I got myself off the street by moving into a cheap, small rental in a walkable neighborhood where my life works without a car. The need to own a car in the US is part of the burden that helps push some people out into the street. If we had more walkable neighborhoods where more people could make their life work without a car, that would help prevent homelessness for people who are currently at risk.
In the US, we straight up just need more housing. We have underbuilt for a long time and that helps push costs up.
We also need more small-ish scale housing in walkable neighborhoods. We have largely zoned those out of existence.
One reason crazy homeless people gravitate to big cities is because that's where they can get services. If you generally help people make their lives work across the US, then you would likely see less of this pattern.
There is a pervasive fear of being locked up in a psych ward, and those who do get medicine (via Medicaid or other assistance programs) stop taking it, because treatments for severe issues usually have very unpleasant side effects. It can take weeks of trial and error to find something that works, and all that time you are somewhere between a zombie and (as it was described to me) like going through pregnancy without the baby.
You either force people into care, or accept that many will scratch out a living on charity and trash without getting mental care. There isn't a middle ground between forcing and not forcing people to change.
If an individual is unwilling to accept involuntary medication, there are not many/any choices of programs.
In my opinion there is a distinct lack of mental health treatment options that treat patients with dignity. Those that have existed or still exist generally struggle to get funding.
If such programs do exist, I was unable to find any after weeks spent frantically searching for options for my medication resistant schizoaffective friend.
I was homeless with my adult special-needs sons and none us were drunks or addicts. There were programs for homeless single moms with minors but none for homeless single moms still responsible for adult children who couldn't care for themselves. There are programs for addicts and alcoholics but not for people who are homeless because of their medical situation.
Etc.
It's a fiction that "there are lots of programs for you and you just don't wanna get better." And even people who aren't homeless find mental health issues hard to resolve. That's not remotely some kind of solved problem.
Between them, I was losing my mind.
Was very close to being on the street when I finally got a correct diagnosis. Got treatment, and my mind cleared up. It wasn’t a mental condition, but every doctor wanted to treat it that way.
This was with great insurance and lots of money. Doctors just don’t like complex cases.
It also causes businesses (especially small ones which cannot afford private security) to move away, which erodes one of the objectives of this approach, which is to have small businesses of many sorts in the neighborhood. People may, in the abstract, like the fact that the business is tolerant of the poor and mentally ill, but they don't want to walk past them to go to that business. Definitely it's a bad, self-reinforcing situation.
You don't see the homeless population in those areas at nearly the same rates as downtown or near the areas where encampments are.
Thus your assumption that these areas will attract homeless populations would appear to be inaccurate.
In my area there is a lot of housing available, but the housing market rate has gone up so much that people with available housing don't want to rent it out to people with poor credit that have been adversely affected with financial issues, and if they are renting it out they aren't going to go below market rate. They'd rather it sit on the market for a year or more, all the while they can claim tax breaks and funding.
There is a lot of rural land as well. If you're homeless or struggling, unfortunately there is almost no place you can go in America with the exception of a few places like Slab City where you can basically inhabit some land and setup a basic shelter. Otherwise, you're at the mercy of landowners somewhere that maybe owns 1000 acres of land that they use for their leisure or the government, and they definitely don't want you on their property even if you're a nice individual just looking for a place. In America, you're expected to work and buy your freedom of the necessities of a basic shelter.
No... if you simply increase supply to actually meet demand, prices will fall. This affordable housing nonsense is a complete red herring. Affordable housing is a lottery solution that helps a handful of folks... and in many cases isn’t even affordable. America needs to stop trying to fix all these issues with these one off solutions and look at the bigger picture. Just build more homes. Go look at places like Japan where housing is affordable... it has nothing to do with mandated affordable housing which NEVER works.
However, if rural areas allowed individuals to have access to small plots of land and utilize cheap portable housing units where they could work on sustainable agriculture and community programs to promote self-sufficiency, and social safety nets to address issues of people with disabilities that may not be able to care for themselves without assistance then I believe the homeless crisis could be greatly adverted and also give purpose and fulfillment to those struggling with inner-city homeless issues.
> It isn't a supply and demand issue IMO.
With all due respect, you’re wrong and haven’t read about it enough then. Think about it like this, over the past few decades we’ve built fewer housing units than our population needed. This allowed demand to keep rising faster than supply, this pushed prices up. If you reverse that trend and make housing easier and cheaper to build, this trend would reverse.
As a former, long-time resident of an older inner city, I can say that not a single person I've ever encountered has made vehicle trips to avoid homeless people. Convenience, time to destination, and other concerns "drive" these decisions. For anything within that 10 minute radius, everyone walks. It's simply more efficient than driving.
I know many people that still live in the city, and people that moved away. Of my coworkers, all but one with kids moved out of the city when we went full remote, all cited homelessness and school quality as the top two issues. Homelessness is absolutely a big deal when making livable neighborhoods that people want to be in, whether or not you can find ways to "make it work" is beside the point.
In other words, don't conflate my lack of desire to spend another year dealing with homeless people as a lack of desire to find real solutions to homelessness. It's a 20 year problem, my kids will be grown up before it's not an issue anymore.
I can think of many times where people I know have chosen to drive to avoid homelessness problems (or, more specifically homeless unstable drug addict problems).
You must have lived in a different kind of inner city than I did.
It was convenient and efficient not to be assaulted.
However, the absolute power of the asylum operators over their charges inevitably lead to gross abuses which caused the entire centuries-old system to be abolished and replaced with nothing.
I have no idea what could possibly be a solution here. There will probably always be some number of people incapable of reasonable self care. There is also no system honest enough to be trusted to have absolute power over the lives of dependent others. This problem seems intractable.
He tried to introduce them in Texas, they were like the whole point is that they suffer.
Edit: I think it was this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband...
This is what people talk about when they say defund the police. They want to downsize police to the point where they only deal with crime and use the freed up funds to run mental health centers, halfway houses, drug treatment centers, etc...
wrt mental health centers: what happens when people don't want to go to those places? Either they'll be in exactly the same position of being handled by the police, or the police will be too busy in which case the public will suffer (which usually changes the electorate opinion on matters).
(Anyone saying that the answer is better public transport, that isn't an option here. Rural area. Most work is in farms/oil fields/military. 24/7 bus service over thousands of square miles just isn't ever going to happen. No car or no cellphone = No work.)
Most people don't live in rural areas though, so the kinds of solutions (free cars!) that might work there are not appropriate for urban and suburban areas.
Yes, and farming was ubiquitous and highly labor intensive then. In 1940, the US had about 13 million farm workers. Today it's about 3 million.
At least in cities there can be (but often isn't) useful public transit.
if its stuff like parking tickets, broken tail lights, low-grade speeding then i totally agree woth the judge
if its drunk driving or driving while under the influence or things where you put others in danger then... why is the driver doing those things if their livelihoods depend on it?
Just food for thought
You’re far less concerned about being stalked when you have protection.
Personally, I’m far more willing to intervene or suggest someone to stop something when I am carrying a weapon. You can protect yourself so you’re willing to say “hey man, let’s not scream on the bus”
Obviously I would (not with a weapon) step up in certain situations, but someone yelling shit on the bus? Definitely not going to engage that person, it's best to ignore and let it go.
You might enjoy this book:
https://www.amazon.com/When-Violence-Answer-Learning-Takes/d...
"Violence is rarely the answer, but when it is, it's the only answer". Kinda ups your bar about what you will let slide vs address.
Finally, shooting/stabbing/etc someone even if 100% justified has a way of wrecking your life. Your employer or coworkers find out about it? Have fun at work. Your family finds out about it? Have fun at family gatherings. Etc etc.
I’m sure everyone reading my comment in their head is imagining something different. I was imagining some one being assaulted, and wouldn’t have drawn a weapon - just spoke up.
Frankly, I don’t think pulling a gun in a crowded place would almost ever be a good idea. Unless there was already an active shooter and even then, retreat if possible.
the other obvious problem would be, presumably, that if it's genuine 'crazyness' that you're concerned with, as opposed to anti-social behaviour or drugs that tend to accompany the lack of social capital and safety nets in the US, then a gun wouldn't actually be a disincentive.
on the other hand, I'm surprised how people don't vote road rage or idiots behind the wheel as arguments against car driving.
For a tragically relevant example of genuine crazy behind the wheel: see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2017_Melbourne_car_a...
obviously then you've also got the downside of living in the area with guns.
see gun death, murder, and car death/injury stats in US vs elsewhere, for example.
disclaimer: I live in the green areas mentioned in article, don't own a car.
That is only true when the perpetrator is a rational actor. No sane person would start a fight with a group of, say, ten people. But a lot of the people causing problems in public spaces today are not in their right minds.
After a few of these negative interactions, I decided to generally avoid visiting ever again. It's not that I have a problem dealing with it: It's very easy to say no, or to run if needed. It's that I simply shouldn't have to deal with this BS in the first place! Please, just leave me alone! I'm leaving you alone.
In places like this, I lock the doors upon entering the car. Depending on location, I also keep the engine running, in case the car must be used in an evasive or defensive manner. (People have tried my door handles while stopped at lights, so the car is set to lock when driving too.) Be aware of your surroundings, and casually pay attention to how people are watching you.
I am very glad to live in a different nearby city, in a more sprawling area, that has much less of this activity. Due to the sprawl, it is not nearly as economically motivating for trolls to congregate.
But is being asked for money really that horrible? A lot of people are suffering, even if dope sick that's torture and money would fix it.
I guess depends how 'confrontational' but I've noticed those who treat these humans as less than, that's where the most problems are.
An example, contractor who did my bathroom. The contractor stopped at a stop light with tents and he started taking pictures (in the posting to fb as a meme type of way). And he got accosted for it. I don't feel too bad for him - it's not a freaking zoo. Those are the type of people who attract bad confrontations in my experience.
most people won't even make eye contact or smile. That goes such a long way. I can't imagine being in that position, it'd be like some sick twilight zone, everyone looking away you.
For sure though there are a small % of just mentally unstable, tweakers, etc.
But easily over 95% of the unhoused people I've talked to or walk by are nice, real humans. I tend to nod, give any extra change or food. I've also had similar positive encounters in much bigger cities like London too.
A counter example, Paris has more pick pocketer types who are far too invasive/physically grabbing. But flat out crime is different than what I'm talking about.
There are tons of commercial streets and only so many homeless. But when you have fewer streets, you have more homeless per street.
Mind you I live in Montreal, Canada. Things may be different in the US. In particular the bay area.
It's difficult to compare these places, when I lived in Toronto the homeless situation was nothing like what I saw in downtown SF, even around Bloor & Yonge at night.
You'll find the situation is much more grim in the US in major cities and exactly like the OP describes. It affected me slowly over the years, I'm still recovering.
And it was definitely unsettling, I had a man follow me from the bridge back towards my neighbourhood at night.
But, I also note that Pittsburgh has relatively few such walkable neighbourhoods (though it is much better than the Us average!). If it was more like NYC or Montreal the homeless population would be more diffuse.
I’ve been to NYC a bunch and it always feels much safer. Not only were there fewer homeless per street corner, but there are always large amounts of normal people walking around, so you feel safe with numbers.
(To be clear, other than the one person following me, I felt safe in Pittsburgh. The ones in the neighbourhood I was in were not aggressive. But it was different than Canada or NYC in that they were much of the foot traffic)
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/12/03/new-york-...
Also nyc doesn’t have low per capita homeless numbers. It does however shelter them better than, say, SF.
No need to cross international borders. Vancouver BC is on par with downtown SF for this.
Your average walkable suburban center would likely have a pretty limited homeless population, and locals would be familiar enough with them to recognize whether or not they are a potential threat.
Very cold winters seem like an effective (and brutal) deterrent against long-term homelessness? Though, you say the homeless people in your area congregate in one place, do you have some idea why?
Specifically am referring to the plateau mont royal neighbourhood. There, the homeless congregate on mont royal avenue. It is long, has a metro station, plentiful bus routes, a monastery that provides homeless services and food, a library across from the metro. Lots of stores and foot traffic all throughout the day.
I’m in Halifax now for a few months and the homeless people (who congregate on spring garden) seem more aggressive for whatever reason. In Montreal they were never a bother.
There were definitely long term homeless as I saw many of the same faces over the years. Could be a lower number, but I think part of the issue is shelter.
For instance SF has no more homeless per capita than NYC, but they have a massively higher number of unsheltered homeless, which causes a lot of problems both for the city and for the homeless.
But NYC also has many more “homeless amenable” areas than a place like SF, which has a fairly small walkable area. My central point is if you built like Montreal and NYC then the entire city is walkable and the problem is less concentrated and thus much less bothersome.
(There are homeless elsewhere in Montreal. But in my specific neighbourhood only one street has them)
It's a different society. Spent a little bit of time in Montreal. Used to think only the language was different but it goes much much deeper.
One of the nice things about being in your own car, is you generally don't have to deal with kind of stuff.
Huh. The whole damn Europe. You 'remove' then by having a safety net. Which is one of a few things I'm really glad to pay taxes for.
I lived in Amsterdam for a year and in that time saw maybe 2 homeless people. One law they had was if a building has been empty for over a year you're legally allowed to squat there and the owner has to go through a lengthy process to evict. This stops people buying investment property and leaving it empty. If this was on Vancouver it would have massively helped their housing problem as all those apartments used for offshore assets could be used by squatters (though this would bring its own set of issues).
you're advocating unnecessary force. it wouldn't just be uncomfortably close, it would be a police state, where force is used to gain compliance and instill arbitrary order. mincing words like this is an attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance (i'm a good person so i'd never advocate a police state!). it's the same coercive impulse that gives us poor policy decisions to all sorts of non-obvious situations, including this pandemic.
when faced with a "crazy" person, it'd be better to control your own fears and realize that that person is quite unlikely to be a threat to you. control yourself, not others, and default to compassion and humility under uncertainty. being fearful is nearly as bad as being belligerent, in that they both serve to distance and disconnect us from our humanity.
I don't think this was the intent of the comment you're replying to. Personally, I interpreted their position as exactly the opposite: they're very anti-unnecessary force, and frustrated that we can't implement a compassionate system to deal with the problems at hand.
> when faced with a "crazy" person, it'd be better to control your own fears and realize that that person is quite unlikely to be a threat to you. control yourself, not others, and default to compassion and humility under uncertainty.
As a woman, I appreciate the empathy here, but question the logic. I cannot "control" the fact that I have breasts. The multiple times I've been agressively groped by homeless men has been entirely out of my control. The threats of assault I've received when ignoring catcalls were also out of my control (and luckily the homeless man who charged at me and threatened to stab me was held back by a good samaritan, because I assure you, that situation was entirely out of my control.)
Homeless people are harmless 99% of the time. But when you pass 100 homeless people every day, that 1% genuinely does matter.
My daughters get lots of lectures on the topic of having a dog or being with a group.
My oldest adult daughter kept thinking I was stupid and paranoid.
Until a group of men tried to force her into a van. So yeah...
I appreciate that you take the time to teach your daughters those sorts of safety precautions. Personally, I went through an, "Ugh, my parents are SO paranoid and judgemental" phase as a teen. But their wisdom has gotten me out of some tricky situations in the past, and now that I'm older, I will be forever grateful for it.
about handling unexpected situations, the control aspect is about how you respond (e.g., quelling fear so you can think more quickly and nimbly), not how you directly control others. self-defense classes for women will emphasize this, and improv classes in conjunction can help develop mental agility under pressure. sometimes we can't do much, but it can be surprising how much a handful of techniques can work. i sympathize with your anecdotes, but is this a problem you only face with homeless men?
for context, most assaults (of any type) are perpetrated by non-homeless men (usually someone you know). my own experience aligns with this general trend (catcalls by the homeless but more serious stuff by non-homeless men).
tangentially, homeless folks are at much higher risk of assault than non-homeless folks. this is something i've anecdotally witnessed in my own neighborhood - projectiles thrown, tents burned, even murder. i once had to call 911 for a homeless guy after he was assaulted with a knife by a young, non-homeless couple.
I didn't see the commenter you replied to dismiss these options. They just expressed frustration that a working version of this solution seems to be far off, and that in the mean time, the issue at hand can't simply be ignored in day-to-day life.
> about handling unexpected situations, the control aspect is about how you respond (e.g., quelling fear so you can think more quickly and nimbly), not how you directly control others.
This can be a helpful coping mechanism on an individual basis. But this seems like a poor solution to the overall problem. Is the government going to spend billions on sending women to improv and self defense courses? That doesn't seem possible.
I think this advice also falls into the same realm as the advice to "dress more modestly." It's putting the responsibility for action on the women getting assaulted. In my opinion, the problem doesn't lie with women lacking "mental agility." It's with the severely mentally ill men assaulting these women.
>i sympathize with your anecdotes, but is this a problem you only face with homeless men?
Unfortunately not. However, the rate of harassment and aggression I've experienced from homeless men is far higher than the average man. This is backed by statistics on the rate of violent crime and sexual assault among the homeless.
Of course, there are plenty of violent, aggressive men who aren't homeless. But these people aren't generally living in large camps at my local park and intimidating me from using public property.
> tangentially, homeless folks are at much higher risk of assault than non-homeless folks.
This is absolutely right. The rate of sexual assault against homeless women is simply heart-wrenching.
But I think the critical piece of information here is that most of these assaults are committed by other homeless people. Large camps of people with severe mental illness, drug and alcohol problems, and nothing to lose tend to veer toward violence.
Having spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless, and having close friends who work at shelters, the stories of violence and assault that occur in homeless camps are gut wrenching. When people advocate to just "leave people alone" and "have compassion" in regards to the homeless and their growing camps, I don't think they understand the underbelly of violence that occurs in many of these communities.
given the obvious housing shortage, the responsible solution is ultimately a matter of political and public will, and the powers that be don't want to spend money on the problem when it's been rapaciously isolated to the less affluent parts of cities. i'd be kicking back and not worrying about it too if i could export all the homeless into the various affluent hills of LA and not have to experience it regularly.
so the right people to be angry at are not the homeless themselves but the administrators, politicians, and their wealthy donors who collectively have all the power and money they need to fix the problem, and yet are doing approximately nothing (more) about it. i'd readily sign a petition to impeach mayor garcetti over just this one issue (but sadly not just this one).
> "It's putting the responsibility for action on the women getting assaulted."
no, it's not. it's admitting that there is a range of potential responses, and pointing out one proactive response (not a responsibility). the inverse-converse isn't implied nor can it be derived from that statement.
beyond that, it sounds like your experience is exceptional in that you're somehow exposed to more negative such experiences with homeless men than the average woman (let alone the average person), and perhaps fewer such experiences with non-homeless men, which makes it maybe a greater-than-2-or-3-sigma kind of exceptional.
lastly, housing the homeless can reduce the inter-homeless violence you mention. it's the compassionate solution that also has positive externalities for the public.
Not saying it cannot be done, I'm sure it can, but I haven't seen it. One of the principal obstacles to any pilot plan of this sort, is that it is a magnet to those people who don't get social interaction any other way (because few people wish to be around them), so it is at risk of being descended on. Plus, some people (the sort who otherwise are quite in favor of public transport in the abstract) don't want to be thick-skinned enough to deal with even one such person.
Me, I'm kind of a jerk, so I don't mind; it's all part of the human experience. I have the ability to tell such a person that I'm not talking to them today (unless I am), without being wracked with guilt for the rest of the week. But a lot of people (who otherwise would be in favor of this idea) just cannot (or do not wish to) be thick-skinned enough to cope with this.