Homelessness [split from Leadville and Salida Ranger Districts]

[RonDean]

rruff. I HAVE spent some time with homeless folks. Maybe not as much as you? But enough to know there is no single cause and that no single "solution" that will address all of it. I also know that many homeless folks do not consider homelessness a problem. That doesn't mean the rest of us don't consider their homelessness, or at least how it is manifested, a problem. And that there is still a sizable number that do not want to be homeless and might appreciate enough help to get out of it.

I would also question your data. It seems like you have cherry picked some states out of the equation. My information says:
These are the 10 states with the most homeless people, according to the Annual Homeless Assessment Report:

1. California (171,521)
2. New York (74,178)
3. Florida (25,959)
4. Washington (25,211)
5. Texas (24,432)
6. Oregon (17,959)
7. Massachusetts (15,507)
8. Arizona (13,553)

I do agree that " mild climate and good begging opportunities, and relatively sympathetic citizens and consequent lack of police harassment" has a lot to do with homeless choices. I think we SHOULD address those issues that are under our control. But I disagree with criminalizing homelessness without offering an alternative besides "join the rat race and be like us." I have known enough "good" people that just have difficulty conforming to the majority society. I hope we can provide sufficient space for them and for the rest of us.

As far as defining "what is the goal" - I agree this should be spelled out. Mine would be to provide assistance to those that want it while preventing the remainder from making problems for anyone besides themselves.

 

[rruff]

As far as defining "what is the goal" - I agree this should be spelled out. Mine would be to provide assistance to those that want it while preventing the remainder from making problems for anyone besides themselves.

The ones who are making problems are mostly chronically homeless... or homeless who are not trying to *not* be homeless. Many of these are new and are a product of covid policies.

Your definition of the goal seems about right to me, too. Even though I have a lot of sympathy and empathy for people who are disillusioned with the rat race and don't want to participate... letting them camp on the beach in S CA is batshit crazy! It *should* be illegal. If you don't want to participate in mainstream society, fine... we'll give you options if you are having trouble finding viable ones. To some degree you are going to need to pull your own weight, however. If you are too drug addicted to function and you are bothering people, then you are going to do without your drug until you can function. If you still fail, then you are going to live some place that is restricted where drugs are not available and you are forced to comply with rules. If you are a drug addict but obey the law and don't bother anyone, then no problem! This is obvious, no-brainer stuff. It is not wrong to require adults to be minimally considerate to others and to incarcerate them if they are not... even if it's a special facility besides prison. That goes for the people with psych issues as well.

Regarding "conforming to the majority society" I defintely resemble that statement! And so do a lot of people, who are not creating trouble for others. Either you figure out how to not be an obvious nuisance, or your freedom will be restricted

I said CA had over half the *chronic* homeless, BTW. A good percentage of the people who are counted as homeless are only briefly without a permanent address. And I doubt many vagabonds who camp in the boonies are counted at all. Maybe if you park in town? Definitely if you frequent the soup kitchen... or maybe not?

 

[Gr8ful]

Ron, Talk about "cherry Picking" you list 10 states & list only 8? What's the last 2?

 

[RonDean]

Ron, Talk about "cherry Picking" you list 10 states & list only 8? What's the last 2?

Under "more" I discovered 9. Pennsylvania (12,691) and 10. Georgia (10,689)
The interesting thing (to me) is that the top 10 included quite a diversity of both red and blue states as well as some with bad winter weather.

When looking for the highest rate or percentage at https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-have-the-highest-and-lowest-rates-of-homelessness/ I found chart below. Note, if you read the associated article, there are mitigating factors. Pushing back a bit of the idea that housing cost is not a factor, it says:

*Housing costs play a role in rates of homelessness. Hawaii, California, and Washington, DC, have the nation’s highest housing costs and have high rates of homelessness. West Virginia and Mississippi have the country’s least expensive homes and fewer homeless people.

 

[WanderingRose]

If you don't want to participate in mainstream society, fine... we'll give you options if you are having trouble finding viable ones. To some degree you are going to need to pull your own weight, however. If you are too drug addicted to function and you are bothering people, then you are going to do without your drug until you can function. If you still fail, then you are going to live some place that is restricted where drugs are not available and you are forced to comply with rules.

The huge problem with requiring compliance with reasonable norms being federal laws that protect people from being hospitalized or institutionalized against their will.

But for very limited circumstances, then by court order and for limited time periods.

I believe a huge underlying mindset is that it has become very attractive to live in a vehicle, in a tent, under a tarp, etc., where there are no shelter costs, whatever income you have is entirely your own and there is no external structure being imposed.

 

[rruff]

The huge problem with requiring compliance with reasonable norms being federal laws that protect people from being hospitalized or institutionalized against their will.

People who violate the law can lose their rights to do as they wish, surely....? I mean, we put people in jail... can't we restrict their freedom in other ways?

It has become attractive to live in a vehicle or tent or under a tarp because people are allowed. In a video posted awhile back a woman was interviewed in a homeless camp in the Bay Area. She moved there specifically so she could bank $$$ with the high salaries in the area, and have no rent. She previous lived in an affordable area, but the salaries were lower.

I certainly understand the appeal of living in an attractive high-rent area for free! Most aren't working like this woman, but there is still a lot to do, plenty of public facilities, charities, and free stuff, tourists and wealthy people to beg from, occasionally work a little on the side for good money but never have the responsibilities of a real job, get high whenever you want... and other people are doing the same as you, so you have a community or tribe for support. Easy living!

I went Santa Cruz just to see a friend who had "gone homeless". I knew he was an intelligent functional guy, but he didn't like to work and had a fondness for heroin. I was surprised at how nice it was, and really enjoyed it. It was a blast actually. I'd spend most of the time wandering around town... go to the beach, the bookstores, the library, the college. Hang out at the parks. Very nice weather and vibrant, lots of people, lots going on. The Catholic Mission served food at lunch time every day and I'd usually catch that, but do dinner on my own. The Mission also had showers and toilets which was nice. And then happy hour at the Silver Bullet most evenings, to hang out and party with a bunch of other misfits and rejects.

When I was doing this, I had no illusions that it was my "right" or that I wasn't a nuisance. I just saw that a lot of people were doing it, so figured I could as well. If I'd owned the house I typically parked in front of, I'd prefer not to have people parked on the streets living in their vehicles, taking up all the street parking! That's even if they are very well behaved... and it goes with the territory that many are not... and many are psychologically unable to behave. And as such, you will have more crime and personal danger, no peace and quiet, trash, piss, and **** lying around, etc. In other words a very different element than the people who are paying high rent and house payments to live there.

I camped in the wilderness nearly all the time, and I lived on the money I'd saved previously. If I hadn't had a stash to live on, I would have done seasonal work. I eventually did work at Bryce Canyon for a couple seasons, and the amount I made there in a 7 month stint was enough to last a few years of not working. Just saying, there are options besides being a burden and clear annoyance to others.

 

[rruff]

*Housing costs play a role in rates of homelessness. Hawaii, California, and Washington, DC, have the nation’s highest housing costs and have high rates of homelessness. West Virginia and Mississippi have the country’s least expensive homes and fewer homeless people.

Correlation is not causation. California and Hawaii have the best weather in the country, and DC has the best public services.

It is also better to be homeless in a rich area than a poor one... and much better to be homeless in an area where the citizens have sympathy for the homeless.

 

[WanderingRose]

People who violate the law can lose their rights to do as they wish, surely....? I mean, we put people in jail... can't we restrict their freedom in other ways?

Well, there are things called civil rights, civil freedoms, civil liberties, etc., that are not the same as laws but the result of laws, which protect individuals from authoritative intrusion deemed unnecessary.

Don’t ask me to articulate that in detail, as I can’t, but we are seeing the result in recent years of the decades of narrowing the use of involuntary hospitalization/institutionalization.

And I don’t have the answer, here.

 

[RonDean]

Correlation is not causation. California and Hawaii have the best weather in the country, and DC has the best public services.

THIS I can agree with. It is far too easy for ANY of us to find statistics that make our case without considering exactly how (or not) they might be related. On the other hand, I still prefer some sort of data over "my opinion is..." At least with the data, we can do a bit of fact-checking.

 

[WanderingRose]

This article in the Washington Post this morning:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/12/22/rights-war-housing-first-lands-middle-america/
If the paywall prevents you from reading, the crux is this:

Missouri last year outlawed camping on state property and punished cities that build permanent supportive housing. In Springfield, Mo., thousands now roam the streets with nowhere to go.​

The article is about the philosophy behind this, the result and how social services are adapting to try to meet the needs of the homeless.

 

[islanderxx]

I think the question isn't spending or not spending.

1. Where and what we spend $ on is more important.
2. Laws and building codes do not cost billions of $$$. There are many ways changes here could provide more affordable housing.
3. Substance abuse is also a factor so spend enough $ to provide immediate help rather than having a waiting list.
4. Allow better community policing based on the proposition that keeping our streets safe and clean is just as important as homeless rights.
5. Provide legal urban camping areas and temporary tiny structures until affordable S&B housing can be provided. Provide security and utilities here to make residents feel safe.
6. Follow the "Housing First" model that does not require applicants to solve all their other problems before getting housing assistance.
7. Provide career and skills training. Provide "bridge" employment to help transition people back into more conventional jobs.
8. Stop insisting that everyone does things the traditional way. When it costs more to provide services based on some predetermined standards than just giving everyone sufficient $ to live on, I would just choose the lower-cost option. They may not DESERVE help, but neither do many wealthy people deserve what they have lucked into.

You forgot to mention the

 

[islanderxx]

I think the question isn't spending or not spending.

1. Where and what we spend $ on is more important.
2. Laws and building codes do not cost billions of $$$. There are many ways changes here could provide more affordable housing.
3. Substance abuse is also a factor so spend enough $ to provide immediate help rather than having a waiting list.
4. Allow better community policing based on the proposition that keeping our streets safe and clean is just as important as homeless rights.
5. Provide legal urban camping areas and temporary tiny structures until affordable S&B housing can be provided. Provide security and utilities here to make residents feel safe.
6. Follow the "Housing First" model that does not require applicants to solve all their other problems before getting housing assistance.
7. Provide career and skills training. Provide "bridge" employment to help transition people back into more conventional jobs.
8. Stop insisting that everyone does things the traditional way. When it costs more to provide services based on some predetermined standards than just giving everyone sufficient $ to live on, I would just choose the lower-cost option. They may not DESERVE help, but neither do many wealthy people deserve what they have lucked into.

Your 8 points are good, but you forgot to mention the directors and administrators who run the homeless program. They are paid a 6 figure salary and up to $250k. They will do their best to keep their job by not solving the homeless problem. The more problems the homeless cause, the more secure their jobs will be. The higher the salary, the less incentive there is to solve the problem of homelessness.

 

[WanderingRose]

Your 8 points are good, but you forgot to mention the directors and administrators who run the homeless program. They are paid a 6 figure salary and up to $250k. They will do their best to keep their job by not solving the homeless problem. The more problems the homeless cause, the more secure their jobs will be. The higher the salary, the less incentive there is to solve the problem of homelessness.

Where did these income statistics come from, islanderxx?

Tho one of the points in the news article I linked this morning is the numerous entities that pop up to receive grants and other funding to “help”.

Simply watching the news this time of year illustrates the duplication that results.

 

[VanFan]

8. Stop insisting that everyone does things the traditional way. When it costs more to provide services based on some predetermined standards than just giving everyone sufficient $ to live on, I would just choose the lower-cost option. They may not DESERVE help, but neither do many wealthy people deserve what they have lucked into.

A local school district used to require students to "qualify" for free lunches. It turned out that the fiscal cost of keeping up with that process was more than just providing lunch to any student who wants one! Who knew?

 

[RonDean]

Your 8 points are good, but you forgot to mention the directors and administrators who run the homeless program. They are paid a 6 figure salary and up to $250k. They will do their best to keep their job by not solving the homeless problem. The more problems the homeless cause, the more secure their jobs will be. The higher the salary, the less incentive there is to solve the problem of homelessness.

I just can't agree that all directors and administrators are that cynical or craven. Here and there - maybe. That's the same argument that some people use to discount climate science. IE: claiming that the scientists will criminally lie or mislead because it could be better for them personally. Or that doctors don't want to cure you if they can make more money keeping you sick. Well, I don't buy any of that either. I think most people are honest and actually care about other people. Most of the one's I've ever met anyway.

 

[dhuff]

A local school district used to require students to "qualify" for free lunches. It turned out that the fiscal cost of keeping up with that process was more than just providing lunch to any student who wants one! Who knew?

Lots of America is unfortunately addicted to the concept of "the deserving poor." To the extent that you get weird wastefulness like this...

 

[Morgana]

Your 8 points are good, but you forgot to mention the directors and administrators who run the homeless program.

Evidence please? For any of the multiple points made in this post?
It's definitely wrong on two counts:
(1) The fact that someone didn't mention something doesn't mean they "forgot" it. By that logic, you "forgot" to mention that we're controlled by space aliens from Neptune.
(2) There is no "the homeless program." There is a huge and complex mix of federal, state, local, church, and secular nonprofit programs.
There is plenty wrong with the nonprofit/social services sector, but making up wild paranoid fantasies about it and passing them off as fact is not going to solve anything.

 

[WanderingRose]

If I recall correctly, the school lunch program has always been federally funded, and at least used to be linked with the income level below which a family could receive food stamps.

When my children were in grade school, we could have used this help, but not only did we not qualify because I was working full time and just above the income cutoff, there was a stigma attached to the kids who got “free lunch”.

They were identified in some way, by being given vouchers or some such thing, tho I can’t recall the exact medium.

Parents had to go in to the school office and apply every three months or so, and report any change in income, just like with the food stamp program…back when those and WIC came in packets of paper vouchers, torn off by the cashiers at checkout.

And you had to tell the cashiers you were using these, because they were not taxed and had to be rung up differently.

People now get LINK cards, I believe, debit cards of a sort.

And, yes, the deserving and undeserving poor has been an issue, worldwide, forever, as far as I know.

 

[islanderxx]

Where did these income statistics come from, islanderxx?

Tho one of the points in the news article I linked this morning is the numerous entities that pop up to receive grants and other funding to “help”.

Simply watching the news this time of year illustrates the duplication that results.

• https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/huntingtonbeach/classspecs?keywords=homeless​

• Some are paid up to $250,000; they don't want to lose that income. ​

• DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HOMELESSNESS & BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES​

  • 0860
  • $151,465.60 - $187,636.80 Annually
  • JOB SUMMARY Under general direction, develops, organizes and manages internal efforts and coordinates external efforts and community partnerships related to homelessness services, and develops the most strategic and effective ways to invest City resources towards these efforts. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED: Reports to: City Manager / Assistant City Manager Supervises: Professional, Paraprofessional, Administrative Support staff and volunteers DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS The primary purpose of this position is to recommend, promote and implement the City’s homelessness and behavioral health related goals and objectives. This position will coordinate programs and City resources...

• HOMELESS SERVICES MANAGER​

  • 0908
  • $113,744.80 - $152,428.64 Annually
  • JOB SUMMARY Under general direction, plans, organizes, oversees, and reviews internal efforts and coordinates external efforts and community partnerships related to homelessness and behavioral health services. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED: Reports to: City Manager / Assistant City Manager Supervises:

 

[islanderxx]

Evidence please? For any of the multiple points made in this post?
It's definitely wrong on two counts:
(1) The fact that someone didn't mention something doesn't mean they "forgot" it. By that logic, you "forgot" to mention that we're controlled by space aliens from Neptune.
(2) There is no "the homeless program." There is a huge and complex mix of federal, state, local, church, and secular nonprofit programs.
There is plenty wrong with the nonprofit/social services sector, but making up wild paranoid fantasies about it and passing them off as fact is not going to solve anything.

Wow,