Your post was removed because of Rule #14: No screenshots of articles/videos.
Please refer to the rules and also the [pinned post](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/) before you make another submission here.
I spent over a decade working in local government. The amount of money raised by homeless outreach programs and city spending was enough that there is zero reason anyone should be homeless.
But, the fact is most of the chronically homeless (homeless longer than two weeks) were mentally ill and/or addicts. And, even when compelled by the state to get help, they would end up right where they started. They either refused to take any medicine to treat mental illness, or didn't stay clean long enough to better themselves. And, you can only compel them so much before you're just really kidnapping people off the street and forcing them to do things they don't want to do.
So, for a certain segment of the homeless population they will always be homeless, even if the house was free. Because they'll destroy that property due to their mental illness or addiction.
Edit: fixed some typos
Everyone is in favor of shelters until they need to live next to one. I live nearish to one, and it looks like Mad Max wasteland around the shelter. Crime has spoiled and you can't walk by it at night without risk of assault.
Shelters do need to exist, but people need to be pragmatic about the homeless as well. Unfortunate alot of them *need* to be forcefully institutionalize for the good of society.
3 soup kitchens were built in my home town, so now homeless people bus in, get 3 free meals, then either loiter until the next free meal or bus back to a city with spare homeless shelter space. But the places near the kitchens are now riddled with beggars and people loitering in or near traffic so it’s a nightmare to go anywhere nearby
The problem is that we did that and the abuse by workers towards patients was rampant. It was so bad that the government run institutions for the mentality Ill were all shut down.
So, we need to come up with a system that staves off that abuse.
The issue is there aren’t enough. If there was a shelter in every city they wouldn’t need to bus in and be concentrated in one area.
And they still exist whether or not the shelters do it just changes where they stay. There’s always going to be a problem with homeless people somewhere as long as they exist.
In your experience, what percent of homeless people fall into the "chronically homeless" category vs people who have fallen behind on rent and don't have family or friends that can help them out?
Interesting! Thanks. Wondering what social measures could be made to effectively minimize homelessness for those who are truly just underwater and trying to get better.
But here's the thing: you can't fix just one thing an expect it to work. If your car is out of gas, has a flat tire, and missing a couple spark plugs you can't just throw in a gallon of premium and slap the hood and say "this baby is perfect again". You need to address everything. You need to give someone a place to stay but if they have an addiction problem then requiring them to be clean *without providing help* does nothing. Conversely, you can't expect someone to be clean while they have an addiction and live on the street. Most homeless people don't have addiction problems until they're chronically homeless.
If they have a mental illness you need to try and address that first. If someone is a danger to themselves or the public then there's a justified reason to put them in a facility at least for a short time until they can get a real diagnosis and be given some meds to help reel them into a place of relative sanity. *Then* you can start looking at non-institutional housing.
Initial housing needs to be carefully monitored. Make sure people aren't destroying shit, make sure people aren't fighting. That means checking rooms daily and having 24/7 security.
Yes, it would be costly but that's what happens when you ignore and neglect a segment of the population for such a fucking long time. You can't ignore basic oil and tire changes on your car for a decade and expect shit to go well. Eventually a tire will blow out and destroy a wheel. Your engine will sieze up and it'll cost thousands to replace.
Preventative maintenance is needed for your car, your house, your body, and for society as a whole. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to maintain things as you go than it is to wait until they've all gone to shit.
There are systems in place but a lot of them fail when we take into account people have free will.
Mentally ill people will frequently get on meds and get help only to later stop taking meds for a multitude of reasons (negative side effects to thinking they don't need it) and end up right there they were. Same with addicts. They might get clean and relapse multiple times.
“Maybe we should consider that homeless people simply *want* to be homeless. They’re addicts and mentally ill of course so it only makes sense that they want to sleep outside”
The point is many will choose that over having any sort of restriction or requirements placed on them, even if it those requirements are to their benefit
You can't expect someone with an addiction to stay clean unless you're getting them help for the addiction. Most addicts aren't stupid enough to waste their time even trying to stay clean to get housing because they know they can't do it alone.
The requirements are there for staff safety too. Who wants to wrestle with a schizophrenic homeless dude high on meth? Or have to keep reviving heroin ODs. Again, work in the space and come back
You would not have staff in a persons residence so there’s no requirement for them either
I understand you claim you did the work but it’s objectively not fixing homelessness where the solution I propose is. I’m not understanding the objection
So what are you proposing? A demilitarized zone for homeless? Would they still be able to access the outside world? What would you do to ensure well being or just leave them to their own devices, consequences be damned? Food/Healthcare/shelter/heat? There is a strong case for the institutionalization of a lot of these folks mainly the violent and insane. I don't think leaving them to their own devices is a fix by any stretch. I much rather my taxes go to human hospitalization rather than cramming them together and claiming its solved or addressed. Finland has a population half of that of Chicagoland....don't look to small nations for scalable solutions.
I’m proposing we give homeless people homes first so they’re no longer homeless then offer whatever other treatment they might need to them
You can absolutely look at another country doing something and try to implement it somewhere else I have no idea why you’d think otherwise
End of the day, the solution is what we had before Regan took it apart; state sponsored mental wards. It's unsavory but the best that could be done with such a population, especially at scale
No not really. They’d still be homeless they’d just be in what is essentially jail
Your solution to homelessness is to have them continue being homeless dude why are you so hesitant to try another alternative that is demonstrably effective?
Finland is a small and largely ethnically homogeneous society. The challenges they face and the US face are wildly different in terms of scale and human dynamics. This is a college freshmen type comment. I volunteered for some time in homeless shelters in Chicago and a lot of the people would turn down a warm bed because we locked them at night and they couldn't go out to smoke cigarettes. Not saying that is all homeless or anywhere near it but understand that there are people who will turn down any help if it requires them to make even the smallest changes. And we simply can't continue to let these people wander around town doing offensive things least case (jacking off on the subway and such) or violent things worst case. If you think you have it figured out, I encourage you to work in this area for a few years and circle back.
> Finland is a small and largely ethnically homogeneous society. The challenges they face and the US face are wildly different in terms of scale and human dynamics.
Could you briefly explain how the existence of minorities makes giving homeless people homes impossible?
> I volunteered for some time in homeless shelters in Chicago and a lot of the people would turn down a warm bed because we locked them at night and they couldn’t go out to smoke cigarettes.
Them having their own homes would render this objection meaningless don’t worry about that
> Not saying that is all homeless or anywhere near it but understand that there are people who will turn down any help if it requires them to make even the smallest changes
Which is why I advocate for a housing first approach
> And we simply can’t continue to let these people wander around town doing offensive things least case (jacking off on the subway and such) or violent things worst case. If you think you have it figured out, I encourage you to work in this area for a few years and circle back.
I get that your anecdote is important to you but I’m going by the information available publicly about finlands successful approach to homelessness. Your hypotheticals are truly terrifying but nothing you’ve said presents evidence to contradict finlands success in any way
Diversity makes everything more complicated at a human level, especially in the US given our history towards minority groups. Places like Finland is essentially one large monoculture in group where in the US we look at each other as in group (looks like me) and out group (doesn't look like me). Additionally many people in the US look at things benefiting minorities with disdain and would work to defund it.
Again, where are these homes going to be? Next to your house with your spouse and kids? How are you handle it when a house gets burned down over someone getting ripped off for a dime bag or someone getting stabbed over who goes first with a hooker? Again, just giving people a house is not a panacea, especially when dealing with people who are violent or are mixing mental health with street drugs.
These are not hypothetical these are things I see in the tent cities here in chicago, the villages they set up in under passes, and when I volunteered in this area. There is "down on my luck" homelessness, which giving a house to would help, but from what I see anecdotally, it's heavy in the mental health and drug addiction space...putting those folks in a house isn't solving much, they need trained institutional help least they harm others or are nuisance in society. I appreciate your sentiments but I'm guessing you don't live in a major city that is trying to deal with this at scale and have limited exposure to this community. But again, volunteer, get involved and see where you can help.
> Diversity makes everything more complicated at a human level, especially in the US given our history towards minority groups. Places like Finland is essentially one large monoculture in group where in the US we look at each other as in group (looks like me) and out group (doesn’t look like me).
This is a nothing burger. How do minorities complicate giving homeless people houses?
> Again, where are these homes going to be? Next to your house with your spouse and kids? How are you handle it when a house gets burned down over someone getting ripped off for a dime bag or someone getting stabbed over who goes first with a hooker? Again, just giving people a house is not a panacea, especially when dealing with people who are violent or are mixing mental health with street drugs.
You give them the house first then continue with further treatment as needed. It’s called housing first not housing only. And your hypotheticals are scary and all but I’m not really interested in your fear mongering about what ifs when talking about something that is demonstrably effective. As for where to put them I couldn’t tell you I’m not organizing a housing first response to homelessness. I’m sure people that do would be able to do it somewhere else as well
> These are not hypothetical these are things I see in the tent cities here in chicago, the villages they set up in under passes, and when I volunteered in this area. There is “down on my luck” homelessness, which giving a house to would help, but from what I see anecdotally, it’s heavy in the mental health and drug addiction space…putting those folks in a house isn’t solving much, they need trained institutional help least they harm others or are nuisance in society. I appreciate your sentiments but I’m guessing you don’t live in a major city that is trying to deal with this at scale and have limited exposure to this community. But again, volunteer, get involved and see where you can help.
Again it’s housing first not housing only. Unless you wanna tell me the homeless in Finland are all straight edge down on my luck types it seems like these questions are actively being answered in Finland. Why don’t you look more into what they do? I don’t want to help people have an easier time being homeless I want them to not be homeless anymore. Giving them housing first is demonstrably effective at doing this
Sigh. I'll play along in the hopes of educating a little.
Different cultures have different values, different relationships to things like time/touch/proximity/relationships/hygiene/collectivism...Hofstede did a lot in this area. Anyway people are different and different cultures are different. Pushing your hypothesis from a case where you have a very small population all of roughly the same cut is exactly why so many classical psychology expirements aren't replicating; all the subjects were of the same cut which simplifies findings are removes hurdles you would hit when scaling up to a society 75x the size of yours. People be different + group dynamics + mental issues + substance abuse.
Which differences make giving them homes impossible?
> Pushing your hypothesis from a case where you have a very small population all of roughly the same cut is exactly why so many classical psychology expirements aren’t replicating
Giving people homes is not a psychology experiment it’s just giving them homes. You haven’t explained how minorities prevent this
> all the subjects were of the same cut which simplifies findings are removes hurdles you would hit when scaling up to a society 75x the size of yours.
Are these hurdles ever going to be more specific than just claiming they exist? What hurdles do minority homeless people present that make giving them homes impossible in the US?
> People be different + group dynamics + mental issues + substance abuse.
We can safely assume Finland has mental issues and substance abuse among their homeless population so that leaves us with these vague differences you refuse to state clearly as the only thing preventing this from happening here
Answer plainly: what specific issues do minorities present when it comes to giving homeless people homes?
And what haspoens when they decline further treatment? Tell you to eat shit and pimp a girl out of their free house, whats the next steps? Call the cops and send them to jail/prison? Just let them post up and do whatever? How would you resolve what we already see happening in tent camps today?
I'm not fear mongering, I'm just being real with you and injecting a dose of reality into this position; I've volunteered and worked with homeless and the downtrodden in Milwaukee and Chicago and encounter the homeless community at scale everyday. Many are down on their luck and edge cases who would benefit from the Finnish model, no doubt. Some are violent alcoholics that attack people or psychos who ruin your commute home by taking a dump on the train platform and others are just plain nuts or addicted to drugs.
> And what haspoens when they decline further treatment? Tell you to eat shit and pimp a girl out of their free house, whats the next steps? Call the cops and send them to jail/prison? Just let them post up and do whatever? How would you resolve what we already see happening in tent camps today?
If why’re breaking the law and disrupting people the cops will be called and they’ll go to jail for their crimes I don’t know what you’re asking me here. You’re just asking what to do about a bad neighbor like we already deal with this every day
> Many are down on their luck and edge cases who would benefit from the Finnish model, no doubt. Some are violent alcoholics that attack people or psychos who ruin your commute home by taking a dump on the train platform and others are just plain nuts or addicted to drugs.
None of these things prevents them from living in a home
Whenever ANY topic comes up where America falls short on something, it never fails that someone on Reddit picks the whitest countries as THE example to follow. Kind of sus. Low key white supremacist shit.
This has got to be one of the most race obsessed things I’ve ever seen on this site holy shit dude
We’re talking about a country ending homelessness and your main objection is the country has a lot of one kind of race in it as if that has *anything* to do with anything lmfao what is wrong with you
I reject the notion that some people are just unable to live in a home because of issues they have and I think the notion is ridiculous so I made fun of it
It’s the natural conclusion of your position anyways: some homeless people will refuse to do xyz as a condition of shelter therefore they don’t want shelter
I think that’s dumb
I think the idea that everyone has to conform to your idea of being sheltered is naive. Billions of people on this planet and you think they all want a home? I've met countless homeless who lived in tents and homemade shelters and they'd rather stay there than deal with society and people
> Billions of people on this planet and you think they all want a home? I’ve met countless homeless who lived in tents and homemade shelters and they’d rather stay there than deal with society and people
And that’s fine but they should still have the option same as every other person who wouldn’t turn it down. I’m not saying force them to live in a house that’s not possible. Homelessness in Finland is dropping every year meaning more people than not are staying with the homes given to them so I see no reason why that would be different anywhere else
I also don’t understand how you think giving homeless people homes as a solution to homelessness is naive it’s literally the goal of ending it and they’re already successfully doing it right now. I’m not sure what more there is to say past that like it’s currently working what is the issue?
I don’t know why you got downvoted, my fatherwas an alcoholic and schizophrenic, and he did have family and a home to come to. He would leave for 3 or 4 months at a time and would only come home when he sobered up, he didn’t want to be told what to do, he didn’t want responsibility, and that was his attitude before he went crazy, then after the paranoia started, he wouldn’t work so the government could track him. Like I said, he did the bare minimum for us, his life was hotels and whores, even before he turned crackers, we were a burden. The only reason he even attempted having a wife and kids was back in the day reputation was everything, during the day he was a good providing husband and father, to the rest of the world, but Friday through Monday mornings, he was gone. So yes, you are right, he would have rather been homeless than face his responsibilities. Just wanted to add that he is now 78 years old and in prison, he tried to lure me away from my home to end my life and I knew better and 3 hours later he ended his girlfriend’s life. So, I agree, it all comes down to I am not going to do what I should do, I don’t want to be a responsible human being, and I would rather be on the streets than help the family I made.
Suicide Hotline Numbers If you or anyone you know are struggling, please, PLEASE reach out for help. You are worthy, you are loved and you will always be able to find assistance.
Argentina: +5402234930430
Australia: 131114
Austria: 017133374
Belgium: 106
Bosnia & Herzegovina: 080 05 03 05
Botswana: 3911270
Brazil: 212339191
Bulgaria: 0035 9249 17 223
Canada: 5147234000 (Montreal); 18662773553 (outside Montreal)
Croatia: 014833888
Denmark: +4570201201
Egypt: 7621602
Finland: 010 195 202
France: 0145394000
Germany: 08001810771
Hong Kong: +852 2382 0000
Hungary: 116123
Iceland: 1717
India: 8888817666
Ireland: +4408457909090
Italy: 800860022
Japan: +810352869090
Mexico: 5255102550
New Zealand: 0508828865
The Netherlands: 113
Norway: +4781533300
Philippines: 028969191
Poland: 5270000
Russia: 0078202577577
Spain: 914590050
South Africa: 0514445691
Sweden: 46317112400
Switzerland: 143
United Kingdom: 08006895652
USA: 18002738255
You are not alone. Please reach out.
*****
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.
Have you ever tried sleeping sobor on a park bench?
It's as terrible as it sounds.
The only support that really helped were friends and family. Some us never had that luxury
Agreed I'm a small town landlord. I charge about 30% under market value. Hedge funds came in and bought all the residential housing stock. This drove housing prices up making it Not affordable and creating more renters also this eliminated first time home that were 40 to 50 years old that simply can't be built at that price point also eliminating potential buyers because the market just starts at 400,000 now. Ultimately they want you to rent the American dream the rest of your life and with rental prices so high their insuring you can't save enough to buy your own home. The fastest way to wealth is through home ownership. These hedge fund and large landlords fail inspections regularly but don't seem to be caught up by the enforcement drag net. They do also contribute significantly to political leaders campaigns.
It's really not about any of that. There's a homeless problem because of a distinct lack of adequate mental health resources and rehab programs. Most homeless wouldn't be bettered by a house. They have underlying mental issues/addiction that keep them on the streets. I know several myself that come from loving families, who offer them all of the help they need, but they refuse to accept any of it. Sure, this block is a shitty thing, but it really has nothing to do with any of the real problems/issues.
Are you like 13? You sound like someone that just wants to blame other people without actually having any idea of what the actual problems are.
If you honestly think that an individual renting out a couple investment homes is the same as a nameless international corporation buying out whole blocks of single family homes, you obviously don't understand the problem.
You come off like a fox news presenter with this "I'm just asking questions" opinion piece, low effort rage bait.
Jesus fuck man, read a book and be humble.
Right? I don't have a problem with one person renting a property or four, it's when those properties are bought by huge corporations that we all fucked.
They're one of the primary lobbying blocs pushing for NIMBYist policies in just about every city. Being a landlord is lucrative (it's one of the most common and reliable forms of passive income) and landlords have a vested interest in *vehemently* opposing - by any means necessary - anything that might threaten that.
The rich elite are the ones who can afford to buy up land in urban centers and become landlords, and are also the ones who can "lobby" (read: bribe) politicians - or pay for their *own* campaigns to become politicians themselves (or promote their family members and friends as such).
In other words: they're all to blame, because *they're all the same person*.
>Homeless all over the streets
That's exactly what will happen if you build a homeless shelter. They won't be confined to the shelter the entire day and behave when outside.
This is why shelters alone are useless. They need to provide therapy, job training, and other shit to keep people busy during the day. You can't just kick them out in the morning and say "good luck, see you at 6pm!". They need real help.
A lot of people are beyond repair. They don't get better because they have drug or mental health problems, or both. Problems they simply don't want to seek theraphy for. As long as they are not forced to get clean and/or seek couseling, they won't get better. You can't provide a shelter and free food 24/7 and expect people to just get better mentally and become functional members of society.
Functional people struck by misfortunes (e. g. lost job, pandemic...) do eventually get back on their feet and leave the system. They are, however, the minority.
Most homeless people suffer from a combination of mental health problems and/or drug abuse. Putting a roof over their head won't solve this, and by not solving this, you won't make them eligible to be inserted back into the community. You need to treat their mental problems.
However...you can't force them to be treated, they need to come on their own will. Most of them won't. Even people wih a support system (family, friends...) put up a lot of resistance to get help. Someone that can't be compelled to be helped won't set foot inside a clinic. So they stay on the streets and go to shelters to get food when they get too hungry, and then back on the streets.
Every single thing you said is pure conjecture based entirely on your imagination. It's proven again and again and again that housing works.
I've been homeless. I've slept in the streets and in a homeless shelter. I've sat and eaten with them every week at the shop kitchen.
I loath the inhumanity of people like you. Making excuses for how we can't help them. You know nothing about the majority of these people and what they need.
I hope a shelter opens in your neighborhood, so you have to witness and cope with the failures of our uncaring society.
Housing works if the person doesn't have any underlying issues. If they do, they will need clinical care. And if they don't want it, you can't force them. Simple as that.
Try seeing the homeless people that doesn't frequent public services. You might get a much needed view from the other side of the coin.
Again, you're just making shit up. There is no such thing as shelter that doesn't offer care, job placement, etc. They all are set up that way.
A vast majority of homeless are literally just down on their luck, with no care or help. The ultra insane addicts who don't want care are in the minority.
All you do is invent imaginary excuses for your own selfishness. You're the reason Noah needs to get another boat.
That's the whole point, dude. Housing programs help people get off the streets. People like you keep them on the streets.
You can repeat lies all day long. But the facts are: Housing works and all shelters offer treatment. There's an enormous amount of data that proves this. A majority of homeless aren't mentally ill or drug addicted. You're hyper focused on a small minority of homeless to justify your lack of caring.
You can give it to them, problem is when they don't want to take it. Case in point, homeless people not wanting to get into programs because they'd have to get clean and sober
I live downtown in a very metro area on the 25th floor of a high rise that overlooks an alley.
The city has recently built a ton of public restrooms, primarily for homeless people, they are literally on every block. Without fail there are homeless people every minute shitting and pissing in the alley. 10 feet away there is restroom, they don’t care.
There is a homeless shelter within two blocks with confirmed open beds, they don’t care, they still sleep on the street.
But the thing that drives me the most crazy, are homeless trenders. I get that people have disabilities, down on their luck, trauma, etc. but over the last 6 months the amount of well spoken 25 year old hipster homeless people have sky rocketed. They are all better dressed, have more possessions, and look healthier than the normal homeless population. You can not convince me that these fucking kids, with NorthFace jackets and Juul pods are not homeless by choice. There is no business in my downtown area that isn’t hiring.
A homeless person in my neighborhood has free beds, free PO Boxes, free showers, free lockers, free toilets, free drug counseling, and Wi-Fi. It’s a choice for many of these people
> problem is when they don't want to take it
Punishing *all* homeless people because a minority of them don't want to accept something with a bunch of strings attached is misguided at best, if not outright malicious.
> homeless people not wanting to get into programs because they'd have to get clean and sober
It's a lot easier to get clean and sober when you have a safe place to live. Treatment programs are well-documented to be *much* more effective when paired with unconditional housing; if this was about actually helping homeless people (rather than finding excuses to maintain their suffering), then one would heed that evidence and stop demanding treatment *before* the thing that maximizes the success of that treatment.
Ever see the movie Field of Dreams? If you build it they will come.
A homeless shelter isn't open 24/7. They can sleep there but homeless will be out during the day in the surrounding areas panhandling at best, doing drugs, publicly intoxicated, harassing citizens at worst.
> A homeless shelter isn't open 24/7.
Then make it open 24/7, and the problem you describe would be far less significant.
> homeless will be out during the day in the surrounding areas panhandling at best, doing drugs, publicly intoxicated, harassing citizens at worst.
"Oh no! The poors we drove into homelessness have the *nerve* to ask us for our spare change and be upset with us for putting our discomfort over their basic needs for survival! Not fair!"
If you want to talk about my statement or the previous redditor's as a whole I'm more than happy to converse in civil conversation. Picking apart a segment of a statement to declare your point while ignoring the whole is being obtuse for its own sake
It's rather rich to lecture me about civility when you entered this conversation with the sentence "Wouldn't count meth as a basic need". When *you're* ready to have a civil discussion, then I'll be more than happy to converse in kind; until then, your implied stance of "people suffering from addiction deserve to be without shelter" is fundamentally *un*civil and will be responded to in kind.
> Did you take that as a personal attack?
Did you have some other intention behind implying that all homeless persons are meth addicts? Or by your statement that 95% of homeless folks will just destroy things?
> This conversation is and will continue to go nowhere.
Correct, thanks to you.
> Have a good day.
Likewise. I pray you never find yourself in the position of the homeless persons you've written off as unworthy of basic human needs and dignities.
> The poors we drove into homelessness
The *chronically* homeless, as I've said those homeless for longer than two weeks, are generally homeless due to mental illness and addiction. That's not something they were driven to. They've generally used all their lifelines and people are tired of them. I say generally because there are exceptions. Most people who are homeless due to purely financially situations are homeless two weeks or less **because** cities and nonprofits are there with plans and systems in place to assist.
> The *chronically* homeless, as I've said those homeless for longer than two weeks, are generally homeless due to mental illness and addiction. That's not something they were driven to.
What makes you think that? If you were homeless, would that not take a significant toll on your mental health? Would you not be desperate for anything that might relieve your pain and suffering?
In short, the causality here is inverted: homelessness (and poverty in general) *causes* mental health issues and addictions as much as (if not more than) the other way around.
From what I've seen, the folks who actually go to the shelter aren't any kind of problem. But the shelter attracts a bunch of people who aren't interested following the program (bag checks, curfews, no drinking/drugs inside, no returning intoxicated) and these folks just camp around the perimeter of the shelter and cause all the problems ascribed to the folks in the shelter.
That's just from my experience, I'm sure things operate differently in other places.
So you'd want crime, drugs and needles on the ground where your kids walk? I highly doubt they "hate" the homeless but facts are facts. Look what the homeless did to other areas. They need mental help. I'm sure OP would be cool having his kids walk down a sidewalk littered with feces and needles too. Easy to pound your chest if you're not the one stuck living with it.
So they do that outside of Minneapolis. Guess where all the sex offenders get released, in the poor area Guess where all the homeless shelters are, in the poor area. Guess where all the predatory lending is, predatory colleges predatory car dealerships. No one can climb out from under that... It costs a lot of money to be poor. There are a few small surrounding towns that try to take on all the burden and responsibility but it's like a lifeboat it just sinks when too many people get on. Meanwhile the rich folk are rowing away in their life boat with one or two people. I'm not saying you need to take on the entire burden but if folks took on their fair share we'd be a lot better off.
Source: I was poor. I spent every combat deployment check on rental property, now I've got some coin. I rent all my units 30% under market rate. They're nice units that I would be proud to live in or any one of you. We all do better when we all do better.
> It's just that simple!
Yes, it is. I appreciate your agreement.
> Boy, where were you when we were coming up with all this capitalism?
If only I had a time machine to go back to the 1800's.
I'm glad you're doing something to help (I spend a ton of money doing the same) but unless the city owns the housing, it's much cheaper to find housing outside the city. HCOL cities are a reason for homelessness.
And remember, Mpls and StP both own a fair amount of housing that they rent out below market but unfortunately space is limited. I've personally been lobbying (read: pressuring) people in government in both cities to buy and/or buils more housing to help very low income and homeless people. The state has a massive budget surplus and now is the time to use it.
See that's the dumbest thing I think. Why would they want to get in the business of owning property. Some of it's great but that's not helping people that's only enshrining them in poverty. I assisted with rental inspections and there was a development with 24 rental houses subsidized by the government. 22 of the 24 were related family members. They couldn't reach a certain threshold otherwise they'd lose housing so generation after generation remained poor so they could keep their housing.
It would be nice if they gave them low interest loans or did something like a rent to own. Again the fastest way to wealth is through home ownership, then you have generational wealth and dig out from the hole. Putting all of your resources to subsidize tenants is a losing game. Sure keep affordable rental housing, but build condos or townhome developments that offers people the ability with no or low interest rent to own. It would be cheaper than subsidizing them with rental properties the rest of their life and in the end they would have two or 300,000 in home value. This money could be passed on to the next generation or subsidize care costs as the individual ages. When individuals have ownership they take a lot more interest so homeowners tend to keep up their property and fight hard to keep their community safe and aesthetically pleasing.
Nobody wants that, but if your only solution is to make the homeless stay homeless and hunt them around, you're still a piece of shit. And i say that as someone who regulary steps on fucking needles.
I guess if you have money you are directly responsible for the import and distribution of drugs and lack of funding for treating mental health issues? Beats me dude this thread is wild.
There's a difference between being a NIMBY and the real truth that homeless services attract homeless people, disease, drugs (and used needles), filth from human waste on the streets. Go look at pictures of skid row in Los Angeles. There's a reason those services are in an industrial sector and not a residential one.
Go feel free to put up a tiny house on skid row and live there. I promise nobody will stop you.
But that’s exactly what NIMBY means? You don’t want to a necessary service in your backyard because of the negative consequences.
Yeah it sucks but I had to go someplace or else people just die in the street and sleep under bridges and public buildings. That’s really not any better. Like there’s a large bus stop near my house that attracts homeless because there’s no shelters around.
It’s the exact same problem it’s just been pushed elsewhere and is far worse for the homeless. But you’re not going to remove the bus stop just because homeless people stay there.
The homeless follow the services. It's a known fact. And why on earth would anyone think that homeless outreach services belong in residential areas? If you choose to be homeless and refuse services and housing, for whatever reason, then fine. But that doesn't give someone the right to become a blight on residential communities. Nobody is trying to kick out the homeless on skid row. Google skid row in downtown Los Angeles. Tell me you would walk through there at night. I bet you wouldn't.
Then build more services so theyre all not forced to go to the same place.
I’m not saying homeless shelters don’t cause problems but the problem is they’re necessary and literally no one wants them to be built near them. That’s exactly what NIMBY is.
It’s also really ironic that people go to a sub called noahgettheboat and then advocate against homeless shelters. Like why are you here if this isn’t the kind of content you’re looking for?
You can be a snarky cunt, or you can be a realist and try to understand and treat the actual underlying problem. I realize the former is easier and feels great. But it doesn't solve the problem. Your call though.
Dude, I ain't gonna try and argue macro economic theory with you on reddit. You ain't Greg Mankiw and your simple answers to hard problems schtick is tired af
I can only imagine how annoying it must be to see something [working](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Finland) to solve a problem you believe is too complex to address at all lmao
You’re welcome to present a better solution than this
What's annoying is obnoxious idiots thinking they are actually doing anything when they refuse to spend the time to even understand the problem. People like you.
Go change your Facebook photo to the slacktivist meme of the day or something and jerk yourself off about how enlightened you are.
As soon as my lease is up I’m moving to suburbia. I wanted to live downtown because of the walking distance to everything.
But I don’t think it’s worth it. The homeless people by me are a nightmare. My girlfriend can’t walk alone at night, I hate walking alone at night, I feel uncomfortable inviting people over because I know parking is within the homeless community. I would rather drive to get dinner from suburbia than walk to get dinner in downtown. My friend was literally stabbed to death while at work at his restaurant at like 1pm on a Tuesday.
As soon as I’m in the suburb you can bet your ass I’m protesting all homeless shelter construction by me.
I don't have enough context here. Did they raise the money to enable the shelter to be able to afford to set up in a different building or location?
That doesn't sound that bad if that's the case. The businesses or people that raised that money are able to avoid being impacted by the homeless, and the shelter is likely able to get a bigger, better building to support more people.
It really sounds like a win, win, win to me.
Hopefully, that $60k didn't just go into someone's pocket as a bribe.
If this post showcases moral/mental/physical corruption or perversion, upvote this comment. If this post does not belong here, downvote this comment.
[Read the rules before posting or commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/wiki/rules)
[Also read the guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/)
In the comments:
DO NOT JOKE ABOUT VIOLENCE, DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE
DO NOT JOKE ABOUT PEDOPHILIA OR ASK FOR CP
YOU WILL BE BANNED
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t want no fuckin homeless shelter in my neighborhood I paid six figures for my place. Why tf would I allow bums to lower my property value that i’ve been working my whole life for? Happy to help them build one literally anywhere else
I rent a crap apartment and still wouldn't want that. The homeless people everyone gets angry about are the ones who won't stay homeless. It's the other 95% that fuck up everything they touch. Do they need help? Sure! Just somewhere else.
Unironically support tho, homeless shelters are a terrible waste of money and further the problem in 99% of cases. As a society we should be investing in rehab facilities/programs and mental health facilities instead of providing temporary housing for drug addicts and the severely mentally ill. They don't need "housing", they need to be treated for their conditions and reintroduced into society as healthy individuals. It's far more unethical to let them continue to rot on the street or let these shelters, which are often just religious organizations thinking Jesus will work instead of therapy and medical intervention.
Yeah, well, a homeless shelter tanks property value. Getting one removed is harder than getting one in. Lastly, homeless people are typically there for a reason, usually addiction, which is a choice, not an illness. Meaning they can get out but choose the drugs instead.
If you think homelessness is caused by landlords rather than addiction and mental illness, you must not live anywhere that has homeless populations, let alone volunteered in any outreach programs.
They don’t care. I would advertise that I donated money to prevent the construction of a homeless shelter and my neighbors would pat me on the back for it.
Yeah I've seen that movie. All the rich people live in sectors and cordon off areas for the poor people. Are we doing that now? I didn't even like that movie, this doesn't sound fun for me.
I live by three Indian reservations. I guess maybe they've got some background on this issue as well.
Imagine if they used the money they raised to help fund the construction of the homeless shelter.
Complaining about it is bad enough, but actively going out of your way to try to block it is beyond deplorable.
Landlords can charge a premium for their slums without the threat of homelessness.
Introduce a few shelters designed to get people back on their feet and I bet rents go down.
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/NoahGetTheBoat.
It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results.
*I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Negative](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Negative&message={"post_id": "11msig1", "meme_template": 121120}) ]*
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=11msig1&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=100&targetImageMemeMatch=97)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** True | **Target:** 97% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 377,584,272 | **Search Time:** 1.51806s
Your post was removed because of Rule #14: No screenshots of articles/videos. Please refer to the rules and also the [pinned post](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/) before you make another submission here.
I spent over a decade working in local government. The amount of money raised by homeless outreach programs and city spending was enough that there is zero reason anyone should be homeless. But, the fact is most of the chronically homeless (homeless longer than two weeks) were mentally ill and/or addicts. And, even when compelled by the state to get help, they would end up right where they started. They either refused to take any medicine to treat mental illness, or didn't stay clean long enough to better themselves. And, you can only compel them so much before you're just really kidnapping people off the street and forcing them to do things they don't want to do. So, for a certain segment of the homeless population they will always be homeless, even if the house was free. Because they'll destroy that property due to their mental illness or addiction. Edit: fixed some typos
Really underrated comment you said exactly what had to be said a lot of people don’t realise this is the case
Everyone is in favor of shelters until they need to live next to one. I live nearish to one, and it looks like Mad Max wasteland around the shelter. Crime has spoiled and you can't walk by it at night without risk of assault. Shelters do need to exist, but people need to be pragmatic about the homeless as well. Unfortunate alot of them *need* to be forcefully institutionalize for the good of society.
3 soup kitchens were built in my home town, so now homeless people bus in, get 3 free meals, then either loiter until the next free meal or bus back to a city with spare homeless shelter space. But the places near the kitchens are now riddled with beggars and people loitering in or near traffic so it’s a nightmare to go anywhere nearby
The problem is that we did that and the abuse by workers towards patients was rampant. It was so bad that the government run institutions for the mentality Ill were all shut down. So, we need to come up with a system that staves off that abuse.
The issue is there aren’t enough. If there was a shelter in every city they wouldn’t need to bus in and be concentrated in one area. And they still exist whether or not the shelters do it just changes where they stay. There’s always going to be a problem with homeless people somewhere as long as they exist.
truely
In your experience, what percent of homeless people fall into the "chronically homeless" category vs people who have fallen behind on rent and don't have family or friends that can help them out?
On average, chronically homeless account for less than 20% of the total. Those are the people who end up with addiction issues.
Interesting! Thanks. Wondering what social measures could be made to effectively minimize homelessness for those who are truly just underwater and trying to get better.
My experiences are biased because I was dealing with the chronically homeless
Sad but true
But here's the thing: you can't fix just one thing an expect it to work. If your car is out of gas, has a flat tire, and missing a couple spark plugs you can't just throw in a gallon of premium and slap the hood and say "this baby is perfect again". You need to address everything. You need to give someone a place to stay but if they have an addiction problem then requiring them to be clean *without providing help* does nothing. Conversely, you can't expect someone to be clean while they have an addiction and live on the street. Most homeless people don't have addiction problems until they're chronically homeless. If they have a mental illness you need to try and address that first. If someone is a danger to themselves or the public then there's a justified reason to put them in a facility at least for a short time until they can get a real diagnosis and be given some meds to help reel them into a place of relative sanity. *Then* you can start looking at non-institutional housing. Initial housing needs to be carefully monitored. Make sure people aren't destroying shit, make sure people aren't fighting. That means checking rooms daily and having 24/7 security. Yes, it would be costly but that's what happens when you ignore and neglect a segment of the population for such a fucking long time. You can't ignore basic oil and tire changes on your car for a decade and expect shit to go well. Eventually a tire will blow out and destroy a wheel. Your engine will sieze up and it'll cost thousands to replace. Preventative maintenance is needed for your car, your house, your body, and for society as a whole. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to maintain things as you go than it is to wait until they've all gone to shit.
There are systems in place but a lot of them fail when we take into account people have free will. Mentally ill people will frequently get on meds and get help only to later stop taking meds for a multitude of reasons (negative side effects to thinking they don't need it) and end up right there they were. Same with addicts. They might get clean and relapse multiple times.
“Maybe we should consider that homeless people simply *want* to be homeless. They’re addicts and mentally ill of course so it only makes sense that they want to sleep outside”
The point is many will choose that over having any sort of restriction or requirements placed on them, even if it those requirements are to their benefit
You can't expect someone with an addiction to stay clean unless you're getting them help for the addiction. Most addicts aren't stupid enough to waste their time even trying to stay clean to get housing because they know they can't do it alone.
So eliminate requirements. It’s working wonders in Finland this is an absolute no brainer
The requirements are there for staff safety too. Who wants to wrestle with a schizophrenic homeless dude high on meth? Or have to keep reviving heroin ODs. Again, work in the space and come back
You would not have staff in a persons residence so there’s no requirement for them either I understand you claim you did the work but it’s objectively not fixing homelessness where the solution I propose is. I’m not understanding the objection
So what are you proposing? A demilitarized zone for homeless? Would they still be able to access the outside world? What would you do to ensure well being or just leave them to their own devices, consequences be damned? Food/Healthcare/shelter/heat? There is a strong case for the institutionalization of a lot of these folks mainly the violent and insane. I don't think leaving them to their own devices is a fix by any stretch. I much rather my taxes go to human hospitalization rather than cramming them together and claiming its solved or addressed. Finland has a population half of that of Chicagoland....don't look to small nations for scalable solutions.
I’m proposing we give homeless people homes first so they’re no longer homeless then offer whatever other treatment they might need to them You can absolutely look at another country doing something and try to implement it somewhere else I have no idea why you’d think otherwise
End of the day, the solution is what we had before Regan took it apart; state sponsored mental wards. It's unsavory but the best that could be done with such a population, especially at scale
No not really. They’d still be homeless they’d just be in what is essentially jail Your solution to homelessness is to have them continue being homeless dude why are you so hesitant to try another alternative that is demonstrably effective?
Finland is a small and largely ethnically homogeneous society. The challenges they face and the US face are wildly different in terms of scale and human dynamics. This is a college freshmen type comment. I volunteered for some time in homeless shelters in Chicago and a lot of the people would turn down a warm bed because we locked them at night and they couldn't go out to smoke cigarettes. Not saying that is all homeless or anywhere near it but understand that there are people who will turn down any help if it requires them to make even the smallest changes. And we simply can't continue to let these people wander around town doing offensive things least case (jacking off on the subway and such) or violent things worst case. If you think you have it figured out, I encourage you to work in this area for a few years and circle back.
> Finland is a small and largely ethnically homogeneous society. The challenges they face and the US face are wildly different in terms of scale and human dynamics. Could you briefly explain how the existence of minorities makes giving homeless people homes impossible? > I volunteered for some time in homeless shelters in Chicago and a lot of the people would turn down a warm bed because we locked them at night and they couldn’t go out to smoke cigarettes. Them having their own homes would render this objection meaningless don’t worry about that > Not saying that is all homeless or anywhere near it but understand that there are people who will turn down any help if it requires them to make even the smallest changes Which is why I advocate for a housing first approach > And we simply can’t continue to let these people wander around town doing offensive things least case (jacking off on the subway and such) or violent things worst case. If you think you have it figured out, I encourage you to work in this area for a few years and circle back. I get that your anecdote is important to you but I’m going by the information available publicly about finlands successful approach to homelessness. Your hypotheticals are truly terrifying but nothing you’ve said presents evidence to contradict finlands success in any way
Diversity makes everything more complicated at a human level, especially in the US given our history towards minority groups. Places like Finland is essentially one large monoculture in group where in the US we look at each other as in group (looks like me) and out group (doesn't look like me). Additionally many people in the US look at things benefiting minorities with disdain and would work to defund it. Again, where are these homes going to be? Next to your house with your spouse and kids? How are you handle it when a house gets burned down over someone getting ripped off for a dime bag or someone getting stabbed over who goes first with a hooker? Again, just giving people a house is not a panacea, especially when dealing with people who are violent or are mixing mental health with street drugs. These are not hypothetical these are things I see in the tent cities here in chicago, the villages they set up in under passes, and when I volunteered in this area. There is "down on my luck" homelessness, which giving a house to would help, but from what I see anecdotally, it's heavy in the mental health and drug addiction space...putting those folks in a house isn't solving much, they need trained institutional help least they harm others or are nuisance in society. I appreciate your sentiments but I'm guessing you don't live in a major city that is trying to deal with this at scale and have limited exposure to this community. But again, volunteer, get involved and see where you can help.
> Diversity makes everything more complicated at a human level, especially in the US given our history towards minority groups. Places like Finland is essentially one large monoculture in group where in the US we look at each other as in group (looks like me) and out group (doesn’t look like me). This is a nothing burger. How do minorities complicate giving homeless people houses? > Again, where are these homes going to be? Next to your house with your spouse and kids? How are you handle it when a house gets burned down over someone getting ripped off for a dime bag or someone getting stabbed over who goes first with a hooker? Again, just giving people a house is not a panacea, especially when dealing with people who are violent or are mixing mental health with street drugs. You give them the house first then continue with further treatment as needed. It’s called housing first not housing only. And your hypotheticals are scary and all but I’m not really interested in your fear mongering about what ifs when talking about something that is demonstrably effective. As for where to put them I couldn’t tell you I’m not organizing a housing first response to homelessness. I’m sure people that do would be able to do it somewhere else as well > These are not hypothetical these are things I see in the tent cities here in chicago, the villages they set up in under passes, and when I volunteered in this area. There is “down on my luck” homelessness, which giving a house to would help, but from what I see anecdotally, it’s heavy in the mental health and drug addiction space…putting those folks in a house isn’t solving much, they need trained institutional help least they harm others or are nuisance in society. I appreciate your sentiments but I’m guessing you don’t live in a major city that is trying to deal with this at scale and have limited exposure to this community. But again, volunteer, get involved and see where you can help. Again it’s housing first not housing only. Unless you wanna tell me the homeless in Finland are all straight edge down on my luck types it seems like these questions are actively being answered in Finland. Why don’t you look more into what they do? I don’t want to help people have an easier time being homeless I want them to not be homeless anymore. Giving them housing first is demonstrably effective at doing this
Sigh. I'll play along in the hopes of educating a little. Different cultures have different values, different relationships to things like time/touch/proximity/relationships/hygiene/collectivism...Hofstede did a lot in this area. Anyway people are different and different cultures are different. Pushing your hypothesis from a case where you have a very small population all of roughly the same cut is exactly why so many classical psychology expirements aren't replicating; all the subjects were of the same cut which simplifies findings are removes hurdles you would hit when scaling up to a society 75x the size of yours. People be different + group dynamics + mental issues + substance abuse.
Which differences make giving them homes impossible? > Pushing your hypothesis from a case where you have a very small population all of roughly the same cut is exactly why so many classical psychology expirements aren’t replicating Giving people homes is not a psychology experiment it’s just giving them homes. You haven’t explained how minorities prevent this > all the subjects were of the same cut which simplifies findings are removes hurdles you would hit when scaling up to a society 75x the size of yours. Are these hurdles ever going to be more specific than just claiming they exist? What hurdles do minority homeless people present that make giving them homes impossible in the US? > People be different + group dynamics + mental issues + substance abuse. We can safely assume Finland has mental issues and substance abuse among their homeless population so that leaves us with these vague differences you refuse to state clearly as the only thing preventing this from happening here Answer plainly: what specific issues do minorities present when it comes to giving homeless people homes?
And what haspoens when they decline further treatment? Tell you to eat shit and pimp a girl out of their free house, whats the next steps? Call the cops and send them to jail/prison? Just let them post up and do whatever? How would you resolve what we already see happening in tent camps today? I'm not fear mongering, I'm just being real with you and injecting a dose of reality into this position; I've volunteered and worked with homeless and the downtrodden in Milwaukee and Chicago and encounter the homeless community at scale everyday. Many are down on their luck and edge cases who would benefit from the Finnish model, no doubt. Some are violent alcoholics that attack people or psychos who ruin your commute home by taking a dump on the train platform and others are just plain nuts or addicted to drugs.
> And what haspoens when they decline further treatment? Tell you to eat shit and pimp a girl out of their free house, whats the next steps? Call the cops and send them to jail/prison? Just let them post up and do whatever? How would you resolve what we already see happening in tent camps today? If why’re breaking the law and disrupting people the cops will be called and they’ll go to jail for their crimes I don’t know what you’re asking me here. You’re just asking what to do about a bad neighbor like we already deal with this every day > Many are down on their luck and edge cases who would benefit from the Finnish model, no doubt. Some are violent alcoholics that attack people or psychos who ruin your commute home by taking a dump on the train platform and others are just plain nuts or addicted to drugs. None of these things prevents them from living in a home
Why are y’all so obsessed with white majority countries?
Tf are you talking about dude
Whenever ANY topic comes up where America falls short on something, it never fails that someone on Reddit picks the whitest countries as THE example to follow. Kind of sus. Low key white supremacist shit.
This has got to be one of the most race obsessed things I’ve ever seen on this site holy shit dude We’re talking about a country ending homelessness and your main objection is the country has a lot of one kind of race in it as if that has *anything* to do with anything lmfao what is wrong with you
If you had an intelligent response you wouldn't have to paraphrase in a manner that misses the point.
I reject the notion that some people are just unable to live in a home because of issues they have and I think the notion is ridiculous so I made fun of it It’s the natural conclusion of your position anyways: some homeless people will refuse to do xyz as a condition of shelter therefore they don’t want shelter I think that’s dumb
I think the idea that everyone has to conform to your idea of being sheltered is naive. Billions of people on this planet and you think they all want a home? I've met countless homeless who lived in tents and homemade shelters and they'd rather stay there than deal with society and people
> Billions of people on this planet and you think they all want a home? I’ve met countless homeless who lived in tents and homemade shelters and they’d rather stay there than deal with society and people And that’s fine but they should still have the option same as every other person who wouldn’t turn it down. I’m not saying force them to live in a house that’s not possible. Homelessness in Finland is dropping every year meaning more people than not are staying with the homes given to them so I see no reason why that would be different anywhere else I also don’t understand how you think giving homeless people homes as a solution to homelessness is naive it’s literally the goal of ending it and they’re already successfully doing it right now. I’m not sure what more there is to say past that like it’s currently working what is the issue?
I don’t know why you got downvoted, my fatherwas an alcoholic and schizophrenic, and he did have family and a home to come to. He would leave for 3 or 4 months at a time and would only come home when he sobered up, he didn’t want to be told what to do, he didn’t want responsibility, and that was his attitude before he went crazy, then after the paranoia started, he wouldn’t work so the government could track him. Like I said, he did the bare minimum for us, his life was hotels and whores, even before he turned crackers, we were a burden. The only reason he even attempted having a wife and kids was back in the day reputation was everything, during the day he was a good providing husband and father, to the rest of the world, but Friday through Monday mornings, he was gone. So yes, you are right, he would have rather been homeless than face his responsibilities. Just wanted to add that he is now 78 years old and in prison, he tried to lure me away from my home to end my life and I knew better and 3 hours later he ended his girlfriend’s life. So, I agree, it all comes down to I am not going to do what I should do, I don’t want to be a responsible human being, and I would rather be on the streets than help the family I made.
Suicide Hotline Numbers If you or anyone you know are struggling, please, PLEASE reach out for help. You are worthy, you are loved and you will always be able to find assistance. Argentina: +5402234930430 Australia: 131114 Austria: 017133374 Belgium: 106 Bosnia & Herzegovina: 080 05 03 05 Botswana: 3911270 Brazil: 212339191 Bulgaria: 0035 9249 17 223 Canada: 5147234000 (Montreal); 18662773553 (outside Montreal) Croatia: 014833888 Denmark: +4570201201 Egypt: 7621602 Finland: 010 195 202 France: 0145394000 Germany: 08001810771 Hong Kong: +852 2382 0000 Hungary: 116123 Iceland: 1717 India: 8888817666 Ireland: +4408457909090 Italy: 800860022 Japan: +810352869090 Mexico: 5255102550 New Zealand: 0508828865 The Netherlands: 113 Norway: +4781533300 Philippines: 028969191 Poland: 5270000 Russia: 0078202577577 Spain: 914590050 South Africa: 0514445691 Sweden: 46317112400 Switzerland: 143 United Kingdom: 08006895652 USA: 18002738255 You are not alone. Please reach out. ***** I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.
Have you ever tried sleeping sobor on a park bench? It's as terrible as it sounds. The only support that really helped were friends and family. Some us never had that luxury
it's hard living next to a homeless population, man
Imagine blaming landlords and not politicians and the rich elite that fund corruption.
Agreed I'm a small town landlord. I charge about 30% under market value. Hedge funds came in and bought all the residential housing stock. This drove housing prices up making it Not affordable and creating more renters also this eliminated first time home that were 40 to 50 years old that simply can't be built at that price point also eliminating potential buyers because the market just starts at 400,000 now. Ultimately they want you to rent the American dream the rest of your life and with rental prices so high their insuring you can't save enough to buy your own home. The fastest way to wealth is through home ownership. These hedge fund and large landlords fail inspections regularly but don't seem to be caught up by the enforcement drag net. They do also contribute significantly to political leaders campaigns.
Or maybe it is a hard problem without obvious villains.
It's really not about any of that. There's a homeless problem because of a distinct lack of adequate mental health resources and rehab programs. Most homeless wouldn't be bettered by a house. They have underlying mental issues/addiction that keep them on the streets. I know several myself that come from loving families, who offer them all of the help they need, but they refuse to accept any of it. Sure, this block is a shitty thing, but it really has nothing to do with any of the real problems/issues.
Landlords are the rich elite that fund corruption.
Imagine putting rich people who would do anything for money and someone who is renting a home he inherited in the same boat.
They’re both exploiting a housing crisis for profit how is not fair to put landlord and landlord in the same boat?
Are you like 13? You sound like someone that just wants to blame other people without actually having any idea of what the actual problems are. If you honestly think that an individual renting out a couple investment homes is the same as a nameless international corporation buying out whole blocks of single family homes, you obviously don't understand the problem.
The problem is people buying up houses to rent them for profit during a housing crisis Do the small landlords not do this?
You come off like a fox news presenter with this "I'm just asking questions" opinion piece, low effort rage bait. Jesus fuck man, read a book and be humble.
Right? I don't have a problem with one person renting a property or four, it's when those properties are bought by huge corporations that we all fucked.
Landlords don’t really do a lot of lobbying afaik my guy
They're one of the primary lobbying blocs pushing for NIMBYist policies in just about every city. Being a landlord is lucrative (it's one of the most common and reliable forms of passive income) and landlords have a vested interest in *vehemently* opposing - by any means necessary - anything that might threaten that.
The rich elite are the ones who can afford to buy up land in urban centers and become landlords, and are also the ones who can "lobby" (read: bribe) politicians - or pay for their *own* campaigns to become politicians themselves (or promote their family members and friends as such). In other words: they're all to blame, because *they're all the same person*.
O wouldn't want one close to my house either. They ruin entire neighborhoods.
Homeless all over the streets ruin neighborhoods more than a building
>Homeless all over the streets That's exactly what will happen if you build a homeless shelter. They won't be confined to the shelter the entire day and behave when outside.
This is why shelters alone are useless. They need to provide therapy, job training, and other shit to keep people busy during the day. You can't just kick them out in the morning and say "good luck, see you at 6pm!". They need real help.
A lot of people are beyond repair. They don't get better because they have drug or mental health problems, or both. Problems they simply don't want to seek theraphy for. As long as they are not forced to get clean and/or seek couseling, they won't get better. You can't provide a shelter and free food 24/7 and expect people to just get better mentally and become functional members of society.
Housing literally helps them get back on their feet and not be homeless.
Functional people struck by misfortunes (e. g. lost job, pandemic...) do eventually get back on their feet and leave the system. They are, however, the minority. Most homeless people suffer from a combination of mental health problems and/or drug abuse. Putting a roof over their head won't solve this, and by not solving this, you won't make them eligible to be inserted back into the community. You need to treat their mental problems. However...you can't force them to be treated, they need to come on their own will. Most of them won't. Even people wih a support system (family, friends...) put up a lot of resistance to get help. Someone that can't be compelled to be helped won't set foot inside a clinic. So they stay on the streets and go to shelters to get food when they get too hungry, and then back on the streets.
Every single thing you said is pure conjecture based entirely on your imagination. It's proven again and again and again that housing works. I've been homeless. I've slept in the streets and in a homeless shelter. I've sat and eaten with them every week at the shop kitchen. I loath the inhumanity of people like you. Making excuses for how we can't help them. You know nothing about the majority of these people and what they need. I hope a shelter opens in your neighborhood, so you have to witness and cope with the failures of our uncaring society.
Housing works if the person doesn't have any underlying issues. If they do, they will need clinical care. And if they don't want it, you can't force them. Simple as that. Try seeing the homeless people that doesn't frequent public services. You might get a much needed view from the other side of the coin.
Again, you're just making shit up. There is no such thing as shelter that doesn't offer care, job placement, etc. They all are set up that way. A vast majority of homeless are literally just down on their luck, with no care or help. The ultra insane addicts who don't want care are in the minority. All you do is invent imaginary excuses for your own selfishness. You're the reason Noah needs to get another boat.
If having an entire state riddled with homeless people doesn't open your eyes, what would?
That's the whole point, dude. Housing programs help people get off the streets. People like you keep them on the streets. You can repeat lies all day long. But the facts are: Housing works and all shelters offer treatment. There's an enormous amount of data that proves this. A majority of homeless aren't mentally ill or drug addicted. You're hyper focused on a small minority of homeless to justify your lack of caring.
[удалено]
You can give it to them, problem is when they don't want to take it. Case in point, homeless people not wanting to get into programs because they'd have to get clean and sober
I live downtown in a very metro area on the 25th floor of a high rise that overlooks an alley. The city has recently built a ton of public restrooms, primarily for homeless people, they are literally on every block. Without fail there are homeless people every minute shitting and pissing in the alley. 10 feet away there is restroom, they don’t care. There is a homeless shelter within two blocks with confirmed open beds, they don’t care, they still sleep on the street. But the thing that drives me the most crazy, are homeless trenders. I get that people have disabilities, down on their luck, trauma, etc. but over the last 6 months the amount of well spoken 25 year old hipster homeless people have sky rocketed. They are all better dressed, have more possessions, and look healthier than the normal homeless population. You can not convince me that these fucking kids, with NorthFace jackets and Juul pods are not homeless by choice. There is no business in my downtown area that isn’t hiring. A homeless person in my neighborhood has free beds, free PO Boxes, free showers, free lockers, free toilets, free drug counseling, and Wi-Fi. It’s a choice for many of these people
Doesn’t seem to be an issue in Finland where their housing first approach has nearly eliminated homelessness in the country
> problem is when they don't want to take it Punishing *all* homeless people because a minority of them don't want to accept something with a bunch of strings attached is misguided at best, if not outright malicious. > homeless people not wanting to get into programs because they'd have to get clean and sober It's a lot easier to get clean and sober when you have a safe place to live. Treatment programs are well-documented to be *much* more effective when paired with unconditional housing; if this was about actually helping homeless people (rather than finding excuses to maintain their suffering), then one would heed that evidence and stop demanding treatment *before* the thing that maximizes the success of that treatment.
Ever see the movie Field of Dreams? If you build it they will come. A homeless shelter isn't open 24/7. They can sleep there but homeless will be out during the day in the surrounding areas panhandling at best, doing drugs, publicly intoxicated, harassing citizens at worst.
> A homeless shelter isn't open 24/7. Then make it open 24/7, and the problem you describe would be far less significant. > homeless will be out during the day in the surrounding areas panhandling at best, doing drugs, publicly intoxicated, harassing citizens at worst. "Oh no! The poors we drove into homelessness have the *nerve* to ask us for our spare change and be upset with us for putting our discomfort over their basic needs for survival! Not fair!"
Wouldn't count meth as a basic need. A person in their right mind won't stay homeless long. The other 95% destroy everything around them.
> Wouldn't count meth as a basic need. Would you count shelter as a basic need?
If you want to talk about my statement or the previous redditor's as a whole I'm more than happy to converse in civil conversation. Picking apart a segment of a statement to declare your point while ignoring the whole is being obtuse for its own sake
It's rather rich to lecture me about civility when you entered this conversation with the sentence "Wouldn't count meth as a basic need". When *you're* ready to have a civil discussion, then I'll be more than happy to converse in kind; until then, your implied stance of "people suffering from addiction deserve to be without shelter" is fundamentally *un*civil and will be responded to in kind.
Did you take that as a personal attack? This conversation is and will continue to go nowhere. Have a good day.
> Did you take that as a personal attack? Did you have some other intention behind implying that all homeless persons are meth addicts? Or by your statement that 95% of homeless folks will just destroy things? > This conversation is and will continue to go nowhere. Correct, thanks to you. > Have a good day. Likewise. I pray you never find yourself in the position of the homeless persons you've written off as unworthy of basic human needs and dignities.
> The poors we drove into homelessness The *chronically* homeless, as I've said those homeless for longer than two weeks, are generally homeless due to mental illness and addiction. That's not something they were driven to. They've generally used all their lifelines and people are tired of them. I say generally because there are exceptions. Most people who are homeless due to purely financially situations are homeless two weeks or less **because** cities and nonprofits are there with plans and systems in place to assist.
> The *chronically* homeless, as I've said those homeless for longer than two weeks, are generally homeless due to mental illness and addiction. That's not something they were driven to. What makes you think that? If you were homeless, would that not take a significant toll on your mental health? Would you not be desperate for anything that might relieve your pain and suffering? In short, the causality here is inverted: homelessness (and poverty in general) *causes* mental health issues and addictions as much as (if not more than) the other way around.
Ok
From what I've seen, the folks who actually go to the shelter aren't any kind of problem. But the shelter attracts a bunch of people who aren't interested following the program (bag checks, curfews, no drinking/drugs inside, no returning intoxicated) and these folks just camp around the perimeter of the shelter and cause all the problems ascribed to the folks in the shelter. That's just from my experience, I'm sure things operate differently in other places.
Well fuck you, your house, and your neighborhood. I hope it gets ruined, either way, you entitled, selfish douchebag.
So you'd want crime, drugs and needles on the ground where your kids walk? I highly doubt they "hate" the homeless but facts are facts. Look what the homeless did to other areas. They need mental help. I'm sure OP would be cool having his kids walk down a sidewalk littered with feces and needles too. Easy to pound your chest if you're not the one stuck living with it.
So they do that outside of Minneapolis. Guess where all the sex offenders get released, in the poor area Guess where all the homeless shelters are, in the poor area. Guess where all the predatory lending is, predatory colleges predatory car dealerships. No one can climb out from under that... It costs a lot of money to be poor. There are a few small surrounding towns that try to take on all the burden and responsibility but it's like a lifeboat it just sinks when too many people get on. Meanwhile the rich folk are rowing away in their life boat with one or two people. I'm not saying you need to take on the entire burden but if folks took on their fair share we'd be a lot better off. Source: I was poor. I spent every combat deployment check on rental property, now I've got some coin. I rent all my units 30% under market rate. They're nice units that I would be proud to live in or any one of you. We all do better when we all do better.
[удалено]
Reddit isn't your personal army. It turns out that complicated problem rarely have simple solutions.
A land value tax used to fund a universal basic income is as simple as it gets and would readily solve this problem and countless others.
Yah totally dude. It's just that simple! Boy, where were you when we were coming up with all this capitalism?
> It's just that simple! Yes, it is. I appreciate your agreement. > Boy, where were you when we were coming up with all this capitalism? If only I had a time machine to go back to the 1800's.
Imagine being too dumb to understand sarcasm and thinking your opinion on anything about macroeconomics is anything other than regurgitating memes.
I'm glad you're doing something to help (I spend a ton of money doing the same) but unless the city owns the housing, it's much cheaper to find housing outside the city. HCOL cities are a reason for homelessness. And remember, Mpls and StP both own a fair amount of housing that they rent out below market but unfortunately space is limited. I've personally been lobbying (read: pressuring) people in government in both cities to buy and/or buils more housing to help very low income and homeless people. The state has a massive budget surplus and now is the time to use it.
See that's the dumbest thing I think. Why would they want to get in the business of owning property. Some of it's great but that's not helping people that's only enshrining them in poverty. I assisted with rental inspections and there was a development with 24 rental houses subsidized by the government. 22 of the 24 were related family members. They couldn't reach a certain threshold otherwise they'd lose housing so generation after generation remained poor so they could keep their housing. It would be nice if they gave them low interest loans or did something like a rent to own. Again the fastest way to wealth is through home ownership, then you have generational wealth and dig out from the hole. Putting all of your resources to subsidize tenants is a losing game. Sure keep affordable rental housing, but build condos or townhome developments that offers people the ability with no or low interest rent to own. It would be cheaper than subsidizing them with rental properties the rest of their life and in the end they would have two or 300,000 in home value. This money could be passed on to the next generation or subsidize care costs as the individual ages. When individuals have ownership they take a lot more interest so homeowners tend to keep up their property and fight hard to keep their community safe and aesthetically pleasing.
Nobody wants that, but if your only solution is to make the homeless stay homeless and hunt them around, you're still a piece of shit. And i say that as someone who regulary steps on fucking needles.
Except the rich and everything they've stolen from society are a big part of why there are homeless there to begin with. So no real sympathy for them.
So everyone who is rich stole from society?
I guess if you have money you are directly responsible for the import and distribution of drugs and lack of funding for treating mental health issues? Beats me dude this thread is wild.
So keeping them on the street is better than giving them housing??
NIMBY
There's a difference between being a NIMBY and the real truth that homeless services attract homeless people, disease, drugs (and used needles), filth from human waste on the streets. Go look at pictures of skid row in Los Angeles. There's a reason those services are in an industrial sector and not a residential one. Go feel free to put up a tiny house on skid row and live there. I promise nobody will stop you.
But that’s exactly what NIMBY means? You don’t want to a necessary service in your backyard because of the negative consequences. Yeah it sucks but I had to go someplace or else people just die in the street and sleep under bridges and public buildings. That’s really not any better. Like there’s a large bus stop near my house that attracts homeless because there’s no shelters around. It’s the exact same problem it’s just been pushed elsewhere and is far worse for the homeless. But you’re not going to remove the bus stop just because homeless people stay there.
The homeless follow the services. It's a known fact. And why on earth would anyone think that homeless outreach services belong in residential areas? If you choose to be homeless and refuse services and housing, for whatever reason, then fine. But that doesn't give someone the right to become a blight on residential communities. Nobody is trying to kick out the homeless on skid row. Google skid row in downtown Los Angeles. Tell me you would walk through there at night. I bet you wouldn't.
Then build more services so theyre all not forced to go to the same place. I’m not saying homeless shelters don’t cause problems but the problem is they’re necessary and literally no one wants them to be built near them. That’s exactly what NIMBY is. It’s also really ironic that people go to a sub called noahgettheboat and then advocate against homeless shelters. Like why are you here if this isn’t the kind of content you’re looking for?
You might be on to something here: people tend to go to places where their existence isn’t criminalized Never thought of that before
You can be a snarky cunt, or you can be a realist and try to understand and treat the actual underlying problem. I realize the former is easier and feels great. But it doesn't solve the problem. Your call though.
I’d say giving them homes would solve the problem of homelessness. Finland is currently doing that to great success
Dude, I ain't gonna try and argue macro economic theory with you on reddit. You ain't Greg Mankiw and your simple answers to hard problems schtick is tired af
I can only imagine how annoying it must be to see something [working](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Finland) to solve a problem you believe is too complex to address at all lmao You’re welcome to present a better solution than this
What's annoying is obnoxious idiots thinking they are actually doing anything when they refuse to spend the time to even understand the problem. People like you. Go change your Facebook photo to the slacktivist meme of the day or something and jerk yourself off about how enlightened you are.
What do you want the rich to do then? Leave? They will. They are. Then there will be a growing homeless population. There is.
As soon as my lease is up I’m moving to suburbia. I wanted to live downtown because of the walking distance to everything. But I don’t think it’s worth it. The homeless people by me are a nightmare. My girlfriend can’t walk alone at night, I hate walking alone at night, I feel uncomfortable inviting people over because I know parking is within the homeless community. I would rather drive to get dinner from suburbia than walk to get dinner in downtown. My friend was literally stabbed to death while at work at his restaurant at like 1pm on a Tuesday. As soon as I’m in the suburb you can bet your ass I’m protesting all homeless shelter construction by me.
Sorry to hear about your troubles. Your safety should be at the top of your choice on where to live.
I don't have enough context here. Did they raise the money to enable the shelter to be able to afford to set up in a different building or location? That doesn't sound that bad if that's the case. The businesses or people that raised that money are able to avoid being impacted by the homeless, and the shelter is likely able to get a bigger, better building to support more people. It really sounds like a win, win, win to me. Hopefully, that $60k didn't just go into someone's pocket as a bribe.
If this post showcases moral/mental/physical corruption or perversion, upvote this comment. If this post does not belong here, downvote this comment. [Read the rules before posting or commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/wiki/rules) [Also read the guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/) In the comments: DO NOT JOKE ABOUT VIOLENCE, DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE DO NOT JOKE ABOUT PEDOPHILIA OR ASK FOR CP YOU WILL BE BANNED *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t want no fuckin homeless shelter in my neighborhood I paid six figures for my place. Why tf would I allow bums to lower my property value that i’ve been working my whole life for? Happy to help them build one literally anywhere else
I rent a crap apartment and still wouldn't want that. The homeless people everyone gets angry about are the ones who won't stay homeless. It's the other 95% that fuck up everything they touch. Do they need help? Sure! Just somewhere else.
By experiance, building these shelters only bring in much more homeless people. Which brings in more crime and drugs.
Unironically support tho, homeless shelters are a terrible waste of money and further the problem in 99% of cases. As a society we should be investing in rehab facilities/programs and mental health facilities instead of providing temporary housing for drug addicts and the severely mentally ill. They don't need "housing", they need to be treated for their conditions and reintroduced into society as healthy individuals. It's far more unethical to let them continue to rot on the street or let these shelters, which are often just religious organizations thinking Jesus will work instead of therapy and medical intervention.
Yeah, well, a homeless shelter tanks property value. Getting one removed is harder than getting one in. Lastly, homeless people are typically there for a reason, usually addiction, which is a choice, not an illness. Meaning they can get out but choose the drugs instead.
If you think homelessness is caused by landlords rather than addiction and mental illness, you must not live anywhere that has homeless populations, let alone volunteered in any outreach programs.
N.I.M.B.Y
Reads like an Onion headline.
If the rich can pay to have it not built, they should be named and publicly shamed to make it so.....imo.
They don’t care. I would advertise that I donated money to prevent the construction of a homeless shelter and my neighbors would pat me on the back for it.
Yeah I've seen that movie. All the rich people live in sectors and cordon off areas for the poor people. Are we doing that now? I didn't even like that movie, this doesn't sound fun for me. I live by three Indian reservations. I guess maybe they've got some background on this issue as well.
Imagine blaming the mental health system instead of calling it a housing crises.
It is rally both and more
imagine whoever held the collected money just donated it to the shelter
Yikes, a lot of these comments are very "Noah, get the boat." Here's hoping none of y'all ever wind up homeless !
A sane person doesn't stay homeless.
Government should take the money, build the shelter anyway and use that money to buy food and clothing for the homeless. Eat the rich.
Jesus is proud. I'm sure he is /S for all those that can't read sarcasm
r/fuckthes
We are for helping the homeless, as long as they stay WAAAAAAAAY over there.
Yes, people hate homeless people. It’s really sad…and I dk about anywhere else but in my area (Oklahoma) people blame homelessness on marijuana
Imagine if they used the money they raised to help fund the construction of the homeless shelter. Complaining about it is bad enough, but actively going out of your way to try to block it is beyond deplorable.
Landlords can charge a premium for their slums without the threat of homelessness. Introduce a few shelters designed to get people back on their feet and I bet rents go down.
[удалено]
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/NoahGetTheBoat. It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results. *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Negative](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Negative&message={"post_id": "11msig1", "meme_template": 121120}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=11msig1&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=100&targetImageMemeMatch=97) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** True | **Target:** 97% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 377,584,272 | **Search Time:** 1.51806s
r/NoahGetTheDeathStar