Incredible that you’re down voted for simply speaking the truth. There are literally people who fling their HIV positive blood or feces at anyone who approaches them and carry machetes and axes. They need conservatorship not an apartment

I guess what I said just sounds callous to people who are aware of homelessness but don’t have direct experience trying to help them. It’s a complex problem and there’s a reason beyond graft that it hasn’t been fixed.

As with many things I’m sure 80% of the resources are going to the 20% of people who are the most difficult to handle. Many homeless people are normal people who are just very down on their luck. But those homeless people are often “invisible” to the general public since they usually don’t sleep rough, yell at people on the street, etc.

Finland can probably solve it because they fund “inpatient mental health services” which is what can actually fix homelessness for the most difficult people suffering it. That is super expensive though.

On the other hand, you cannot force people into the wards unless they pose grave danger to themselves or the society.

And the current sentiment is that yelling slurs or urinating in a subway is not grave enough to justify involuntary confinement.

Not quite true in California - being "gravely disabled" also justifies involuntary detainment and treatment: "A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter."

In reality though, the lack of funding for such people means that only the most severe are treated under this category. What's required is the funding and political will to enforce it, the necessary legal structure is already in place.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

From what I’ve heard from mental health professionals, in practice simply being able to answer some very basic questions (like “Are you hungry? If so, what should you do?”) with plausible answers (“I should eat”) is sufficient to pass the “gravely disabled” test.

> "A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter."

Wait a minute. Does it also apply to all these infamous unemployed college graduates who still live with parents?

This really isn’t funny or comparable. Unemploymed college graduates do not lack the capacity to do these things, they have a choice to do them or not do them.

People with mental health issues that compromise their ability to care for themselves don’t have a choice.

Not funny, indeed, but how do we tell people who "can, but don't want" from those who want, but cannot care for themselves?

In most cases, that’s fairly easy to tell by looking at their history, current living situation, and cognitive abilities.

Also, are those who are lazy really the majority case here? Or a straw man being used to justify ignoring the problem?

The difference might be that mental issues are identified and cared for much earlier, before people end up on the streets and things worsen more and more. Locking people up into wards is not the only option.

Not at all an expert in this, but it sounds like there are much more mentally ill people in the streets in the US compared to other places.

I'd bet more American families kick their problem relatives out instead of caring for them within the household. "Not my responsibility."

The article shows that Finland is spending less money solving the problem. The complete opposite of what you are arguing. Does that in any way make you consider, even for a second, that your pre-conceived ideology/religion might get in the way of you understanding what the reality is?

Sounds like those people belong in an asylum then, not an apartment.

I know some asylums are mismanaged and let’s just pretend they’re not here and that states properly fund and regulate them.

It's a gray area. There are people who, with care and looking-after, can be useful-if-weird members of society, but who without that support would spiral out of control. "Crazy"/"not-crazy" isn't a binary.

"""about half of the homeless people are too mentally troubled/addicted to be able to handle an apartment."""

citation needed

You're simply expressing your prejudice about a huge group of people and you have immediate experience about a very few of them that you noticed (probably because they were loud).

Are some people too troubled for easy housing? Absolutely, but you've made this huge step into "about half" and you are expressing a prejudice which keeps the problem from being solved because it becomes seemingly impossible with this hurdle you've invented.

An over estimate, but not too far off the mark:

"In 2019, 36% percent of the chronically homeless suffered from a chronic substance abuse problem, a severe mental illness, or both" [1] For the published data used to come to this conclusion see [2].

This doesn't include less sever mental illness which almost certainly contributes.

[1] https://sunrisehouse.com/addiction-demographics/homeless-pop...

[2] https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_...

That statistic doesn't come near to supporting OP's claim. There are plenty of people with substance abuse problems or mental illness who could "handle" living in a free apartment if it were provided to them. The fact that they can't afford market-rate housing doesn't necessarily mean they'd destroy any home they lived in.

The US isn't the only country with homeless people. In much of Europe where people actually can literally go and obtain free social housing there are still sizeable homeless populations for exactly the reason OP pointed out, they cannot manage their day-to-day affairs because they are drug addicted or mentally ill.

In Germany we have about 50k people living on the streets. Technically none of those people need to be. They could all get the necessary financial aid.

The article demonstrate that the only country in Europe that successfully reduce homelessness is Finland. And they do it by providing free housing. In other words, real world imperial proof that your argument doesn’t hold water. Now there is a 99.99% chance that my point will just make you believe what you say even more. However there is always a tiny chance that it might make you reflect on your core believes and help you readjust those believes to be closer to reality.

The quote you provided states that:

"In 2019, 36% percent of the chronically homeless suffered from a chronic substance abuse problem, a severe mental illness, or both"

The key word here is "chronic." According to the National Alliance to End Homelessnes[0][1] (based on data, including the link you cited, from HUD[2]), less than 20% of homeless people are chronically homeless. As such, less than 10% of the total homeless population "suffer chronic substance abuse problem, a severe mental illness, or both"

So you're projecting the traits of a (relatively) small group onto the larger whole. An assertion which seems problematic at best.

[0] https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless...

[1] https://public.tableau.com/static/images/20/2020SOH_PIT_bars...

[2] https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/coc-homeless-popul...

> > about half of the homeless people are too mentally troubled/addicted to be able to handle an apartment.

> citation needed

To fully qualify the statement made by the person you're replying to:

I would argue that it is indeed clear that around half of the individuals facing chronic homelessness urgently require mental health and addiction support.

for those people, they may likely face crisis and be consequently unable to upkeep any dwelling that is freely provided to them unless they have extensive support and possibly even in-patient care.

* About 30% of people who are chronically homeless have mental health conditions.

* About 50% have co-occurring substance use problems.

https://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/individuals-experiencing...

You're not wrong except when you say "about half". Unless you have hard statistics it's better to refrain from throwing numbers up in the air.

So how do you explain the real world facts of the Finish success? I know it goes against your preconceived ideology/religion but perhaps reevaluate what you think is true given counterfactual real world events?