Homelessness [split from Leadville and Salida Ranger Districts]

[RonDean]

That rings very true.
It blows my mind how many higher-ed students (who are ~adults and presumably making their own decision to be there) are homeless and/or skipping meals. I always thought I was fairly self-directed and a hard worker, but I don't think I could have done what they are doing. Total respect.

Morgana, Thanks for the link. It's nice to know some places are actually making a dent in this problem. Even on this forum, I have seen many people blame homelessness pretty much solely on addictions. As the article says, it "does complicate homelessness, but the principal driver of high rates of homelessness is simply not enough (affordable) housing." If anyone should understand that dynamic, it is the nomad community.

 

[rruff]

...the principal driver of high rates of homelessness is simply not enough (affordable) housing."

Way too simplistic. In a great many parts of the country, *anybody* who is able to get a job and actually show up and do it, can afford rent. If your ability to earn money is out of wack with rent where you are, then you can move. This has been the norm as long as I've been alive, and probably forever.

The housing cost vs wages "issue" is something that is naturally solved by the market. If the companies cannot hire cheap labor, then they will need to raise wages, or the housing cost will need to decline. Else the company will need to move or cease operating. Governmental mucking (affordable housing and housing subsidies) does not solve it, but rather tends to depress wages further while keeping RE values high. This is what the business owners, big RE tycoons, and owners of expensive homes prefer... bring in outside money to "solve" their local economic imbalance, instead of paying the necessary wages.

A few pages back a video was posted where several homeless people in CA were interviewed. One woman moved there from a cheaper town where she could afford rent, because she wanted to earn more money... and not pay rent. Bank the cash in other words. Making $20/hr while living free in a camp in coastal CA is a lot more attractive than making $10/hr and paying $500/mo for rent... or making $20/hr and paying $2k/mo for rent. I knew a guy who lived in the woods and hitched to a high paying job at a tech company every day!

I lived with homeless people for about 3 months in Santa Cruz. Definitely a place where rents are high, but that wasn't the reason why they were on the streets. The core "issue" was the inability or lack of motivation to have a regular job... and live a normal life. A majority were pretty hard core addicts, but that is kind of a chicken and egg situation, as many people with jobs and houses and normal lives are part time addicts, but they manage to keep things together. When someone moves to the streets then the addiction tends to become a very big part of their life. Maybe they could sober up and reenter the rat race? But the will is lacking, because the homeless life is pretty simple and easy. Nice weather, nice place, plenty of tourists to beg from, free food, etc.

 

[Morgana]

Way too simplistic.

Agree that there are no simple answers to this problem. The article itself did not suggest that there were. I was thinking to myself that the article was sort of like the Bible in that you could find /some/ kind of support in it for just about every housing-related opinion, if you wanted to cherry-pick. For example, IIRC, Houston's housing-first solution only works because of the city's unusually easy building code; a lot of places couldn't use this approach at all. And somehow it has managed to corral all the nonprofits into working together instead of at cross purposes, which is also an unusual feat. You could easily take those two factors to "prove" that a permissive pro-business approach and strict government control of nonprofits were good things ... if you wanted to cherry-pick.
The article does /not/ suggest that all homeless people are stable genius saints who through cruel fate have been unfairly deprived of a home. The reason I liked it, and recommended it, was because it did show that this is a complicated problem.

 

[dhuff]

Here's a new article on Houston's success dealing with homelessness. It's written by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, who can usually be counted on for common-sense compassion without rose-colored glasses.
Houston, if I understood the article right, focuses on getting people into housing first and then dealing with their other problems. That is controversial and has mixed success but apparently better success than most other programs. LOTS of interesting pieces to the real-life puzzle that don't always match up to either conservative or liberal pre-conceived notions.

Wow, actually getting un-housed people into...housing first. What a concept ! Sorry for the implied sarcasm, which is certainly not directed at you. It just seems so common sense on their part.

It also sidesteps the gordian knot of the "deserving" vs. the "undeserving" poor issue. There's a quote from American journalist & social activist Dorothy Day (1897-1980) about that, but I'll leave it to interested parties to go look for it with Google. Don't want my comment to get whacked for being liberal or something

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^I think the point is everyone needs shelter no matter who they are or it gets expensive for everyone else one way or the other. It costs a lot of money to put people in jails, hospitals and support them just so they can survive sever weather events. If 60 percent of those costs can be prevented by housing everyone and putting the ones that need jail or hospitals in them it will help everyone and cost less in my opinion. No system is perfect so why would you spend more just because a few would benefit that don’t deserve it when it would be cheaper to help the majority and then deal with the abusing individuals once they are identified?

 

[rruff]

I think the point is everyone needs shelter no matter who they are or it gets expensive for everyone else one way or the other.

These aren't helpless children, they can take care of themselves (and the ones who can't need a lot more than an apartment!). That's why they move to where it's nice. You don't need much shelter if you live some place with a nice climate or move around. The ones I met in Flagstaff in summer, went to Phoenix in winter. In Santa Cruz some moved to the desert in winter, not because it was that cold, but rainy. Others stayed the winter but signed up to sleep in a shelter if they didn't have another option.

The homeless people I hung out with didn't want an apartment. Mostly they wanted to be left alone and keep doing what they were doing. It wasn't a bad life IMO... way more sensible and free than the rat race. And more fun. Getting hassled by cops was the biggest downside.

How would you propose to "house" them anyway? I don't mean how to pay for it, I mean how to do it period? Build a complex on the beach in southern CA, because that is where they are currently squatting on public land?

 

[Morgana]

The point on the housing is that Houston is actually building it and getting people into it, to a greater extent than many other places. And that their theory, which they are having some success with, is that it's effective to put people into housing first and work on their non-housing-related problems second. It is not a cliche or a no-duhh or same-old-same-old, they are actually doing something different. I thought that might be interesting but it seems to have just sent everyone to their usual battle stations. So be it.

 

[bullfrog !]

There are laws and regulations, many of which cannot be enforced due to the lack of shelters or social services as determined by the courts for those few that want to be in the streets in order to continue what should be in most of those areas illegal activities. Those are the 10 to 30 percent I referred to earlier and yes they will need to be dealt with once police, shelters and social services are able to do their jobs not only to identify everyone’s needs that are homeless but also those who cannot or do not want to live within the law with the aid of the courts. Individual freedom is limited when it affects other people’s freedom at least in my opinion. The point is until you can offer shelter you cannot deal with the other problems legally in most of this country as I understand it. Besides offering shelter to those that want and need it in order to solve many problems is cheaper and makes dealing with those trying to take advantage of the system easier with the aid of the court.

 

[rruff]

The point on the housing is that Houston is actually building it and getting people into it, to a greater extent than many other places. And that their theory, which they are having some success with, is that it's effective to put people into housing first and work on their non-housing-related problems second.

This is another article I found describing the Houston situation. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html

It does look like they've had some success, but I'd like to see more of what the people who were housed are really up to. Houston's probably not high on the list as a "homeless destination" and is more likely to be dealing with locals. The case they highlighted was a mother with children, and that is something I've never seen on the streets. Women on the streets are rare enough, and the ones I've seen had obvious mental issues. On the west coast at least they seem to be pretty aggressive about keeping children off the streets and have been for a long time.

They didn't just house a lot of the homeless in Houston, they also made a concerted effort to "clean up the camps". In the article you linked they mentioned homelessness dropping in Houston but increasing in Dallas (the other "good" place to be homeless in TX). The chronically homeless will move to where the living is easier, but that isn't solution where the country is concerned.

The point is until you can offer shelter you cannot deal with the other problems legally in most of this country as I understand it. Besides offering shelter to those that want and need it in order to solve many problems is cheaper and makes dealing with those trying to take advantage of the system easier with the aid of the court.

They are not obliged to use the shelter if offered. What do you do? And if they happen to be camping on the southern CA coast, is that where you need to provide them with an apartment? That would be insane. What about all the people nearby working hard to make rent in a dinky place in a poor neighborhood? Why aren't they getting a handout?

A big part of the issue is making the local authorities deal with it. Non-liberal (and many liberal!) areas will just kick them out or harass them til they leave, so it becomes someone else's problem. A coordinated national effort is needed.

 

[jacqueg]

A big part of the issue is making the local authorities deal with it. Non-liberal (and many liberal!) areas will just kick them out or harass them til they leave, so it becomes someone else's problem. A coordinated national effort is needed.

Absolutely. This kicking people out when there is no place for them to go just has to stop. Fortunately, there have been a few judges in a few places who have seen this particular light. Screaming and gnashing of teeth has ensued. I say, tough.

 

[rruff]

Absolutely. This kicking people out when there is no place for them to go just has to stop. Fortunately, there have been a few judges in a few places who have seen this particular light. Screaming and gnashing of teeth has ensued. I say, tough.

But what have the judges actually done? Dictating that local jurisdictions *can't* kick them out isn't what I had in mind at all! There needs to be a federal agency that actually does something with them.

 

[RonDean]

I agree that ANY single cause or solution is too simplistic. Leaving it to "market forces" alone will "work" as long as we understand and accept that homelessness itself is a solution. It is just one that many of us consider a less than desirable one. Also, there are many other forces affecting this market balance. Building codes, cost of living and cost of building vs. available low-end wages for paying rents. Tax structures that often make empty buildings more profitable than renting them for less money. Changing economic conditions vs. current needs. Local codes solely concerned with NIMBY or investment concerns. And so on. In the traditional capitalist economy, there is no provision for solving human problems in a more humane manner.

Re: humanity itself. It's true that if there are too few high paying jobs for sky high rents the renters COULD just move. So, why don't they? Natural inertia (ie: slowly cooking the live frog syndrome), wanting to be close to extended family or friends, not knowing of any better places to move to, climate, and so on. Staying is not exactly the best reaction, but it's a very common human reaction. And for many of them it works, even if it is not a good solution for society as a whole.

Finally, totally eliminating homelessness is probably impossible without draconian laws. But, these examples show reducing it is possible. Passing housing first laws is fine if there is actually sufficient housing available, as California has discovered. But if market forces, building codes, tax structures, etc. do not change homelessness will remain a major problem. And, YES, addictions are also an extenuating problem.

 

[WanderingRose]

But what have the judges actually done? Dictating that local jurisdictions *can't* kick them out isn't what I had in mind at all! There needs to be a federal agency that actually does something with them.

I don’t think a federal agency is the answer, the specifics to issues in any locality varying greatly for whatever reason.

A federal program would be bogged down in rules designed for the masses that really need to be more locally tailored.

If there were even apartments for all, there would still be many who would refuse to live in them, much less be willing to allocate some of whatever income they had to paying for them.

I like the idea of “housing first”, which would quickly take care of those who are employed/employable, but have fallen into homelessness and just need a leg back up, but those folks are just a portion of the homeless.

And probably the easiest to help, quite honestly.

It’s a mess.

 

[rruff]

I don’t think a federal agency is the answer, the specifics to issues in any locality varying greatly for whatever reason.

The fed workers are local, they are just federally funded. I don't see any other way for the issue to be properly addressed, because local governments have every incentive to discourage the homeless rather than spend money on them.

 

[WanderingRose]

I was thinking more of federal rules and regulations, made at the federal level, not of employees, and those kinds of bureaucracies don’t fine tune well.

In my experience.

 

[VanFan]

This is an organization my daughter worked for in Dublin for a time.
https://www.housingagency.ie/housing-information/housing-firstShe was in a street-level, first contact role.

 

[Gr8ful]

Homelessness in the U.S. hit an all time record high last year​

https://www.npr.org/homelessness-affordable-housing-crisis-rent-assistance

 

[bullfrog !]

Bet there are a lot of new faces at the RTR!

 

[RonDean]

I don’t think a federal agency is the answer, ... It’s a mess.

The problem is, who else is likely to step up?

Local gov't is even more underfunded than the Feds. Especially in those areas that need the most help. Charity is nowhere close to being ready, willing, and able to deal with the scope of the problem. Even something like changing building codes to make sure there are enough low-cost rentals will run headfirst into people who consider real estate's profits ahead of people's shelter needs. And there is just no mechanism to balance minimum income against the cost of living.

Any solutions would require a major political upheaval on both local and federal levels. So, homelessness grows until we eventually reach a societal breaking point. Unfortunately, a great many people will suffer in the meantime.

To Bullfrog!'s point, the Nomad lifestyle has become an escape for some people who would otherwise be counted as homeless. Thus, this subject IS of importance to our community.

 

[islanderxx]

“Homeless a few days or weeks” for many is devastating, especially if your children are in school, it becomes a generational problem. Continuity is vital for young children. How many young families can survive a bankruptcy or even an eviction on their credit record. Again in my opinion “homelessness” is just an indicator of much more serious problems and the fact it is growing is a warning the root problems need to be dealt with. People shouldn’t “have to” resort to living on federal land, lots of us do but it should be because we want to.

Any suggestion for a solution other than spending $billions?