If you want to educate yourself about the nature and scope of the issue there is a new book out that examines the structural roots of the homelessness crisis.
Over the course of the book, the researchers illustrate how absolute rent levels and rental vacancy rates are associated with regional rates of homelessness. Many other common explanations—drug use, mental illness, poverty, or local political context—fail to account for regional variation.
Do your collaborators account for the abject, utter failure of the federal (as opposed to local and state) government in it's responsibility for the welfare of it's citizens and it's not being held accountable for that failure? The willful blindness to not see that elephant in the room by so many is astounding to me. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with nationally, not in a piecemeal fashion by ill-funded and equiped localities. The federal government is the deep pockets, that can print money and carry massive deficits(unlike state and local) such that if this were a lawsuit the lawyers would be going after like flies on shit. I guess it's just so much easier( and in the end pointless and futile) to simply blame Eugene or the city of your choice.
That's interesting, last time I checked we still sent representatives to Washington via elections. Those representatives live to be re-elected. The reason they don't care (much) about the homeless issue is because their constituents aren't in their face about it. Oh, did I mention that's just as much the fault of a lapdog electorate as the government? Personally, I don't want my local government further turning this place into a 'homeless magnet' on my dime by producing (cheap/free) housing for all comers from across the land. There I've gone and done it now, fallen into the vacuous vortex of the homeless "debate"...must hit escape pod jettison button...bang!...I'm outta here!!!
And a big part of why they don't care is because the electorate, for a variety of reasons, has come to believe that political "participation" is simply voting every two(maybe) and four years and invariably returning the same clowns back for another term. Despite all the hoopla about the political divide, Americans have largely removed themselves from the political process. So it shouldn't be at all surprising that the elite pays them little heed.
There's no hard date one can point to, it's a process that has evolved over years, decades in fact. And it feeds on itself, as people come to believe their voice doesn't matter they become less likely to particpate. Events like Citizens United certainly play a significant part but I'd say they're more symptoms then anything. Americans have in essence decided that they have better things to do than engage fully in the "messiness" that is particpatory politics (aka democracy). Generally when people do engage it's on behalf of a particular cause(abortion,etc.) dear to them afterwhich they're likely to call it a day. It's sort of like they've become "specialists", when what is really needed are a lot more "generalists". So politicians can play to these "niche" causes to cement their base, which makes it appear that they "care". They're the "house" and we 're the rubes being played but it's our choice. My take anyway.
Federal policy has definitely played a role in getting us to where we are today, and should play a role in getting us out of the mess we're in.
Although, national level legislative politics are currently beyond dysfunctional and are unlikely to do things like reform the mortgage system or implement a practical housing guarantee.
A primary roll IMO, but as you say given the perpetual clown show in DC pigs will fly first. So things will only get worse since its unsolvable at the local(or even state) level and no amount of debate will change that.
It’s almost like people pay more to live in more temperate climates, which also allows homeless people to live more comfortably relative to more extreme climates.
The persistent myth that "homeless people move here to take advantage of our generous social services" has the slight problem that it's not true.
But it's a very Eugene thing to build up a self-image of "Oh, we're so kind, and generous and people take advantage of us Soooo Much!".
And as a group we want to be seen as kind and put upon, rather than say arrogant and clueless, or judgy and tightfisted. But that myth is an excuse for not solving the problem at the root.
Which is to say building a lot more housing. Build enough housing that 20% of a full time salary on minimum wage is enough to rent an efficiency apartment. Enough that the rental vacancy rate is 10% of available units on October 1st. Enough that commercial landlords are putting up billboards saying there's too much housing.
People that have lived here their whole lives can't afford housing. Manufactured homes (double wides) are going for $350k+. Yeah, we need more housing.
Yes, it is our duty. People deserve food, water, shelter, and healthcare at the absolute least. There is more than enough money and materials to accomplish this, but because a company can make more money by not providing them, it will not happen without severe coercion.
So if I like the oceanfront views of Malibu and decide I want to live there, then I should expect there to be housing for me there, regardless of my ability to pay for it?
No one said individual. Start a company or corporation that doesn’t operate for profit. Pool together the resources of the people that care and do something. You’ll even have a competitive advantage.
They did studies on this in Seattle and San Francisco. Homeless individuals are mostly either local or travel from other less developed parts of the same state.
Why do they move to these places specifically? Jobs. They move there for jobs, and eventually lose those jobs. Then, they become homeless because even losing a job for a month can make you homeless if you're spending 50+% of your income on rent. Tale as old as time.
50% of temporarily sheltered homeless people are employed.
Many of the rest have untreated mental health and drug addiction problems. With proper medical treatment, the remainder could also achieve financial independence, while the rest would likely need permanent care.
Do not forget, the homeless are people. You should help them because we need to look out for each other.
If you need another reason, then the Housing First model drastically reduces homeless populations, and is significantly cheaper for taxpayers than how we currently deal with them.
If 90% of them have jobs, why are most of them in a $20 tent and tarps in Washington Jefferson Park or similar park, or a burnt out 40 year old RV in a neighborhood.
They have no real expenses, yet you say they have jobs, where is that money from the job, huh?
Maybe we should act like a real Eugene area landlords and jack up the price of rent the max every year and ignore maintenance issues instead of right now when we've only increased rent by $50 a month in the last two years on way under market 3-4 bedroom, 1.5bath, 2 story, 1,200 sqft, front and backyard, garage, $1200 places that you'd be lucky to find a 2 bedroom apartment for, and maintenance that is available as soon as possible and have worked with tenants on times when they had trouble paying from events in their life,including straight up lowering their rent.
Yeah, we must be terrible!
I only shit on the drugged out homeless, the lifestyle homeless, the stealing homeless, they drag everyone down and that's why I don't speak highly of them.
Homeless people pretty much never move for drugs. Think about it. You're homeless, poor and addicted to drugs. If you move without said drugs, you could withdraw on public transit and die. If you move with the drugs, you risk having them stolen, confiscated or going to jail. Either way, you wont be able to afford more than a couple days worth because you're homeless, and also you have no way to secure your belongings.
The destination city has a ton of risks that you can't predict at all. Hope you can find an affordable dealer fast. Hope you can figure out how to avoid cops in a new city. Etc. Etc. Homeless drug addicts rarely move, and when they do, it's because there's either family or a job at the other end -- otherwise, the benefit is too nebulous and the risk is too high.
Because a lot of cities and states just bus their homeless out west. Literally. They don't want to deal with the issue locally so they ship them out. A great way for red states to pretend they don't have a homeless issue.
The book goes to some length to show that in places where the rent is low there is just as much or more drug use; but less homelessness.
As to the downvotes; I'm guessing it's because you came into the conversation with a preformed opinion that you seem intent on pushing on other people whether or not the facts bear it out. (I neither downvoted nor upvoted you.)
I would suggest you sit with the question of what emotional needs your opinion fulfills for you.
Does it make you feel less vulnerable to becoming homeless to blame it on something you don't do? I assure you that teetotalers are just as likely to become homeless as drug users or alcoholics.
Is it that it's easier to blame an intractable problem the solution to which would make rich and powerful people slightly less rich and powerful on a visible evil that can be blamed on the people it affects rather than on those who inflict it?
People who live in homes already do drugs. Yes, even the hard ones, and nobody is trying to shove required treatment down their throats and derailing the conversation from something that's been studied extensively ad a solution.
I do believe that there should be super robust case management, mental health treatment, detox, recovery, needle exchanges programs etc. For people who transition back into housing for sure. These are all things that are severely lacking, but giving someone a place to shelter makes it way way easier to even want to engage with that stuff in the first place. Being homeless means only being able to think 10 minutes ahead and if they want treatment now but a bed isn't open (which it isn't often), then they are on to the next thing to survive.
People who live in homes already do drugs. Yes, even the hard ones, and nobody is trying to shove required treatment down their throats
That's because the housed drug users generally aren't causing problems that impact the rest of society to the extent the vagrants do. Theyre only fucking upmtheir own lives, not other people's. Furthermore, the number of homeless drug users is hugely disproportional to the number of housed drug users.
Okay and your point of it being disproportional is??? If you also count people who smoke weed and drink alcohol in there I'm sure it's not that disproportionate. Wonder how many housed drunk drivers kill people or start fist fights compared to how many homeless substance users kill folks or start fist fights?
They poop in their on house instead of outside
offices like here. They don’t leave needles outside where people can get poke. Including children with their bare foot in the summer.
54
u/TormentedTopiary Aug 04 '22
If you want to educate yourself about the nature and scope of the issue there is a new book out that examines the structural roots of the homelessness crisis.
It's called Homelessness is a housing problem. and it's a collaboration between an academic and a data journalist.
A quote from the website: