Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#61

Post by throwaway_exer »

SwellJoe wrote: post #48

I have several friends who are homeless or who have been homeless. It's really difficult to overstate how hard it is to get back out of homelessness, once you reach that point, without significant outside help. Think of all of the stuff most folks take for granted that are pretty much mandatory in most US cities in order to get and keep a job: 1. ID. So many of the homeless folks I know have had significant trouble o…

To further address #1, E-Verify requires a current ID - they won't even accept an expired passport, which is still accepted as proof of citizenship.

Bizarre, since as a citizen you have a right to work in the USA.

(I'm aware that one senator introduced a law that documents should have expiry dates enforced "because it's an expiry date" despite there being no particular benefit.

It brings to mind the Republican party's efforts to verify voters - so that less people can vote in some areas without overt gerrymandering.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#62

Post by eyelidlessness »

xyzzy4 wrote: post #11

The reason there are so many homeless is because they can't build slums for themselves like in developing countries such as India. Living in a slum would be better than being homeless. But in America, the police would tear them down.

This has come up on a number of HN posts about homelessness I've seen recently.

I'm interested in the topic, and actively worked with an encampment in Seattle (Nickelsville) that intended to build permanent dwellings. They were inspired by Dignity Village in Portland. But like you say, their efforts were demolished. But surprisingly to me, the cops involved were openly apologetic and gave everyone involved an opportunity to leave rather than risk arrest or property confiscation.

Do you have direct experience with homeless communities that have built dwellings for themselves? If so, can you talk about that experience?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#65

Post by ben_jones »

SwellJoe wrote: post #48

I have several friends who are homeless or who have been homeless. It's really difficult to overstate how hard it is to get back out of homelessness, once you reach that point, without significant outside help. Think of all of the stuff most folks take for granted that are pretty much mandatory in most US cities in order to get and keep a job: 1. ID. So many of the homeless folks I know have had significant trouble o…

I currently live in Eugene and have noticed a few peculiarities (near campus and away from downtown, YMMV):

* Homeless rarely have their things with them, suggesting perhaps that housing and storage are provided (at some level) to them.

* Those who panhandle near campus ask strictly for cash, and seem to some extent disappointed when they are given food instead.

* Homeless are never on campus, EVER. This seems strange to me because facilities such as bathrooms, drinking fountains, out-of-sight benches, and rain-cover, are in abundance. Clearly they are kept away, but it surprises me how EFFECTIVELY they are kept away, almost as if they are afraid of it.

* During the various University touring seasons (year round but more coming in Spring/Summer) there appears to be fewer homeless people in the more touristy areas near campus. This is purely anecdotal, but again it appears as if there is some contract with the local homeless to keep them away.

* Every morning recycling bins are spilled with their contents spread out as if someone came during the night and rumaged through them. This is particularly evident in the many alley ways near campus where most garbage/recycling is found. I would think there was some type of reward program geared towards the homeless that incentivized collection of recyclables, but it back fired and led to a large amount of littering in the area.

I have never been even close to homeless but I have always lived around it (San Francisco, Greater Bay Area, Eugene) and am somewhat fascinated by its societal implications. Eugene in particular is unique because it seems like a lot of people are trying really hard to make it better, yet are failing for a lot of reasons.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#66

Post by humanrebar »

grahamburger wrote: post #59

Oh hey, I've been to that shelter. I live in (and grew up in) Utah. My Aunt is severely mentally ill and homeless and relies on the Road Home shelter, I've visited her there a few times. They are doing good work, although being homeless is still pretty shitty, obviously. The hardest part is that the state could take much better care of her if she would allow herself to be diagnosed as handicapped due to her mental il…

> And of course forcing treatment on her is unethical and probably counter-productive.

Counter-productive is an empirical question, but why is forcing treatment always unethical?

> ...She lit the apartment on fire and ended up in the hospital.

...for example. Do we need to wait for manslaughter charges before the government is responsible?

Often people on the street are at least committing fraud (lying for food, bus fare, cash, etc.). I understand that people do what they need to for survival (at least on their terms), but there is an actual cost to that. For instance, if someone actually lost their wallet and needed fare home, they have to compete with people who say they haven't eaten in days but actually don't want professional help (and may even be unfit to make that decision in the first place). The information asymmetry is enormous in this sort of interaction. To reiterate, the people getting conned aren't the biggest victims here; it's the people who have to deal with a jaded audience and fraudulent sob stories when $20, bus fare, or a prepaid phone is legitimately their biggest need.

Anyway, I'm willing to listen to counterpoints about this, but it just doesn't make sense to me that the government isn't responsible for people who can't (or won't) take care of themselves. I'm talking haven't showered in weeks; open sores on their feet, faces, and bodies; etc. Literally no other group has (or should have!) the power to require someone to get care. If we say it's not the government's job, we're saying it's nobody's job.

I'm willing to hear other thoughts on this. My current conclusion is that the status quo is ethically unconscionable but politically impossible to do anything about, but maybe I'm missing something.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#67

Post by grahamburger »

humanrebar wrote: post #66
grahamburger wrote: post #59

Oh hey, I've been to that shelter. I live in (and grew up in) Utah. My Aunt is severely mentally ill and homeless and relies on the Road Home shelter, I've visited her there a few times. They are doing good work, although being homeless is still pretty shitty, obviously. The hardest part is that the state could take much better care of her if she would allow herself to be diagnosed as handicapped due to her mental il…

> And of course forcing treatment on her is unethical and probably counter-productive. Counter-productive is an empirical question, but why is forcing treatment always unethical? > ...She lit the apartment on fire and ended up in the hospital. ...for example. Do we need to wait for manslaughter charges before the government is responsible? Often people on the street are at least committing fraud (lying for food, bus…

I don't know. Honestly it seems unethical to me to compel someone to do anything if they haven't done anything illegal, and being homeless / not showering / having sores isn't illegal. There's a fine line between 'helping the mentally ill through compulsory treatment' and 'rounding up the homeless so we don't have to see them all the time' and it seems like whenever we try to do the former we end up doing some of the latter as well.

In my Aunt's case, apparently they decided not to press charges about the fire. Maybe they thought they were doing her a favor, and insurance probably covered the damage anyway.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#69

Post by lobster_johnson »

grahamburger wrote: post #67
humanrebar wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And of course forcing treatment on her is unethical and probably counter-productive. Counter-productive is an empirical question, but why is forcing treatment always unethical? > ...She lit the apartment on fire and ended up in the hospital. ...for example. Do we need to wait for manslaughter charges before the government is responsible? Often people on the street are at least committing fraud (lying for food, bus…

I don't know. Honestly it seems unethical to me to compel someone to do anything if they haven't done anything illegal, and being homeless / not showering / having sores isn't illegal. There's a fine line between 'helping the mentally ill through compulsory treatment' and 'rounding up the homeless so we don't have to see them all the time' and it seems like whenever we try to do the former we end up doing some of the…

As you point out, she doesn't know she is ill; you (and we as a society) have the clarity to recognize it and help.

I have dealt with a similar situation involving a family member. I later regretted not being proactive in intervening before it was too late. Years went by, and plenty of situations arose that could have lead to a serious intervention. Instead, nothing happened. In one instance, criminal charges were pending, but somehow they were dropped.

Of course, there must be a very high bar against forced institutionalization; we don't want to return to the bad old days when people were locked up for all sorts of unjustifiable reasons.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#70

Post by lobster_johnson »

chimeracoder wrote: post #26
icantdrive55 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always felt P.O. boxes should be free for those that are homeless. If said box goes unused it is put back into general use. Verification could be supplied by the county.

> I always felt P.O. boxes should be free for those that are homeless. If said box goes unused it is put back into general use. They (basically) already are. USPS provides free mailing service for people who don't have a fixed address, and you can use that as your street address (unlike PO boxes, which are invalid for use in circumstances that require a street address). They'll hold onto any mail addressed to you for…

I believe you're referring to general delivery, known in the rest of the world as poste restante. (Fixed addresses are a fairly modern invention; poste restante used to be the norm before individually delivered mail became the norm.)
Post reply on HN