Yeah I'm getting real sick of the stance that if something only fixes 80% of a problem and doesn't perfectly resolve every issue every person might ever encounter, it is a failure and should never be implemented.
If it is not causing more harm, and especially if there is a way to address unforeseen harm that might arise, awesome! Let's give it a go.
Because sending armed officers out to deal with any little thing that happens is demonstrably not working well right now.
I really want this phenomenon explained.
Slippery slope fallacies, concern trolling, whataboutism, pearl clutching, feinting spells, Copenhagen Effect (blame anyone who tries to help for the original problem), Alistair Cockburn's wisdom about organizational change (tldr: people really, really hate change, of any kind, for any reason).
Ad nauseatingum.
It's exhausting.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics
https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855 https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/7qxhqs/is_i...
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
We’re way out of balance. Lot’s of courage, less wisdom, no serenity.
The biggest actual expense is the massive medical bills from exposure and neglect. Police and ambulance services are likely a close second, chasing around town and dealing with random mentally ill people in dire straits.
The other costs are less obvious. As homeless clutter your public spaces, your city starts to rot. Parks become open areas of blight as the homeless overwhelm them and destroy the services they offer. This means much of the money your city invests in parks and public spaces ends up going to waste. Unless you spend more money on police.
The final big expense is clean up and sanitation... unless your city doesn't clean up after homeless people in which case you just end up with actual shit in alleys on big piles of garbage on street corners.
Putting up housing isn't a perfect solution, but it certainly eliminates some significant parts of that.
Policy wise, proactive beats reactive, prevention beats treatment.
--
PS- I just cleaned up after an encampment. After the city cleaned. 20 used needles (mostly insulin) and dozens of other sharps, human waste, soiled diapers, everything else you can imagine. I'm just so pissed off. No one should have to live like that. Just put people in homes. Safe, clean, access to services. Even triage with microhouses along with honeybuckets and potable water would be better.
I read about that program and it sounds amazing.
Decent public housing is pretty common in Europe as well.
I forgot to mention one major cost savings for a city. It is much easier for someone housed to get a job and recover financially than a homeless person.
Have you worked with the homeless? Yes there is a lot of mental illness, but there is a large number of people who choose to live this way.
Having been homeless myself many years ago, I can tell you from experience that not having money to pay rent or anyone to take you in is the reason people "choose" to be homeless.
And once you are homeless, it's very difficult to work yourself out of it, for many reasons.
I assume you haven't considered that it's very hard to keep (or even get) a job if you have no place to bathe or store your stuff while you're working.
I grant you many are not like this and perhaps you're more knowledgable with your first hand experience. I know I personally, also from trying to offer people shelters or even free room-and-board, they don't take it. I don't know why in all cases, but many wanted to do things "their own way". I find it commendable and I respect those who choose to refuse handouts.
That's my point, they may not choose to be in that situation. However, forcefully detaining them for "mental illness" for not wanting "assistance" is a different discussion.
Horrible, as in: you can't stay here if you are a male with children. A female with children will have a curfew and need special permission if they happen to have part-time work that keeps them out after curfew. The children's father can't visit because it is technically for abused women. You can't make sure your medications are safe and you might not keep your belongings. You might be forced to go to AA meetings, church services, or to work in the thrift store. You might be turned away if you are trans or gay - I'm not sure that is supposed to happen legally, but it does nonetheless.
We should house folks, period. In actual housing. Shelters should always be a very, very temporary solution.
If you still get folks that insist on living on the street even though they have basically free housing, then surely, we can do better and create spaces for folks to live. You know, with showers and toilets available for use.
Who suggested that anyone was doing that?
In some limited sense, they may "choose" homelessness over poor shelter conditions or unaffordable housing, but that can hardly be considered a choice.
Well, if they aren't mentally ill and thus able to act rationally and it's a mass phenomenon then doesn't that point towards an underlying cause that makes it rational for a large number of people to choose homelessness?
Source: working on the streets of Seattle a couple years ago every weekend.
Nearly all of those are political issues though. Technology can help with better communications and tools for debunking falsehoods in those communications.
It might also eventually help with strong AI that's smarter and better than humans at offering a set of solutions and then letting people debate the ones that we agree are also emotionally the correct answers.
It's horrible for everyone in the city--most of all for the homeless.
These people suffer from mental health or drug issues and need help. The status quo of "leave them to fend for themselves" is simply an unacceptable outcome.
The system launched by the DPD may not be perfect, but it's a whole lot better than what existed before. It's a huge step in the right direction.