Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The San Francisco Chronicle Goes Pulitzer-Fishing
"First in a series" can be the scariest words in the English language, as a seasoned (and embittered) journalist once told me. And he was right. Especially when the email address that corresponds with the series is "shameofthecity@sfchronicle.com."
But lo and behold, the San Francisco Chronicle's three-part series on homelessness is actually quite informative and balanced. And it raises an interesting question for libertarians: When legit use of existing government programs makes homelessness a hugely expensive problem for local goverments, is an aggressive campaign to get them onto various welfare rolls and into low cost, subsidized housing a good idea if it's cheaper overall? And what if the homeless people costing the state tons of money say they don't want help? How hard should the government try to convince them that they do, especially if sucessfully doing so will reduce the overall financial burden on taxpayers?
The first story asks the utterly fair question: How much does homelessness cost? It tells the story--and does the accounting--on the "redemption" of one tough case, Georgia Mitchell:
It is expensive redemption -- Mitchell's home and medical care cost taxpayers about $21,000 a year. But her case shows how that can be far cheaper than allowing homeless people to deteriorate on the street, becoming public nuisances and financial burdens.
In her last two years on the street, the public spent nearly $100,000 annually on Georgia Mitchell's emergency care and support.
The article also deals with the question of what to do with people who just don't want help:
The rejection of help is a key reason there are so many homeless people on the nation's streets. But state and federal laws allow addicted or mentally ill homeless people to refuse the very services that could assist them. Ever since the 1960s patients' rights movement, they have had the same prerogative as housed citizens to refuse any service unless they pose a danger to themselves or others -- which is hard to prove.
The only way [Officer] Peachy could force Mitchell into drug rehabilitation was to arrest her and hope she was sentenced to rehab -- which courts usually do. But she could leave rehab any time after starting it.
The mayor's program is tough, and interesting:
Newsom has expanded the leasing of residential hotel rooms in large part with $14 million a year in savings from his controversial Care Not Cash program. Begun in May 2004, Care Not Cash slashed welfare checks to the homeless to $59 a month, from $410 a month....
Another administration initiative has been Homeward Bound, which since February 2005 has sent 1,445 people back to where they came from at a cost of $204,889 in bus tickets and money for food. In a speech on Thursday, Newsom said the number of those who climbed aboard the buses had grown to 1,656.
The third story concedes that, while there's some antecdotal
evidence that things are looking up, the city really has no idea
where the $108 million spent on homeless projects is going because
there is little accountability or central data
gathering.
Basically, you've got the highlights now--consider this a sort of
"we read Pulitzer candidates so you don't have to" service. But if
you insist on reading for yourself, the three parts are
here,
here, and
here.
Ethan|11.1.06 @ 5:14PM|#
This is all with the assumption that welfare and emergency medical care are a required part of our governments.
|11.1.06 @ 5:26PM|#
"First in a series" can be the scariest words in the English
language, as a seasoned (and embittered) journalist once told
me.
I always thought that "bipartisan agreement" were the scariest
words in the english language.
|11.1.06 @ 5:27PM|#
Well, I guess it would be cheaper to just wait until they're corpses and shovel them off to the morgue. Oh wait, we have to pay the coroner too?
Jeff P.|11.1.06 @ 5:49PM|#
Has H&R done anything about the alleged Martial Law bill
that sizzled through the punditnet this past weekend?
Just Askin'
The Wine Commonsewer|11.1.06 @ 5:53PM|#
Before Laissez Faire books left the fair City by the Bay Mrs TWC
emerged from said book store to find a homeless guy taking a dump
in front her car. Always a nice touch.
Not sure if SF still does it but if they stopped paying a monthly
stipend to the homeless the city would attract less of them.
|11.1.06 @ 5:55PM|#
Might I suggest, as companion reading, the three part series in
the Honalulu .....advertiser? the main Islands paper, on the same
subject. 3 weeks back, or thererabouts. Evidently, the North coast
of Oahu is a 16 mile long homeless encampment. Dopers? Crazies?
Winos? No, by & very large.
Its people WHO HAVE BEEN PRICED OUT OF HOUSING! Think about it- job
or no, they cant make the rent. "Are there no prisons? Are there no
workhouses??" I know, Iknow....they have no Gumption, by god.
However, if you actually fuckin THINK, you might ask: Why? Because
people with lots of $ are buying everything up, driving prices
hellward. You know- the "free market".
Certain folks here will be glad w/ the police response: tickets for
illegal camping. If we just get rid of the minimum wage, by Jeezus,
theyd all have jobs and, uh.....not afford the rent.
But its an interesting take on what can drive homelessness besides
being of the wrong race, a crackhead, or the usual crap you come
across....very different story than LA.
|11.1.06 @ 6:00PM|#
I knew a guy who moved to Hawaii with the intention of working for a few months while living on the beach. To him, that was a plan.
|11.1.06 @ 6:02PM|#
TWC: That's what the story is all about. Mayor McHandsome cut the checks from $400 a month to $59 a month. Instead, they're using the money on food, shelter, and bus tickets back to where they came from.
|11.1.06 @ 6:08PM|#
It is well known that the scariest words in the English language are "We need to talk."
|11.1.06 @ 6:10PM|#
"The most terifying words in the English language are, I'm from
the government, and I'm here to help".
Ronald Reagan
You so-called libertarians who want to put homeless people in work
camps must be related to the pro-torture libertarians who are so
plentiful around here. What do you think freedom is, paying bills,
kissing the boss's ass, trying to keep up with the Joneses? These
homeless people have a harder life than you think, but they have
chosen to forgo some of the comforts you enjoy so that they can
enjoy their own kind of freedom. If it makes you uncomfortable to
see dirty crazy people on the streets, tough shit, deal with it.
You don't get to lock them away because they're annoying, you only
get to deprive people of their freedom when they break the law.
Their being homeless doesn't violate your rights, so you don't get
to put them in concentration camps.
Don't put them on welfare, give them a hand out if you so choose.
Most of these homeless people don't want the governments help
because they find normal life in the modern world too complicated
and demanding, that's why they dropped out. Leave them be.
|11.1.06 @ 6:17PM|#
"You so-called libertarians who want to put homeless people in
work camps must be related to the pro-torture libertarians who are
so plentiful around here."
Unlike the latter, I think the former were joking.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.1.06 @ 6:17PM|#
Mutt, read that story a couple of weeks ago. I'd rather be
homeless in Hawaii than in SF.
High, met a couple on the beach on the Big Island who lived on the
beach two months out of the year. The rest of the time they had
jobs in Alaska. Strange but true. Very cheap compared to the cost
of a hotel.
LurkerSF, thanks for the update. Guess I should read the story
before mouthing off.
The homeless problem is vexing. I know the Mission in LA does a
good job but they won't let you sleep there if you're drinking.
Many will choose the bottle over the bed. It doesn't help that many
cities have urban-renewaled all the flophouses out of existence.
When I was a kid Anahiem had dozens of old dumpy hotels where you
could get a room dirt cheap. The city bulldozed them all and now
they have a homeless problem.
Ken Layne|11.1.06 @ 6:17PM|#
Thanks for linking/summarizing this thing, because I sure as
hell would've never clicked on a Three Part Series.
I left SF for the last time in 1999. Despite the city being in much
better economic shape, the homeless situation seemed twice as
horrible as it was in 1993 when I first moved there. Some people
blamed it on yuppies moving to the Mission and pushing up rents,
but the kind of people that made the streets untenable weren't the
kind who had recently (if ever) taken care of themselves.
Cutting those goddamned payments, paying for actual rehab &
housing, and sending as many people back home as possible ...
that's actually sane, but all three had been considered
"politically impossible" in the 1990s. Good for Newsom and good for
the poor souls who wind up on the streets of that town.
|11.1.06 @ 6:20PM|#
Mutt:
There are only a certain number of ways to deal with the scarcity
of land on Oahu. You allocate by market or you allocate by fiat.
You take the consequences either way.
Interestingly enough, I just saw that stretch of Oahu on my
vacation this year. An obvious suggestion for improvement might be
to allow more development on the island. I'm just sayin'.
|11.1.06 @ 6:22PM|#
Buckshot,
I cannot speak for Timmy, but I'll bet that Franklin "Ebenezer"
Harris was joking. I know that I was. I think you need to get your
irony-meter tuned.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.1.06 @ 6:25PM|#
Buck, in a libertatian world the streets wouldn't be public and
the homeless would be trespassing. Whole different angle, that
one.
I'm not sure how you judge but at some point there is a line
dividing the ability to make your own decisions and not. We seem to
be able to figure out where it is when Aunt Mabel is losing it and
I think we could probably figure it out for the homeless, who are
now treated entirely alike whether they are schizo, wino, derelict,
sane, insane, violent, passive, or victims.
Many of those people have no more ability to care for themselves
than my demented and senile grandmother. We didn't dump her on the
street and say you're free, have fun. She was
institutionalized instead where she spent her declining years
re-visiting the 1920's where her husband was young and alive and
they could go dancing continually.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.1.06 @ 6:27PM|#
Jason, good point. There is also a native back-to-our-roots colony living on public land on Oahu where locals could live provided they are willing to work. No haoulies allowed though.
|11.1.06 @ 6:32PM|#
Homelessness in urban america is largely a function of mental
illness and drug and alcohol abuse. That set of folks who is more
or less by definition not going to respond to standard incentives.
I can't see any way around a role for the state here.
I think a minimalist shelter and food availability form of
redistribution is not a bad solution, where the shelter and food
are chosen to minimize environmental harms that cost the public a
ton of cash. You get the option for a relatively safe place to be,
you can leave when you want, and you can eat gruel. Other than
that, let 'em be. Direct payments are not going to be
productive.
|11.1.06 @ 6:36PM|#
I have to say, too, that I've seen institutionalization of the mentally ill, and, well, Szaz isn't entirely wrong. Be very careful when you take someone off the street against their will. The implications to the humanity of that person are horrific.
|11.1.06 @ 6:38PM|#
and didn't you people learn anything from "Mr. Wendell?"
He has a freedom you and I think is dumb, you know.
|11.1.06 @ 6:39PM|#
Highnumber:
Yes, I need to get my ironymeter tuned. I got more defensive that I
needed to.
Wine Commonsewer:
You also make some good points. I don't advocate dumping helpless
people on the street, I advocate people looking out for each other
without official government intervention. Some of these people need
help, but I'm against forcing anyone to take help they don't want.
I got really pissed off at the "Put 'em in camps" remark, some
people really do feel that way and I hope that Timmy was
joking.
Reg|11.1.06 @ 6:57PM|#
The answer to the homeless is to outlaw sleeping on public
benches or in parks. If they don't want to find other
accommodations, the public will provide it in the form of
prison.
Absurdly and outragously, such legislation has been held to be
unconstitutional.
Paul|11.1.06 @ 7:00PM|#
Its people WHO HAVE BEEN PRICED OUT OF HOUSING!
No, MUTT, it's far, far, FFFAR more complex than that. I'm pretty
much priced out of housing in the City of Seattle, so I'm on the
edge of homelessness, right?
Wrong. When someone becomes homeless, there are a ton of other
factors-- many of which are very uncomfortable to talk about--
which contribute to the condition that is known as 'homelessness'.
My wife is an MSW working with homeless people. When you see it day
after day after day, you realize just how difficult the problem is,
and regardless of how comprehensive the services are, how little an
impact they make.
|11.1.06 @ 7:03PM|#
" There are only a certain number of ways to deal with the
scarcity of land on Oahu. You allocate by market or you allocate by
fiat. You take the consequences either way. "
Only if your diety is cash. if your 'libertarian" ideal is: he who
has the gold, rules"- well, thats how you pose it. If community
& history have no value, well then, gold is the determinate.
Depends on your perspective....unless you believe "god" backs gold,
or whatever. If not, then the determinate becomes negotiable. Yes?
No?
I happen to think history & community has value. You cant wiegh
it on a scale, that dosnt mean it dosnt exist. To me, those who
know the "cost of everything & the value of nothing" rule the
roost. Im of the sort that thinks this is a pretty sorry assed
situation. But thats just me, clearly.
What to do? I dunno. I just see the day to day gettin run into the
ground by the "price of everything" people, who profit,
handsomly.
Cash, gold profit -the end all & be all? well, then, everything
is just great.
So now we come to three different sectors of LA (& most
everywhere else) homeless. First off- the bulldozing of single
occupancy hotels in the 70's on, as well noted above, meant a lots
of marginal people were turned out so a few marginal people (to me)
could profit. They made a buck,and in cities all across the country
folks were on the street. Yay, makin a buck. Yay, "market". Now, we
demonize those marginal people who cant cough up a grand a month
for a one room. Then theres the actual crazies, turned out in
wholesale lots during that swine Carters riegn.
Now you coulds say the junkies and the alkies have a choice. The
crazies dont. We let the crazies forage in the street. You puff
YOUR chest out, Ill pass.
The druggies: the problem aint the drugs, its the cost. Legalize
it, & use 1% of the savings for places to get clean. Let them
OD. Swap DeSoto hubcaps full of crack for ligations &
vasectomies. Offer up beds to detox. Having grown up around
junkies, Ill tell ya- most want out, after a while. The alkies?
well, Im sure we can figure out something- not "reform" them mind,
but give them a roof, a place to dry out- with another 1% of the
drug war savings. I know: "Give". the horror.
But I get the impression more than a few here like to "punish"
such, so I dont figger on much support.
Winecommonsewer: christ, that stuff gives me heartburn.....whats yr
secret??
|11.1.06 @ 7:14PM|#
AND....you lucky bastids.......
Jason Lignon makes a very good point: the ghastly condition in
which many institutionalized people were held BEFORE Carter (and
the USSC) cut them loose.
I dont wish to be taken as someone who supports that sort of
thing.
Something better than a choice between utter neglect & Bedlam
snakepits is needed.
It aint cheap. But its a lot, lot cheaper than, say, Rummy.
The Honolulu Advertiser actually DID come out with the take the
bulk of Oahu homelessness was skyrocketing rents. But remember- its
an island. Seattle isnt.
Rents havent skyrocketed in Seattle??? If you cant pay your rent
you are: A) Forgiven, B)get a NEW Apartment, C)end up outside.
Mike Laursen|11.1.06 @ 7:21PM|#
in a libertatian world the streets wouldn't be public and
the homeless would be trespassing
In your libertarian world. In my libertarian
world, there would still be such a thing as public streets. Can we
libertarians please grow out of the conceit that there is one true,
perfect libertarian vision that can be deduced from a few axioms
without leaving one's armchair. We all live in the far-from-ideal
real world and need to come up with ideas that work here.
|11.1.06 @ 7:28PM|#
Reg:
"The answer to the homeless is to outlaw sleeping on public benches
and in the park."
Homeless people are real people, people have to sleep. How long
will you keep them in prison, days, years? Aren't you superior,
depriving people of their FREEDOM because you don't want them
sleeping on a bench.
"Absurdly and outrageously, such legislation has been held to be
unconstitutional".
You are outraged too easily. I think putting people in prison for
sleeping outdoors is absurd and outrageous.
|11.1.06 @ 7:34PM|#
"Swap DeSoto hubcaps full of crack for ligations &
vasectomies."
Yeah, I don't think the eugenics program will be too popular.
|11.1.06 @ 7:40PM|#
"Homelessness in urban america is largely a function of mental
illness and drug and alcohol abuse."
Right. I think, as hinted at above, San Francisco's problems may
have something to do with the city's attractiveness for the
homeless population. Causing the city to receive more than their
'share' of the problem. Some of that is environmental of course due
to the mild weather.
At any rate, I guess there's an issue whether the kind of treatment
that can help some homeless would be undertaken by the private
sector. Certainly you think it could be funded by local businesses
who'd want a bit less intimidating street environment.
I think there isn't necessarily a 'problem' here to be solved. It's
a function of community living. There's going to be mental illness,
substance abuse, homelessness, etc. I think there's a lot of work
to be done in helping the mentally ill and that work should help
members of the homeless population interested in benefitting from
it.
Paul|11.1.06 @ 7:41PM|#
The Honolulu Advertiser actually DID come out with the take
the bulk of Oahu homelessness was skyrocketing rents. But remember-
its an island. Seattle isnt.
Nor is anyplace else in the country. Soooo you're saying that
Homelessness in Hawaii and only Hawaii is based on lack of
affordable housing, but everywhere else...blank out.
Rents havent skyrocketed in Seattle??? If you cant pay your
rent you are: A) Forgiven, B)get a NEW Apartment, C)end up
outside.
Rents have skyrocketed in Seattle and have been doing so
for well over a decade. In your original message you imply a simple
dichotomy of expensive housing: pay rent/become homeless.
What most people do, MUTT is they choose B, or several other
options not listed, which may apply to their individual
circumstance.
Some people might d) get help from wealthier family members. e) Be
forced to seek better employment. f) Seek additional employment,
part time etc. including but not limited to overtime at current
employment to cover gaps of affordability. g) Make reductions in
existing expenses.
What I've always found interested is that 'advocates' for the
homeless are often times the most ignorant as to the causes and
circumstances contributing to homelessness, which often contribute
to further homelessness at worst, and at least do nothing to
alleviate the problem.
The complexities of homelessness require a multifaceted approach-
often times tailoring that approach to each individual.
Factors that often add to the difficulty when trying to get help to
the homeless. Note, some or all of these exist simultaneously in
each individual:
Drug addiction/polysubstance abuse
Mental illness.
Antisocial behavior.
Poor childhood experiences leading to:
Horrendous life choices including:
Poor choice in partners leading to abuse
Multiple (and continued) pregnancies with no ability to care for
additional family members.
Reduced cognitive ability- caused by:
Drug addiction/polysubstance abuse
Mental illness
Injury
Then there are the myriad unexplainable issues where individuals
have... and I know this is hard to get your mind around... choose
to live on the streets. It's a lifestyle that they have outright
chosen.
Writing it off as an 'affordable housing' problem is exactly the
attitude that simply puts blinders on and merely expands municipal
budgets without actually addressing the problems.
|11.1.06 @ 7:47PM|#
Not popular with whom? By "eugenics" Im thinkin you impute a
racial component. If it is, it a white racial component, since
white crackheads out number black crackheads by a huge
margin.
But it can be smack in the hubcap, or powder coke, or black
beauties. You want to snuff out your humanity w/ the dope (says the
alkie) its your bidnid. Personally, I think w/ a bit of effort and
a tiny fraction of the dosh pissed away on armaments this society
could offer opportuniities undreamt of in the stratas where being a
dope addict looks like a step up. - What I DO care about is drug
addicts bringin kids into the world. Screw that.
No need for that, at friggin all.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.1.06 @ 7:56PM|#
What, no Boones Farm Apple Wine?
Buck, thanks for stopping by. No Boone's Apple but there is some
Strawberry Hill way down on the right hand side.
I'm okay with public streets as far as that goes. If you can scale
the feds back to 1880 levels I'll give you public streets.
Just making the point that if the world was purist libertarian the
homeless problem would be a different one and possibly more easily
managed.
|11.1.06 @ 8:02PM|#
Then there are the myriad unexplainable issues where
individuals have... and I know this is hard to get your mind
around... choose to live on the streets. It's a lifestyle that they
have outright chosen.
You've expressed something that has a lot of truth here,
Paul.
Of course there are many exceptions, yadda yadda yadda. But I look
at something like, say, the street kids on the Ave, and can't help
but believe that if they really wanted to get off the streets, many
have options available to them. They make the comparisons of what
concessions they'd have to make in their lifestyles to do so and
decide it's not what they want. It's an interpretation of personal
freedom. Very appealing to some. The decision to opt out of
'normal' society.
And it's not just the city streets. There's a lot of people living
out in the woods.
|11.1.06 @ 8:02PM|#
by what nitwit pigeonholing do you think I: "Then there are the
myriad unexplainable issues where individuals have... and I know
this is hard to get your mind around... choose to live on the
streets. It's a lifestyle that they have outright chosen.
No shit. I was respondng to various comments above mine, all which
neglected housing costs as a factor.
You disreguard housing costs as a factor? Might I suggest you
actually read the Honolulu piece, and contemplate what te
destruction of multliples of 10's of thousands of SRO hotel rooms
meant? (Id add 12-15 million illegals, but
Im sure we can argue that elsewhere)
Hit up rich relatives? OK. Some folks can do that. Find cheaper
rent? Really? Maybe, here & there........and that works for
what small percentage of the total? 10%? 15%? and the rest? Ah,
yes: prisons & workhouses.
The rest is the standard social worker victim framework.
Upbringing, "poor choices", etc.
Housing costs dont figure in? Anywhere??
Ya really ought to have the benefit of my old bud Sisco's input
here- he RAN a homelesshelter ten years back in VT.
Its kinda stupid to pigeonhole people based on a couple paras,
sport.If I were a like mind I would pigeonhole you as a gvt
employee who depends on human misery for a job, but that would be
stupid.
|11.1.06 @ 8:06PM|#
Eugenics doesn't require a racial component. Any "undesirable"
trait that is sought to be eliminated by a society/government
through means such as sterilization.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was referring to a "feeble-minded"
woman with his "three generations of imbeciles is enough"
comment.
|11.1.06 @ 8:09PM|#
Again:
Right you are that SF attract more than their share of homeless
people because of all the handouts they offer. I'm against official
handouts, I'm all for private solutions, churches and indiviuals
who care, and they are out there. As several people here have
pointed out, it's more complicated than locking them up or putting
them on welfare, those are not valid solutions.
|11.1.06 @ 8:33PM|#
There have always been "marginal" people who choose not to live
according to the standards of their contemporaries; perhaps crazy,
perhaps iconoclastic. A large number of those people supported
themselves; not by begging, but by doing odd jobs. Washing dishes
for an afternoon, in return for a good meal and a little cash.
Digging ditches, shoveling shit, threshing wheat, splitting
firewood, clearing fencerows; they would do the little jobs that
ordinarily fall through the cracks. A guy with mechanical skills
could work on a "part time' basis in a garage, cleaning parts or
carting junk away to the scrap yard.
There are damn few of those jobs around, due to government
regulation of the labor market. Is the owner of a business which
has to report to the California Labor Board, or whatever they call
themselves, going to risk a big fine to help out some grimy hobo? A
guy who would rather be doing something like work becomes ashamed
and resentful when he is reduced to begging (or worse, being made a
ward of the state); don't bother to act surprised if he's not
polite. Or clean.
And the reference to the elimination of SRO hotels is spot on.
|11.1.06 @ 8:51PM|#
As to affordable housing, if you were to loosen up on some of
the housing regulations, you could rent out 40 sq. ft rooms with a
communal kitchen and bathroom. A 400 sq. ft. apartment in Manhattan
could cost $2000 a month. You could rent out about 10 little rooms
for $250, make more, and anybody who worked half time at minimum
wage would be able to afford it.
Uh, I think Reason did an article on it. Or maybe it was in that
book, the Death of Common Sense.
Mike Laursen|11.1.06 @ 10:05PM|#
I'm okay with public streets as far as that goes. If you can
scale the feds back to 1880 levels I'll give you public
streets.
Deal! Sorry for jumping down yer throat.
|11.1.06 @ 10:23PM|#
Mutt:
Community has value. Okay, what does that mean? If I value
community, what does that say about how I allocate scarce
resources? If you tire of the world where the most gold gets the
resource, you are kind of on the hook for coming up with something
else as a mechanism for allocation. Democracy? Crazy people are a
minority. Need? Not really helpful. We have to know who needs what
more. You are perhaps suggesting that if JW Marriott packed up,
along with those fat cats who turned land in Oahu to profitable
use, the average Hawaiian would be better off?
Meh, this is an old argument. All I'm saying is that you have no
way of getting to community. What you really are suggesting is less
disparity regardless of what happens in absolute terms to the
average guy.
thoreau|11.1.06 @ 10:32PM|#
I want to know more about the $100k/year that was spent when
somebody was on the street, and the $21k/year that is spent now
that the person is in a program. The first number sounds like a bit
of creative accounting, but I admit that I haven't RTFA. The second
number is more plausible, although I wonder if some costs were
neglected there with more creative accounting.
Also, having volunteered in a private shelter, I can tell you that
there are a few different kinds of homeless people:
1) The sad, genuinely screwed-up cases who have mental health
and/or substance abuse problems. What they need is beyond the
capabilities of the shelter where I volunteered. How best to
deliver it? That's a hard question.
2) Some people who are genuinely down on their luck, and willing to
work hard to get their lives back on track. They are truly a
pleasure to work with.
3) People who are some mix of lazy, clueless, eccentric (in the bad
way), and, well, demanding of others (in many cases). Many of them
are not, strictly speaking, homeless, since before living in a
shelter they were living in some sort of complicated situation that
would take forever to explain and still make no sense. Sometimes
they left that situation because of genuine safety concerns, other
times because somebody got fed up with them, sometimes they left
because they thought the shelter was a better place to get it
together (and, to be honest, a good caseworker might be better than
a dysfunctional relative), and sometimes, well, who knows?
This category is a mixed bag. Some can be helped, others not so
much. Some are actually quite nice and it's just sad that they're
so clueless. Some are impossible to deal with personality-wise, but
they have enough survival instinct that they'll do the minimum and
get by. Really, these cases can't be neatly categorized.
One problem is that there isn't a hard and fast line between
categories. There are people who are mostly in category 3 yet also
in another category, so they do deserve sympathy and help (don't
interpret "deserve" as a call for public sector solutions). So you
try your best. Also, while category 3 isn't always a very
sympathetic bunch, some of them can do a decent job of passing for
category 1, which means that assistance for category 1 inevitably
creates some perverse incentives that exacerbate problems in
category 3.
There are no easy solutions here.
|11.2.06 @ 12:24AM|#
"I want to know more about the $100k/year that was spent when
somebody was on the street, and the $21k/year that is spent now
that the person is in a program."
I don't think they're only counting direct spending, but rather
counting indirect causes like the effects on crime, sanitation,
lost business for neighborhoods, etc.
As such, I think you're right in that there may very well be some
very creative accounting going on.
Again I think it's been pretty well nailed here, the homeless
'problem' is probably best addressed by cracking down on
trespassing concerns, arresting the lawbreakers and otherwise
letting them be.
I think it's also a great point how various labor, housing and
zoning laws essentially discriminate against the lowest economic
rungs by eliminating some of the jobs and housing most available to
them. I'm not sure that necessarily affects the homeless all that
much, but it certainly affects the poor.
ChrisO|11.2.06 @ 9:17AM|#
Thoreau, I worked at a free legal clinic a number of years ago,
and I got a few of those (2)s and a lot of those (3)s you
described. Most of the (1)s weren't in any shape to know they
needed legal help.
The Twos are indeed a joy to work with. With the Threes (and I
usually saw a pretty clear distinction), I almost always knew that
wouldn't use our assistance as a springboard to better things, but
just keep stumbling from screw-up to screw-up. Quite sad, actually.
I believe that part of growing up is learning that such people
exist and that there really isn't fuck-all you can do to help
them.
thoreau|11.2.06 @ 10:53AM|#
ChrisO-
My favorite Category 3 story is the person who got a part-time job
to avoid taking a class. The shelter required that every resident
take a career development class, taught by a staff member who is
truly amazing at helping people with job searches. (He even gave
good advice to volunteers on their own job searches.) Even people
with jobs had to take the class, because if they were living in a
shelter, well, clearly they need a better job. The only exception
was for people who had to work during the time slot of the
class.
One resident got a part-time job that was so part-time she only had
to work during the time slot of the class.
|11.2.06 @ 1:16PM|#
Jason: " Community has value. Okay, what does that mean?"
well, there you go. Gold has value- theres a "market" that sets its
worth. Community is concept. One that gets bulldozed (increasingly
under "emminent domain" thievery) because its value isnt recognized
by those who hold gold in the highest esteem.
Im not opposed to profit, obviously: I work for a living. There are
things I wont profit from. Thats true of most everyone here.
When bottomless pockets start buying up all the land around you
& your community, why is it the community that has to go, not
the pockets? The default position is: gold profit trumps all other
measures of value.
Thats all Im saying, however mushily.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245