> I mention gangs because homeless folks with mental health issues and drug addiction commit similar crimes for similar reasons as gangs.
I’m not sure I agree with that. But it turns out that I think there’s a very similar solution to gangs as there is to homeless criminals though: lock them all up. That seems to be working in El Salvador.
This hypothetical person will either smash windows and go to an apartment, or smash windows and go sleep somewhere in public. If they are already at the point of smashing windows, then there’s some element of desperation or misanthropy that makes me prefer that they spend their night somewhere private.
Anyway if we’re designing hypothetical people, we can come up with sympathetic ones too, so it seems like a wash policy-wise.
Don’t be a tool. A heroin addict’s motivation to acquire heroin is infinitely greater than a heroin addict’s motivation for anything else in the world.
What is the link between “make sure they sleep on the street” and “prevent them from breaking windows?”
It isn’t a matter of whether or not I’m a tool. The proposed solution is just unrelated to the problem.
As you say, if someone really wants heroin, they’ll get heroin. So, making their life miserable won’t stop them from getting it. What do we gain as a society from making sure they shoot up and sleep in public?
Isn’t it a moral hazard? The nice thing about living in Ballard is I can point out to my kid what happens when you do fent, at least. If there are no consequences for behavior, what’s the disincentive for not doing it? “We will coddle you while you OD on fent” doesn’t sound appealing to me.
I had to do some reordering hopefully it is OK. I think all I’ve done is group your ideas together, rather than change anything you said.
> Isn’t it a moral hazard? […] If there are no consequences for behavior, what’s the disincentive for not doing it?
There are still lots of downsides to becoming a heroin addict so I think letting them get out of the public eye is fine.
> The nice thing about living in Ballard is I can point out to my kid what happens when you do fent, at least.
It is your responsibility to parent your kid I guess, but I’d be wary of this sort of thing. What if you accidentally show off a corpse to your kid? That could be pretty traumatic, right? Also, is it really a good lesson, that it is OK to talk about people like that? They are people, not objects of derision.
> “We will coddle you while you OD on fent” doesn’t sound appealing to me.
This is one of those things, right? It is often the case that the right policy decisions don’t fit in with our personal moral inner monologue. It is what it is.
There are plenty of disincentives to doing drugs, but they are pretty abstract compared to seeing the guy in front of you splashed out on a bench. It makes it real. Lots of my behavior in life was doing things that my parents didn’t do, basically using anti examples rather than pro examples. The lack of much of a social safety net in the states means that making good decisions is even more important than it would be other countries.
If we consider countries like China, where there really isn’t much net at all, drug addicts are rare because they can’t survive very long, and that creates a feedback loop against being a drug addict.
We don’t have corpses in Ballard, just a lot of fent addicts who hang near the park. They get free food at the church next door, and there was an encampment at the park for about two years that we had to walk by often.
> This is one of those things, right? It is often the case that the right policy decisions don’t fit in with our personal moral inner monologue. It is what it is.
Your comment specifically asked what good could it do, it didn’t specify moral inner monologue correctness:
> What do we gain as a society from making sure they shoot up and sleep in public?
for some reason many people have stopped caring about the notion of societal trust and cohesion—even the idea of valuing it as something to be desired and strived for. it's an odd kind of defeatist nihilism, and I've seen it spread year after year.
these are the same people who will scoff when you suggest that stealing from Walmarts or Targets or whatever is wrong. they'll tell you, "dude, shrinkage is a thing, they build the cost of stolen or damaged goods into their budgets. and, anyway, why do you care so much about massive corporations' bottom lines, anyway?" obviously I don't, but I sure do care about living in a place where brazen broad-daylight theft is rare, and not something you see every time you go to the store!
I think you're on the same page with the person you're responding to.
@shepardrtc said people who get free housing should work for it, and @legitster is saying that it is in the taxpayer's self-interest to spend some taxes housing the unhoused. I took that to mean that a work requirement is secondary to getting them off the street in the first place.
I agree that we should be providing drug recovery mechanisms and promoting a work ethic in people who are long-term houseless, but our options seem to be (leave them on the streets, parks and front lawns of our cities), (put them in prison), or (put them in publicly funded housing ala halfway houses).
First one seems like none of us want it (unless you live in the suburbs and have fled the problem). Second one is too far, and even with good healthcare services, involuntary commitment should only happen for the severely ill. That leaves the third.
It’s a luxury belief as well, people of wealth don’t need to care about public spaces as much, they have plenty of other options. It hurts the poor the most.
Recovery program or not, they are going to have to live somewhere. If it's not a publicly funded home then it's going to be a tent in a public park that I am paying taxes for.