There is an interesting documentary narrated by Charles Bukowski called "The Best Hotel on Skid Row" from 1990, you can find it on YouTube.
Skid Row
21–30 of 36 posts
Re: Skid Row
#22What struck me reading this is all the issues SF and LA have had around housing and homelessness are not new — and, more importantly, the knee-jerk reaction of “cleaning the streets” (a nicer way to say incarceration) every-other city council has tried simply does not work. The real solution is potentially more expensive, less immediate, and less politically feasible. Build more housing: build more public housing, mo…
More housing won't help if they don't _want_ housing. I lived on the streets for awhile and _many_ people did not want homes, they wanted comfort, food, happiness, forget their pain, booze, drugs, entertainment.... a house? Nope. Now what do you do with those people?
I am by no means a sociological expert, but I think it is safe to assume a large majority of homeless do not want to be homeless; I’ll defer to those who have dedicated their lives to the fixing the issue of homelessness on how to remediate that special case, if it is indeed a significant concern.
Re: Skid Row
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't really need to worry about those people. Let's just build enough housing for those who want housing. That at least shrinks the problem. Let's do what reasonably can be done and follow the 80/20 rule and take care of the majority of the problem that is relatively easily resolved, thereby freeing up more resources for the short list of really, really hard cases.
But we do need to worry about those people when those people may be a large percentage of the people on the streets. These people are deep into the throws of mental illness, addiction, or both. What do you do to help people who don’t want to help themselves? It’s a very difficult problem and I don’t know if there is an easy solution that doesn’t infringe on people’s rights. You can’t make being homeless illegal and s…
There is a clear connection between housing costs and rate of homelessness.
https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-clear-c...
This country has an inadequate supply of housing nationwide. We have generally been under building housing for decades, then we act like our homeless population is just a bunch of "junkies and crazies."
When I say "we don't need to worry about them," I mean the existence of people who are homeless by choice should not be an excuse to keep not building adequate housing and justify punishing those who do want housing on the excuse that "some of y'all losers don't even want housing."
I spent nearly six years homeless. I've studied this problem space. I am actively developing information resources and best practices.
"Build more housing -- especially stuff like Missing Middle Housing" is the short answer to a large part of this.
Healthcare availability is another factor that makes a difference and help connecting to earned income that works for them in spite of handicaps and so forth. Earning money online is part of how I made progress on my issues and got myself back into housing.
Re: Skid Row
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't really need to worry about those people. Let's just build enough housing for those who want housing. That at least shrinks the problem. Let's do what reasonably can be done and follow the 80/20 rule and take care of the majority of the problem that is relatively easily resolved, thereby freeing up more resources for the short list of really, really hard cases.
But we do need to worry about those people when those people may be a large percentage of the people on the streets. These people are deep into the throws of mental illness, addiction, or both. What do you do to help people who don’t want to help themselves? It’s a very difficult problem and I don’t know if there is an easy solution that doesn’t infringe on people’s rights. You can’t make being homeless illegal and s…
Those who need more support than just housing (and I’d assume that could be many!) should be able to have it provided for them — I am sure the lines get murky if someone claims to not want to get helped, but I am also sure there is a way to still provide it humanely — anything is a step forward from the present conditions of homelessness and/or incarceration, at this point
Re: Skid Row
#25What struck me reading this is all the issues SF and LA have had around housing and homelessness are not new — and, more importantly, the knee-jerk reaction of “cleaning the streets” (a nicer way to say incarceration) every-other city council has tried simply does not work. The real solution is potentially more expensive, less immediate, and less politically feasible. Build more housing: build more public housing, mo…
A secondary group are families temporarily homeless due to adverse life conditions. Those can be helped by providing a semi-temporary place to stay. I'm all for this.
But the primary cause of homelessness is a mental health problem, largely brought on (but not entirely) by drug addiction[0]. Building housing may help, but individuals who are mentally well and want to live indoors can find housing, it doesn't have to be in SF or LA if cost is the issue.
The infrastructure for supporting addicts and those with clinical and severe mental health issues is at odds with the State's position that virtually prevents anyone being from admitted to an institution without their direct consent. In California, it is very difficult to admit someone to a mental hospital involuntarily. A police officer may deliver a person to a mental hospital and that hospital has 72 hours to evaluate them. Once evaluated, the hospital has to either get a judge's order to admit them, or let them go. Given that the entire state has only 6,000 psychiatric hospital beds, vs. 150,000 homeless in the state, this is seldom done:
"On or previous to the expiration of the 72 hours, the psychiatrist must assess the person to see if they still meet criteria for hospitalization. If so, the person may be offered a voluntary admission. If it is refused, then another hold for up to 14 days, the 5250 (WIC-5250), must be written to continue the involuntary confinement of the person. A Certification Review Hearing (W&I 5256) must occur within four days before a judge or hearing officer to determine whether probable cause exists to support the 5250. Alternatively, the person can demand a writ of habeas corpus to be filed for their release after they are certified for a 5250, and once filed, by law, the person must appear in front of a judge in two (2) days, which is two days sooner than the Certification Review Hearing."
[0] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-10/homelessnes...
[1] https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/involuntary-commitme...
Re: Skid Row
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
More housing won't help if they don't _want_ housing. I lived on the streets for awhile and _many_ people did not want homes, they wanted comfort, food, happiness, forget their pain, booze, drugs, entertainment.... a house? Nope. Now what do you do with those people?
I am by no means a sociological expert, but I think it is safe to assume a large majority of homeless do not want to be homeless; I’ll defer to those who have dedicated their lives to the fixing the issue of homelessness on how to remediate that special case, if it is indeed a significant concern.
[deleted]
Re: Skid Row
#27this is america: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCvcd0FYi58LwyTQP9LITpA
Nice interviews, thanks!
As non-native english speaker I liked the one with the mafia boss ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjwnDF2dRgI ) as he was talking nicely. Others use a lot of slang and/or people get stuck from time to time ("and you know..., well, I did.., I did..., well, the thing is..." => this makes me nervous).
Re: Skid Row
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we do need to worry about those people when those people may be a large percentage of the people on the streets. These people are deep into the throws of mental illness, addiction, or both. What do you do to help people who don’t want to help themselves? It’s a very difficult problem and I don’t know if there is an easy solution that doesn’t infringe on people’s rights. You can’t make being homeless illegal and s…
Those who need more support than just housing (and I’d assume that could be many!) should be able to have it provided for them — I am sure the lines get murky if someone claims to not want to get helped, but I am also sure there is a way to still provide it humanely — anything is a step forward from the present conditions of homelessness and/or incarceration, at this point
[deleted]
Re: Skid Row
#29My disappointment when the article wasn't about the demo/cracking-scene group Skid Row. :/
Anyone who ever owned an Amiga probably remembers the group. Their cracktros were really cool.
Damn, I was trying to remember where I heard the term (a band? a song? a game?), hehehe... . This is it, thanks!!!
Re: Skid Row
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
More housing won't help if they don't _want_ housing. I lived on the streets for awhile and _many_ people did not want homes, they wanted comfort, food, happiness, forget their pain, booze, drugs, entertainment.... a house? Nope. Now what do you do with those people?
We don't really need to worry about those people. Let's just build enough housing for those who want housing. That at least shrinks the problem. Let's do what reasonably can be done and follow the 80/20 rule and take care of the majority of the problem that is relatively easily resolved, thereby freeing up more resources for the short list of really, really hard cases.
> We don't really need to worry about those people. Let's just build enough housing for those who want housing. That at least shrinks the problem.
I’m not sure it does shrink the problem, though.
LA is a city, and people come to cities for opportunity. That extends to the indigent as well, and public spaces have a capacity in the same way that traditional housing has a capacity.
Logistics aside, if you were to successfully move 80% of the homeless population of Skid Row into permanent or semi-permanent housing is there are reason to believe that more homeless people wouldn’t simply move in to fill the void?
To be clear, I’m not arguing against charity or even against providing state resources for these people (at least, not in this post). I’m narrowly challenging the implicit argument that doing so is an effective way to reduce the number of homeless people on the streets in a defined area.
If the problem you’re trying to solve is “help those who need and desire help”, the solution is straightforward. If the problem is “change the fact that a large number of homeless people are living on publicly-accessible land in a major city”... I’m honestly not sure there is a viable solution. The options seem to range from accepting the situation and ignoring it to forcibly removing people from those areas and continuing to use to force to prevent them from returning.