how America moves its homeless
December 21, 2017 10:18 AM Subscribe
“Once they get you out of their city, they really don’t care what happens to you.” Every year, American cities give free bus tickets to homeless people to leave the area. The Guardian looks at what happens next.
DC does it. St. Petersburg, FL. Nevada's shuttered psychiatric hospitals. Denver. Though it's not clear what happened in Salt Lake City.
The number of homeless people in the US has risen for the first time since 2010. This increase is largely driven by increases in California, where a huge hepatitis outbreak has been ravaging the community due to improper sanitation. US Housing & Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson says we know how to end homelessness.
This piece is part of the Guardian's continuing series on homelessness in America.
DC does it. St. Petersburg, FL. Nevada's shuttered psychiatric hospitals. Denver. Though it's not clear what happened in Salt Lake City.
The number of homeless people in the US has risen for the first time since 2010. This increase is largely driven by increases in California, where a huge hepatitis outbreak has been ravaging the community due to improper sanitation. US Housing & Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson says we know how to end homelessness.
This piece is part of the Guardian's continuing series on homelessness in America.
Sometimes it's not even that far. Santa Monica got into big trouble when it was discovered that the hospitals were driving and dumping homeless folks into DTLA's Skid Row. Some with IV bags still hooked up.
But yeah, the homeless problem has gotten worse and worse and I don't know how we fix it here.
posted by drewbage1847 at 10:49 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
But yeah, the homeless problem has gotten worse and worse and I don't know how we fix it here.
posted by drewbage1847 at 10:49 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
We know how to end homelessness.
posted by aniola at 10:52 AM on December 21, 2017 [28 favorites]
posted by aniola at 10:52 AM on December 21, 2017 [28 favorites]
The idea that people are homeless because they can't afford a bus ticket to live with family is so astonishingly stupid, it's pretty hard assume good faith. But, I suppose the idea that city officials and shelter organizations who interact with the homeless are acting in good faith is pretty naive.
I generally don't believe anyone should ever have to live without a home. But, the graphic design people at the Guardian may be the exception. Cripes, what a pile of garbage formatting you have to wade through to read an otherwise great piece! And they went out of their way to break the text-browser alternative.
posted by eotvos at 11:34 AM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
I generally don't believe anyone should ever have to live without a home. But, the graphic design people at the Guardian may be the exception. Cripes, what a pile of garbage formatting you have to wade through to read an otherwise great piece! And they went out of their way to break the text-browser alternative.
posted by eotvos at 11:34 AM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
I manage a street homeless outreach program in Los Angeles. We have provided bus tickets to individuals who have confirmed (phone calls, emails to my case managers) permanent housing options with family or friends in other parts of the country. So far this year we’ve provided two tickets out of more than 1500 individuals engaged.
posted by johngumbo at 11:37 AM on December 21, 2017 [51 favorites]
posted by johngumbo at 11:37 AM on December 21, 2017 [51 favorites]
We know how to end homelessness.
Yeah, solving the problem isn't that complicated, and neither is identifying the cause of the problem. What's complicated and difficult is the complex way individuals and society reacts to homelessness and does its best to ignore homelessness like some kind of scary contagious zombie plague.
And the problems of shipping the homeless around via free bus tickets is a known thing that's been around for decades, often under the guise of "Homeward Bound" programs that are supposed to be used to help someone get home to friends or families and/or closer to housing and support, but the programs aren't always used like this.
I'm going to do a rare thing, here, and recycle a reddit comment: The context is the recent Skirball fire in LA being caused by a homeless encampment cooking fire.
It's actually really obvious how shit got all fucked up if you pay attention and follow the money.
The politicians and the rich who buy them (as in top 10%, not Joe Random middle/working class) have gutted our public health and social works programs over the last thirty years, but especially the last ten.
Wages have stagnated severely against inflation, while corporate and executive pay has skyrocketed.
(And I mean SKYROCKETED. Look at those graphs. Look at how little minimum wage has kept up with inflation. Millenials, you're getting *played*.)
Combine that with a recession and a speculator's realty market where empty homes outnumber the homeless) and a public health crisis of drug addiction fueled by overprescribed opiod drugs (and two generations raised on Ritalin and stimulants).
Throw on top of that 40+ years of a failed, racist drug war and a for profit prison industry that has grown fat after Reagan's 1984 Sentencing Reform Act that demanded minimum sentences even for nonviolent drug crimes, resulting in the largest prison population per capita in the Western world, if not the entire world.
Oh, and our health care costs have skyrocketed, too, so a lot of people are one ER visit away from not being able to make rent for an entire year. At best, unpaid medical bills will ruin someones credit so they can't get apartments and in some cases jobs.
Wait, we're not done with this recipe of woe, shit and the downfall of what used to be the most prosperous, most productive nation on the planet.
Now let's send a bunch of our youth off to wars that probably didn't need to be fought, mostly in the interest of corporate entities tosecure steal oil and resources, and make a whole lot of money selling weapons to the destabilized areas.
Now refuse to take care of those not so young soldiers when they come back with PTSD. Hell, just kick them to the street.
It's not our fault that they can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps we gave them to re-integrate with society and get a job like everyone else.
ThisIsFine.jpg
posted by loquacious at 11:42 AM on December 21, 2017 [76 favorites]
Yeah, solving the problem isn't that complicated, and neither is identifying the cause of the problem. What's complicated and difficult is the complex way individuals and society reacts to homelessness and does its best to ignore homelessness like some kind of scary contagious zombie plague.
And the problems of shipping the homeless around via free bus tickets is a known thing that's been around for decades, often under the guise of "Homeward Bound" programs that are supposed to be used to help someone get home to friends or families and/or closer to housing and support, but the programs aren't always used like this.
I'm going to do a rare thing, here, and recycle a reddit comment: The context is the recent Skirball fire in LA being caused by a homeless encampment cooking fire.
Commentr A: So I visited LA in August for the first time ever. I can almost guarantee this was homeless person. The housing situation is so fucking bad. What's the deal man?Yes it can. I can do it with links.
Poster B: Not an answer that can be given in a simple reddit comment.
It's actually really obvious how shit got all fucked up if you pay attention and follow the money.
The politicians and the rich who buy them (as in top 10%, not Joe Random middle/working class) have gutted our public health and social works programs over the last thirty years, but especially the last ten.
Wages have stagnated severely against inflation, while corporate and executive pay has skyrocketed.
(And I mean SKYROCKETED. Look at those graphs. Look at how little minimum wage has kept up with inflation. Millenials, you're getting *played*.)
Combine that with a recession and a speculator's realty market where empty homes outnumber the homeless) and a public health crisis of drug addiction fueled by overprescribed opiod drugs (and two generations raised on Ritalin and stimulants).
Throw on top of that 40+ years of a failed, racist drug war and a for profit prison industry that has grown fat after Reagan's 1984 Sentencing Reform Act that demanded minimum sentences even for nonviolent drug crimes, resulting in the largest prison population per capita in the Western world, if not the entire world.
Oh, and our health care costs have skyrocketed, too, so a lot of people are one ER visit away from not being able to make rent for an entire year. At best, unpaid medical bills will ruin someones credit so they can't get apartments and in some cases jobs.
Wait, we're not done with this recipe of woe, shit and the downfall of what used to be the most prosperous, most productive nation on the planet.
Now let's send a bunch of our youth off to wars that probably didn't need to be fought, mostly in the interest of corporate entities to
Now refuse to take care of those not so young soldiers when they come back with PTSD. Hell, just kick them to the street.
It's not our fault that they can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps we gave them to re-integrate with society and get a job like everyone else.
ThisIsFine.jpg
posted by loquacious at 11:42 AM on December 21, 2017 [76 favorites]
Now people are getting pushed into RENTING RVs and Box Trucks as housing on the street. Something needs to change in these high market areas (or higher wages! SOMETHING)
The landlord literally moves your house every day, and then texts you the new location.
RVs are becoming an alternative to high rents in LA
posted by Hermeowne Grangepurr at 12:07 PM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
The landlord literally moves your house every day, and then texts you the new location.
RVs are becoming an alternative to high rents in LA
posted by Hermeowne Grangepurr at 12:07 PM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
US Housing & Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson says we know how to end homelessness.
This was shockingly reasonable, actually. Sadly, I don't see HUD getting any funds to actually follow through any time soon.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:11 PM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
This was shockingly reasonable, actually. Sadly, I don't see HUD getting any funds to actually follow through any time soon.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:11 PM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
See the writing from Sightline on this problem. Inexpensive housing options got illegalized.
posted by Baeria at 12:12 PM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Baeria at 12:12 PM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
Some SF based math. The cost of this program has been ~$1.8 million from 2005-2016 (a little more counting this year, presumably, so let's round up to $2 mil) and it's gone to about 10,000 people. SF's program doesn't have longterm outcome data and won't report who stays housed. The Guardian only reports outcome figures for two programs, one at 70% housed after three months, one at 60% housed after six months. That means our best guess is that 6,000 people have been housed for at least 6 months through this program at a cost of $333 per person, total.
So, that's very very cheap. On the other hand, I ran some wildly speculative numbers on Housing First, and while it's substantially more expensive, it's still pretty fucking affordable. Honolulu spent about the same amount to house 2% as many people. It's a budget of a little over $13,000 a head. Housing's 43% cheaper in Honolulu. If I'm doing the math right I get a budget of about $117 million to house those same 6,000, instead of $2 mil; over 12 years that's $9.75 mil additional to the homelessness budget each year which... we're already spending $242 million. We could eat that. (The big obstacle is probably the absence of suitable units--we'd need about 500 a year, that's steep but maybe not impossible.)
I don't actually think there's anything evil about the bus ticket program (except as implemented in Key West where you have to sign a get out of town form) but Housing First wins again, it always wins, it wins every single time, why is it so hard to implement...
Anyway fun fact we have a mayoral race this year that this might be relevant to!
posted by peppercorn at 12:26 PM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
So, that's very very cheap. On the other hand, I ran some wildly speculative numbers on Housing First, and while it's substantially more expensive, it's still pretty fucking affordable. Honolulu spent about the same amount to house 2% as many people. It's a budget of a little over $13,000 a head. Housing's 43% cheaper in Honolulu. If I'm doing the math right I get a budget of about $117 million to house those same 6,000, instead of $2 mil; over 12 years that's $9.75 mil additional to the homelessness budget each year which... we're already spending $242 million. We could eat that. (The big obstacle is probably the absence of suitable units--we'd need about 500 a year, that's steep but maybe not impossible.)
I don't actually think there's anything evil about the bus ticket program (except as implemented in Key West where you have to sign a get out of town form) but Housing First wins again, it always wins, it wins every single time, why is it so hard to implement...
Anyway fun fact we have a mayoral race this year that this might be relevant to!
posted by peppercorn at 12:26 PM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
And to confirm what JohnGumbo is saying, I haven't personally seen or heard about anyone getting bused around. I haven't even heard about anyone successfully using the Homeward Bound style programs because at least on the West Coast they don't just hand out bus tickets to people.
I know it exists, but I'm just trying to put some anecdotal perspective on it about how rare it is in the general homeless population.
And this is something that homeless people talk about, and they talk about it in hush rumors the same way they might talk about, say, still being able to get free food at In-n-Out just by telling them you're hungry and you'd like some food.
Because free bus tickets might actually be useful for some folks. Or, at worst, some might see it as an opportunity to take a rare trip somewhere that they'd never be able to afford, because homeless people are people, too, and you hear a lot of basic hopes and dreams like this, as simple as "I'd like to see the Rockies before I die." (And, well, some vagabounds just up and walk/hitchhike there, but that's a different thing.)
Polls and records of homeless populations in West Coast cities show that people that are homeless are overwhelmingly local residents or from nearby sister cities and suburbs. There just isn't a whole lot of mobility when you're that poor. And travel can be especially scary if you're acutely mentally ill.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there was some amount of traffic from more conservative cities or counties that don't invest in services or tolerate homelessness, but even then its going to be minor and not the bulk of the problem.
And if a society and culture is healthy and doing things right absorbing that small influx shouldn't even be a problem. In the right hands its a benefit in the form of a ready labor market that can be trained. And if they have affordable housing and health care, they can be paid affordable wages.
But that would require actually investing real money and resources into people instead of, say, buildings. And not just coldly calculating the bare minimums of what it takes to survive and offering someone, oh, 50% of that and calling it done.
I should be careful what I wish for, but I'm actually kind of surprised at this point that some startup hasn't directly targeted the homeless in the Bay Area in particular with some kind of housing-and-health-care for job training system unironically modeled after 19th century workhouses with a modern holistic Californian-style EST/Narconon twist straight out of A Scanner Darkly or a Bruce Sterling novel or something.
Like, here's some clean managed housing and health care for a year. Take a breather. Whenever you're feeling better,feel free to sign up for some classes and check out the library. There's also a garden. Do you like computers? Good, good, let's get you a computer.
Where the payoff for VC is being able to train low wage programmers to skim off the cream of the labor pool, and integrated company town, and the rest get placed at places like Amazon fulfillment centers or whatever.
posted by loquacious at 12:40 PM on December 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
I know it exists, but I'm just trying to put some anecdotal perspective on it about how rare it is in the general homeless population.
And this is something that homeless people talk about, and they talk about it in hush rumors the same way they might talk about, say, still being able to get free food at In-n-Out just by telling them you're hungry and you'd like some food.
Because free bus tickets might actually be useful for some folks. Or, at worst, some might see it as an opportunity to take a rare trip somewhere that they'd never be able to afford, because homeless people are people, too, and you hear a lot of basic hopes and dreams like this, as simple as "I'd like to see the Rockies before I die." (And, well, some vagabounds just up and walk/hitchhike there, but that's a different thing.)
Polls and records of homeless populations in West Coast cities show that people that are homeless are overwhelmingly local residents or from nearby sister cities and suburbs. There just isn't a whole lot of mobility when you're that poor. And travel can be especially scary if you're acutely mentally ill.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there was some amount of traffic from more conservative cities or counties that don't invest in services or tolerate homelessness, but even then its going to be minor and not the bulk of the problem.
And if a society and culture is healthy and doing things right absorbing that small influx shouldn't even be a problem. In the right hands its a benefit in the form of a ready labor market that can be trained. And if they have affordable housing and health care, they can be paid affordable wages.
But that would require actually investing real money and resources into people instead of, say, buildings. And not just coldly calculating the bare minimums of what it takes to survive and offering someone, oh, 50% of that and calling it done.
I should be careful what I wish for, but I'm actually kind of surprised at this point that some startup hasn't directly targeted the homeless in the Bay Area in particular with some kind of housing-and-health-care for job training system unironically modeled after 19th century workhouses with a modern holistic Californian-style EST/Narconon twist straight out of A Scanner Darkly or a Bruce Sterling novel or something.
Like, here's some clean managed housing and health care for a year. Take a breather. Whenever you're feeling better,feel free to sign up for some classes and check out the library. There's also a garden. Do you like computers? Good, good, let's get you a computer.
Where the payoff for VC is being able to train low wage programmers to skim off the cream of the labor pool, and integrated company town, and the rest get placed at places like Amazon fulfillment centers or whatever.
posted by loquacious at 12:40 PM on December 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
In the Bay Area we call it "Greyhound therapy" and it's one of the reasons the SF bay area has so many homeless. They recently(like last 5 years?) caught a guy in (I think) Florida who gave a ticket to SF to one of his more recalcitrant patients in order to get him out of his city and make him someone else's problem.
We always have had anecdotal evidence, someone will come into a shelter or clinic for treatment and say they're from somewhere quite far away, but due to illness or being reluctant they can't or wont say how they got here. Now some definitely came of their own volition. Better to be homeless in sunny CA then say Michigan or Wyoming, where in the winter you can freeze to death.
Part of the reason CA has so many homeless people is of course St. Ronny closing the asylums. It was supposedly in response to horrible abuses, and there definitely were horrible abuses, but then instead of fixing them, he just shut them down. People were supposed to go live with their families- but of course some people didn't have families, or no one able, willing or capable of caring for some of these individuals who were very mental and physically ill. So a lot of deeply mentally ill people who should have been safe in treatment, ended up on the streets.
Of course St. Ronny closed the asylums a while ago, and you would have thought, due both to age and harsh living, most of those patients would have died a while ago. So why so many current mentally ill homeless?
Greyhound therapy from other states.
These people need help, not being shuffled around like meat so they wont be Florida/Alabama/Iowa's problem. And what if they do have some family? Now they are miles away from whatever shred of support network they had!
We need more housing. We need more shelters. And we need to have real punishments and consequences for doctors and social workers who think a ticket to San Francisco will solve their homeless problem by shuffling around people like meat.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 12:51 PM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
We always have had anecdotal evidence, someone will come into a shelter or clinic for treatment and say they're from somewhere quite far away, but due to illness or being reluctant they can't or wont say how they got here. Now some definitely came of their own volition. Better to be homeless in sunny CA then say Michigan or Wyoming, where in the winter you can freeze to death.
Part of the reason CA has so many homeless people is of course St. Ronny closing the asylums. It was supposedly in response to horrible abuses, and there definitely were horrible abuses, but then instead of fixing them, he just shut them down. People were supposed to go live with their families- but of course some people didn't have families, or no one able, willing or capable of caring for some of these individuals who were very mental and physically ill. So a lot of deeply mentally ill people who should have been safe in treatment, ended up on the streets.
Of course St. Ronny closed the asylums a while ago, and you would have thought, due both to age and harsh living, most of those patients would have died a while ago. So why so many current mentally ill homeless?
Greyhound therapy from other states.
These people need help, not being shuffled around like meat so they wont be Florida/Alabama/Iowa's problem. And what if they do have some family? Now they are miles away from whatever shred of support network they had!
We need more housing. We need more shelters. And we need to have real punishments and consequences for doctors and social workers who think a ticket to San Francisco will solve their homeless problem by shuffling around people like meat.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 12:51 PM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
The majority (71%) of the homeless population of San Francisco became homeless while living in San Francisco, and 10% of those came from outside CA, and 22% of those came for homeless supportive services. Greyhound therapy would have to be pretty intensely underreported to be a big part of the picture here.
posted by peppercorn at 12:57 PM on December 21, 2017 [15 favorites]
posted by peppercorn at 12:57 PM on December 21, 2017 [15 favorites]
I was always made aware from orgs in SF that greyhound therapy largely applied to the section of homeless that were seriously mentally ill. It is a way for doctors and social workers to shunt people with expensive to treat or resistant to treatment mental disorders to the Bay Area, either because they truly feel the patient will get better care here, or more likely so they don't have to deal with it. If it came across that I was talking about homeless people as a whole that was an error.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 1:06 PM on December 21, 2017
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 1:06 PM on December 21, 2017
i disagree with those here saying we *know* how to solve homelessness. housing first is promising, has worked in many places, and should be funded, but its birthplace (los angeles) suffers from arguably the worst homelessness problem in the rich world. and we here in LA have repeatedly approved city tax increases (including 1.2b just last year) to pay for it and other services.
the problem is a lack of affordable housing stock, which in turn relates to nimby-ism and zoning. and if a major push to build affordable housing were made, there are many constituencies who would want to be first in line to benefit (like working class people, who are getting killed with rents out here) rather than having it used for homeless housing, because they may not be compatible. it isn't always easy to convince people that they should be ok living in the same apartment building in which some units are devoted to homeless housing.
so there is a lot of work yet to be done on the best ways to address this problem, and we shouldn't pretend that we know all the answers, or that the only problem is lack of funds or political will.
posted by wibari at 1:13 PM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
the problem is a lack of affordable housing stock, which in turn relates to nimby-ism and zoning. and if a major push to build affordable housing were made, there are many constituencies who would want to be first in line to benefit (like working class people, who are getting killed with rents out here) rather than having it used for homeless housing, because they may not be compatible. it isn't always easy to convince people that they should be ok living in the same apartment building in which some units are devoted to homeless housing.
so there is a lot of work yet to be done on the best ways to address this problem, and we shouldn't pretend that we know all the answers, or that the only problem is lack of funds or political will.
posted by wibari at 1:13 PM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
I was always made aware from orgs in SF that greyhound therapy largely applied to the section of homeless that were seriously mentally ill
According to the article, 140 homeless people have gotten free tickets to San Francisco, while San Francisco has given 10,570 free tickets to homeless people to go to other cities. Everyone likes to blame mysterious "other cities" for the problem, because then they don't have to grapple with their own extreme inequality and housing shortages.
posted by miyabo at 1:26 PM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
According to the article, 140 homeless people have gotten free tickets to San Francisco, while San Francisco has given 10,570 free tickets to homeless people to go to other cities. Everyone likes to blame mysterious "other cities" for the problem, because then they don't have to grapple with their own extreme inequality and housing shortages.
posted by miyabo at 1:26 PM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
See the writing from Sightline on this problem.
That's a really good historical article that explains pretty much all of modern housing's problems.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:44 PM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
That's a really good historical article that explains pretty much all of modern housing's problems.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:44 PM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
In the United States, we have the resources to house, feed, and clothe every person. We choose not to.
Yep. We could do this, if we wanted to. The cost would be trivial compared to what we spend on say, a few military boondoggles, and the benefits far greater, not just to these folks, but to the economy, as they are able to start businesses or get jobs or volunteer or have kids that go to school, or otherwise be free to contribute to and participate fully in society.
We could do a lot of things, but we don't, not because we can't, but because we don't have the collective will.
Yet.
posted by emjaybee at 1:56 PM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
Yep. We could do this, if we wanted to. The cost would be trivial compared to what we spend on say, a few military boondoggles, and the benefits far greater, not just to these folks, but to the economy, as they are able to start businesses or get jobs or volunteer or have kids that go to school, or otherwise be free to contribute to and participate fully in society.
We could do a lot of things, but we don't, not because we can't, but because we don't have the collective will.
Yet.
posted by emjaybee at 1:56 PM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
I don't know that I buy the 71% number. I lived in the Civic Center area with my dog and got to know a lot of homeless folks with dogs. I didn't meet one person from San Francisco. Many had no idea before they arrived how expensive housing would be. A few of the more stable folks with veteran benefits lived in SRO hotels. I met a guy from Ohio and I asked why he didn't go back (where his small pension would go further) and he said he liked the San Francisco weather and hated cold winters.
Another homeless man who slept rough showed me a diamond ring he found in Jefferson park. A few weeks later, he came up to me excitedly and said he'd gotten $2400 for it. I saw that he'd bought a really nice tent and other equipment for "camp" living. Was that the best use of that money? Certainly, $2400 is a tidy sum but it won't get you housing in San Francisco, maybe an SRO room for a few months but then what?
My sympathy and patience for the homeless wavers. I've met lots of folks who wanted or had real lives and fell through the cracks and a lot of other people who liked spending the day drinking and getting high. And needless to say, a HUGE number of the homeless are mentally ill.
Providing housing for 10,000 people at taxpayer expense is a huge ask, especially when most everyone is already struggling to hold onto their own housing. However, the reality is most of the homeless are not capable of getting back on their feet without substantial assistance.
I used to live across the street from the current Twitter headquarters (before Twitter was there) and I paid $1625/mo ($50 of which was for my dog) for a 450 square foot studio. That studio now rents for $2500 to $3100.
My boyfriend gave up his rent-controlled studio apartment in Berkeley to move in with me. We can never break up.
posted by shoesietart at 2:16 PM on December 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
Another homeless man who slept rough showed me a diamond ring he found in Jefferson park. A few weeks later, he came up to me excitedly and said he'd gotten $2400 for it. I saw that he'd bought a really nice tent and other equipment for "camp" living. Was that the best use of that money? Certainly, $2400 is a tidy sum but it won't get you housing in San Francisco, maybe an SRO room for a few months but then what?
My sympathy and patience for the homeless wavers. I've met lots of folks who wanted or had real lives and fell through the cracks and a lot of other people who liked spending the day drinking and getting high. And needless to say, a HUGE number of the homeless are mentally ill.
Providing housing for 10,000 people at taxpayer expense is a huge ask, especially when most everyone is already struggling to hold onto their own housing. However, the reality is most of the homeless are not capable of getting back on their feet without substantial assistance.
I used to live across the street from the current Twitter headquarters (before Twitter was there) and I paid $1625/mo ($50 of which was for my dog) for a 450 square foot studio. That studio now rents for $2500 to $3100.
My boyfriend gave up his rent-controlled studio apartment in Berkeley to move in with me. We can never break up.
posted by shoesietart at 2:16 PM on December 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
we don't have the collective will
It wouldn't even be that hard. My city (Minneapolis) has renovated a number of "artists lofts" buildings; construction is 100% subsidized by the city, the residents just pay operating costs. Many of the residents have relatively high-paying jobs and would definitely not be homeless otherwise (the definition of "artist" is pretty loose). It's economic insanity but it's a politically popular way to save historic buildings in trendy neighborhoods. For the same cost we could easily have built enough housing for all the city's homeless. This kind of thing is common across America.
posted by miyabo at 2:24 PM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
It wouldn't even be that hard. My city (Minneapolis) has renovated a number of "artists lofts" buildings; construction is 100% subsidized by the city, the residents just pay operating costs. Many of the residents have relatively high-paying jobs and would definitely not be homeless otherwise (the definition of "artist" is pretty loose). It's economic insanity but it's a politically popular way to save historic buildings in trendy neighborhoods. For the same cost we could easily have built enough housing for all the city's homeless. This kind of thing is common across America.
posted by miyabo at 2:24 PM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
It's more than housing. Without addressing the mental health and/or substance abuse issues, it'll only mean bringing the problems related to those conditions indoors, making things harder for the property owners and those living in or next to the building housing them.
I really think there can be no long-term solution to homelessness that doesn't include the involuntary institutionalization of the most mentally ill, especially the mentally ill who are violent. The reality is, there are persons whose illness makes them completely unable to care for themselves, and others whose illness makes them too dangerous to live in proximity with others.
posted by Lunaloon at 2:25 PM on December 21, 2017 [13 favorites]
I really think there can be no long-term solution to homelessness that doesn't include the involuntary institutionalization of the most mentally ill, especially the mentally ill who are violent. The reality is, there are persons whose illness makes them completely unable to care for themselves, and others whose illness makes them too dangerous to live in proximity with others.
posted by Lunaloon at 2:25 PM on December 21, 2017 [13 favorites]
I know someone who got divorced, was forced to sell her house at a loss, lost her job, and was forced to live with friends for more than 2 years to get back on her feet. Was she mentally ill? She has a job and her own place now. Did the mental illness go away?
posted by miyabo at 2:30 PM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by miyabo at 2:30 PM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
If you grow up in the countryside, and become homeless for any reason, and you have exhausted the "friend's couches" option, where do you go? The woods? No. You go to a city, because that's where the jobs/drugs/stores/jails/services are. My country mouse neighbors who object to sending our tax money to the cities for homeless relief, are being disingenuous. We already send our homeless to town; it's only fair to send money as well.
A bus ticket might get a country mouse who went to the city due to homelessness, back under a roof in their small home community, briefly. But if the same problems persist, well, if you don't have a home in the countryside, you don't have anything in the countryside. The homeless migrate closer to the other things they need and end up in the city.
So yeah, homelessness is more common in cities. But I think we all need to pitch in.
posted by elizilla at 2:40 PM on December 21, 2017 [13 favorites]
A bus ticket might get a country mouse who went to the city due to homelessness, back under a roof in their small home community, briefly. But if the same problems persist, well, if you don't have a home in the countryside, you don't have anything in the countryside. The homeless migrate closer to the other things they need and end up in the city.
So yeah, homelessness is more common in cities. But I think we all need to pitch in.
posted by elizilla at 2:40 PM on December 21, 2017 [13 favorites]
Lunaloon, the high estimate is that a third of the chronically homeless are seriously mentally ill, a figure which includes major depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder (so only a fraction of those are violent by any definition of the term). Psychiatric institutionalization creates drastic, horrifying risk of human rights abuses, which is why we stopped doing it. Any decision to involuntarily institutionalize the violently mentally ill would be a marginal solution to homelessness with pretty profound human costs. I should say rather that it is already a marginal solution to homelessness with pretty profound human costs; it's absolutely part of our toolbox and sometimes it kills people.
posted by peppercorn at 2:47 PM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by peppercorn at 2:47 PM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
I am friends with a women with some severe mental illness, who lived in a building that housed many such people. I found her very disturbing when I first knew her, but came to realize she was harmless and I tried to do what I could. She has remained disturbing and I can see why strangers are frightened. But I ended up helping her with various things, like assembling IKEA furniture in her apartment. It was quite an ordeal to assemble furniture in a small and very messy space, while she chain smoked and stared at me in her disconcerting way. Her conversation was never comfortable... Anyways, during the two hours or so I was there, a whole series of her neighbors knocked on the door, and were brought in and introduced. Many of them were also disturbing people.
But frankly I thought the building was well set up for this use. The units were small and inexpensively furnished, and had surfaces that would be easy to clean and disinfect even if something frightful happened (and I am sure frightful things did happen there!). It was constructed like an old school or old college dorm or old hospital, with tile and concrete. The walls were solid and the doors substantial; I would not have feared a scary neighbor battering their way in. The front desk was attended by a social worker who paid close attention to who came in and out. I think a housing-first homeless person would be safe there even though they might well have dodgy neighbors, and that it would not be terribly expensive.
Unfortunately in this era of budget cuts and gentrification, the waiting list there was enormous and the whole thing was eventually converted to slightly more expensive "affordable" housing, for seniors instead of mentally ill folks, and my friend was moved to a series of group homes that were bad for her, and is now sick and in a Medicaid nursing home.
We need more of that housing, not less!
posted by elizilla at 3:28 PM on December 21, 2017 [15 favorites]
But frankly I thought the building was well set up for this use. The units were small and inexpensively furnished, and had surfaces that would be easy to clean and disinfect even if something frightful happened (and I am sure frightful things did happen there!). It was constructed like an old school or old college dorm or old hospital, with tile and concrete. The walls were solid and the doors substantial; I would not have feared a scary neighbor battering their way in. The front desk was attended by a social worker who paid close attention to who came in and out. I think a housing-first homeless person would be safe there even though they might well have dodgy neighbors, and that it would not be terribly expensive.
Unfortunately in this era of budget cuts and gentrification, the waiting list there was enormous and the whole thing was eventually converted to slightly more expensive "affordable" housing, for seniors instead of mentally ill folks, and my friend was moved to a series of group homes that were bad for her, and is now sick and in a Medicaid nursing home.
We need more of that housing, not less!
posted by elizilla at 3:28 PM on December 21, 2017 [15 favorites]
This sounds familiar from Orwell's Down And Out In Paris And London.
posted by acb at 4:36 PM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by acb at 4:36 PM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
We do institutionalize the mentally ill just mostly in jail without mental health care or the absolute bare minimum .
So, there is a subset of people with severe mental illness who are what I call travelers-people with delusions to go to specific places or just don't stop moving, and I occasionally run into them in the ER I work in when the local Amtrak station calls the police.
There isn't much to be done, but evaluate if they can be hospitalized (usually not) and send them on their way.
I've been asked countless times for Amtrak/greyhound tickets for people who have no plans but get somewhere (the answer is an unequivocal no. I can't give homeless adults the local 3 dollar local CTA passes much less a ticket out of the city). I also see homeless who ended up here because it's where the ticket ended or Chicago is special is in some way to them.
I haven't met anyone who specifically had stated that they were sent from somewhere else because they were homeless.
I worked in housing first programs for years and there really is a subset set who just can't handle independent living without 24 hour support. It's a small subset, many chronically homeless with patience, compassion and medical care (mental and physical) do great in supportive housing. But for some they struggle so hard and keep going to jail because of their mental illness. And that's what happens, they go to jail.
posted by AlexiaSky at 5:15 PM on December 21, 2017 [10 favorites]
It's been covered in previous homeless threads, but a. Mental illness is exacerbated by never getting rest/being hungry, which means just having food and a safe warm place to live can help, and b. Housing people makes it far easier to offer them services, because you can find and check on them.
People who might pose a danger need more intensive services, obviously. People with addictions may or may not want help kicking them, but they are still better off not on the street.
Yeah it would be expensive, but we could afford it, and we have spent far more for far worse.
posted by emjaybee at 5:16 PM on December 21, 2017 [13 favorites]
People who might pose a danger need more intensive services, obviously. People with addictions may or may not want help kicking them, but they are still better off not on the street.
Yeah it would be expensive, but we could afford it, and we have spent far more for far worse.
posted by emjaybee at 5:16 PM on December 21, 2017 [13 favorites]
Now people are getting pushed into RENTING RVs and Box Trucks as housing on the street. Something needs to change in these high market areas (or higher wages! SOMETHING)
The landlord literally moves your house every day, and then texts you the new location.
RVs are becoming an alternative to high rents in LA
I'm typing this probably 100 or so meters from one of the RVs profiled in the article (to tell the truth, I haven't seen her RV around lately, so she probably had it moved since it was real obvious where she was parking). The thing the article leaves out is that Echo Park (article says Silver Lake, and that's technically true, but this really Echo Park) is probably the perfect mix for people who want to live in the super hip part of town, but also are willing to sleep in a car/RV to be able to afford to do so. Hollywood/Koreatown/Westlake/whatever wouldn't be hip enough to be worth it, you'd get broken into too much anywhere you could park an RV in The Arts District, and someone would probably call the cops in (real) Silver Lake.
The thing is, she didn't have to move from Palmdale/Lancaster (article mentions "desert outside of LA") to one of most desirable parts for of Los Angeles. $45k will get you a house with roommates near Burbank Blvd and Lankershim . But, if you want to go The Thirsty Crow/Little Joy/The Condor every night, but are also willing to sleep in an RV, then why not.
posted by sideshow at 5:38 PM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
The landlord literally moves your house every day, and then texts you the new location.
RVs are becoming an alternative to high rents in LA
I'm typing this probably 100 or so meters from one of the RVs profiled in the article (to tell the truth, I haven't seen her RV around lately, so she probably had it moved since it was real obvious where she was parking). The thing the article leaves out is that Echo Park (article says Silver Lake, and that's technically true, but this really Echo Park) is probably the perfect mix for people who want to live in the super hip part of town, but also are willing to sleep in a car/RV to be able to afford to do so. Hollywood/Koreatown/Westlake/whatever wouldn't be hip enough to be worth it, you'd get broken into too much anywhere you could park an RV in The Arts District, and someone would probably call the cops in (real) Silver Lake.
The thing is, she didn't have to move from Palmdale/Lancaster (article mentions "desert outside of LA") to one of most desirable parts for of Los Angeles. $45k will get you a house with roommates near Burbank Blvd and Lankershim . But, if you want to go The Thirsty Crow/Little Joy/The Condor every night, but are also willing to sleep in an RV, then why not.
posted by sideshow at 5:38 PM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
It's been covered in previous homeless threads, but a. Mental illness is exacerbated by never getting rest/being hungry, which means just having food and a safe warm place to live can help, and b. Housing people makes it far easier to offer them services, because you can find and check on them.
There is some tiny minority of people who are so violent that they should be incarcerated or hospitalized, but I'm not convinced that they represent any large percentage of the homeless population. I really do wish that we (as a society) provided a wide range of assisted housing options, since there are many types of help that people need. If someone wants to sleep rough, I'm ok with them making that choice, but in a just society we would offer help to those who wanted it.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:38 PM on December 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
There is some tiny minority of people who are so violent that they should be incarcerated or hospitalized, but I'm not convinced that they represent any large percentage of the homeless population. I really do wish that we (as a society) provided a wide range of assisted housing options, since there are many types of help that people need. If someone wants to sleep rough, I'm ok with them making that choice, but in a just society we would offer help to those who wanted it.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:38 PM on December 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
Millenials, you're getting played.
I see what you mean, but I kind of also (on behalf of millenials) feel a bit resentful here. Being played always seems to me to have connotations of the victim having been somewhere between naïve and greedy. But millenials in general seem to be pretty acutely aware of how stacked the odds are against them. The job market can be made to provide stable, well paid jobs, the housing market can be made to provide affordable good quality housing, healthcare provision can be made available and affordable to all, all pretty quickly with a bit of sensible strategic regulation and intervention in the market.
And then there will be a high enough ratio of social workers to people needing social workers that the only people who get bussed across the country are those who need it, and who are being helped into a stable situation at the other end. And everyone who needs support to get off the street can get it.
posted by ambrosen at 6:01 PM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
I see what you mean, but I kind of also (on behalf of millenials) feel a bit resentful here. Being played always seems to me to have connotations of the victim having been somewhere between naïve and greedy. But millenials in general seem to be pretty acutely aware of how stacked the odds are against them. The job market can be made to provide stable, well paid jobs, the housing market can be made to provide affordable good quality housing, healthcare provision can be made available and affordable to all, all pretty quickly with a bit of sensible strategic regulation and intervention in the market.
And then there will be a high enough ratio of social workers to people needing social workers that the only people who get bussed across the country are those who need it, and who are being helped into a stable situation at the other end. And everyone who needs support to get off the street can get it.
posted by ambrosen at 6:01 PM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
Two bits of info on homelessness in LA:
1 Mental illness is a big factor, but learning disorders and developmental delays are equally significant. These are NOT people who are going to be employed with incomes to support market-based rents in any part of LA. They will require permanent housing subsidies with attendant case management forever.
2 Street homelessness is VERY expensive for the rest of us. A weekend in the ER because you can’t maintain a medication regimen from your tent, costs more than a year’s rent subsidy. Housing First is cost effective.
In the last program I managed, out of 120 very highly acute (chronic physical and mental conditions, years of homelessness) clients, only four failed to maintain their independent apartments for more than a year. Two got evicted (one back on the street, the other into a managed home) one died and one murdered his neighbor. Bad for the neighbor, but overall pretty effective.
posted by johngumbo at 6:08 PM on December 21, 2017 [17 favorites]
1 Mental illness is a big factor, but learning disorders and developmental delays are equally significant. These are NOT people who are going to be employed with incomes to support market-based rents in any part of LA. They will require permanent housing subsidies with attendant case management forever.
2 Street homelessness is VERY expensive for the rest of us. A weekend in the ER because you can’t maintain a medication regimen from your tent, costs more than a year’s rent subsidy. Housing First is cost effective.
In the last program I managed, out of 120 very highly acute (chronic physical and mental conditions, years of homelessness) clients, only four failed to maintain their independent apartments for more than a year. Two got evicted (one back on the street, the other into a managed home) one died and one murdered his neighbor. Bad for the neighbor, but overall pretty effective.
posted by johngumbo at 6:08 PM on December 21, 2017 [17 favorites]
Johngumbo, the program (a permanent scattered site program with private landlords) i worked for had a much higher drop out rate than that though was still highly successful.
In the five years i worked there, on a caseload of 15 or so (not the only caseworker) i lost 2 to jail, a 2 abandoned their units most likely due to mental illness reasons,
And 3 or 4 to just behavioral uncompliance (getting evicted three times in 2 years for whatever reasons) usally more due to substance use and non payment of rent. I probobly served about 30 to 35 people total, (people move, die, go to nursing homes, transfer caseloads etc) but 8 out of 30 is just a little more than a quarter, so 75 percent of the people we served stayed.
It's not true stats, as this is from memory,. It was truly an amazing program for those it worked for.
posted by AlexiaSky at 8:30 PM on December 21, 2017
In the five years i worked there, on a caseload of 15 or so (not the only caseworker) i lost 2 to jail, a 2 abandoned their units most likely due to mental illness reasons,
And 3 or 4 to just behavioral uncompliance (getting evicted three times in 2 years for whatever reasons) usally more due to substance use and non payment of rent. I probobly served about 30 to 35 people total, (people move, die, go to nursing homes, transfer caseloads etc) but 8 out of 30 is just a little more than a quarter, so 75 percent of the people we served stayed.
It's not true stats, as this is from memory,. It was truly an amazing program for those it worked for.
posted by AlexiaSky at 8:30 PM on December 21, 2017
Lunaloon, the high estimate is that a third of the chronically homeless are seriously mentally ill, a figure which includes major depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder (so only a fraction of those are violent by any definition of the term). Psychiatric institutionalization creates drastic, horrifying risk of human rights abuses, which is why we stopped doing it.
Which is exactly why Lunaloon is correct, insofar as homelessness will remain an elusive problem. Around here(Santa Monica, CA), the most visible and offensive homeless are almost certainly mentally ill. Though not dangerous enough to be forcibly institutionalized. And for whatever reasons, are very persistently and visibly homeless. Persistent as in decades in some cases. A minority of the homeless population or not, they are the face of homelessness: a disturbing and perplexing problem is what they present.
I'm also acquainted with several homeless individuals who do not fit in this category. They are not very visible, nor offensive, and are not likely to raise alarm/concern from people whose paths they happen to cross. These people generally manage to live in vehicles for the most part. I know one was couch surfing for a pretty long time. They are also pretty long term homeless, and for whatever reason, resist the programs/alternatives available. They seem to prefer the freedom of being in their own place, even if that place is on wheels. I can understand that. I suspect mental health issues and/or addiction are significant factors with this group. Regardless, they do not present as desperate cases, nor particularly impaired. Interestingly, getting to know them a bit, some of them appear to have a reliable income stream of some kind. Meager, no doubt, but apparently enough of a lifeline for them to enjoy their particular level of homelessness more on their terms. I do wonder about their long term prospects. There's a small group of older men who've been at it a long time, mostly within a radius of several blocks. I have to say, they've mostly seemed to get more, I dunno, feral, as the years have gone by. I don't think re-integration with society in general is a possibility, not that I think they want it. But this is also a long term homeless problem that really doesn't look "solvable" to me, short of taking drastic measures at their expense.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:18 PM on December 21, 2017
I'm reminded of the story of Geel, in Belgium. It's one of my favorite places I've never been. "Would you take a mentally-ill stranger into your home to live with you like family, possibly for the rest of his life? What if your town had been doing it successfully for 700 years? Welcome to Geel, Belgium."
By the late 1930s, there were almost 4,000 boarders among a native population of 16,000. Across Belgium, the town became famous for its eccentricity and was often the butt of coarse humour (‘Half of Geel is crazy, and the rest is half crazy!’), but in the town itself, normal life was little affected. Local jokes tended to revolve around how frequently locals and boarders were confused, and how hard it was to tell the difference. Boarders were well aware that disruptive public behaviour might result in being sent back ‘inside’; the problem was more commonly the opposite, that they became overly timid for fear of drawing attention to themselves.posted by aniola at 1:45 AM on December 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Just to chime in for a moment and remind everyone that "homeless" does not mean "sleeping on the street." Those are just the ones you see. Yes, many of those seem to be mentally ill or addicted. But when you work, as I do, in urban public schools, you find out that an awful lot of homeless people are children and their families. They are living in shelters, in short term housing, on the living room floors of relatives. The folks you see wrapped in blankets (in Philadelphia, sleeping on steam grates--I was startled to see homeless in tents in Portland, OR) are not the majority.
posted by Peach at 4:16 AM on December 22, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by Peach at 4:16 AM on December 22, 2017 [12 favorites]
Offensive? Feral? Jesus Christ they're people, not animals.
posted by elsietheeel at 11:11 AM on December 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by elsietheeel at 11:11 AM on December 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
The cost would be trivial compared to what we spend on say, a few military boondoggles
The cost would be trivial compared to what we spend on the homeless now, in emergency services and police action aimed at people who are either trying to survive or whose actions would be legal and unremarkable in their own homes.
The problem is the notion that the "undeserving" shouldn't get "handouts," and therefore it's better to spend millions on ER services than have basic health care for everyone, or spend millions on police actions and trials and staffing limited-use highly-restricted homeless centers and installing anti-sleep benches rather than spending much, much less on subsidizing group homes--like dorms--for the vast majority who would thrive with those, and identifying the few who need more specific help and providing that.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:36 AM on December 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
The cost would be trivial compared to what we spend on the homeless now, in emergency services and police action aimed at people who are either trying to survive or whose actions would be legal and unremarkable in their own homes.
The problem is the notion that the "undeserving" shouldn't get "handouts," and therefore it's better to spend millions on ER services than have basic health care for everyone, or spend millions on police actions and trials and staffing limited-use highly-restricted homeless centers and installing anti-sleep benches rather than spending much, much less on subsidizing group homes--like dorms--for the vast majority who would thrive with those, and identifying the few who need more specific help and providing that.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:36 AM on December 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
I see what you mean, but I kind of also (on behalf of millenials) feel a bit resentful here.
Sorry, it should. It's actually super barbed and pokey and meant to provoke someone into being pissed off about it.
Keep in mind that comment was written for reddit, where for the past 5+ years where many/most millennial users I've encountered have been standing on a "Unions are bad!" and "raising minimum wage is bad!" platform.
The amount of pushback I've encountered from millennials about the $15 minimum wage movement in Seattle is really alarming crabs in a bucket territory, because you'll have people working as techs going "Wait, I pretty much make $15 an hour. Why should a McDonald's worker get $15 an hour!? I have student loan debt! That does it! I refuse to tip anyone anywhere, ever!!" (Paraphrased, but accurate.)
Yeah, and I was making $15 an hour in 1993 doing stupid warehouse work that any monkey could do. Places all over town were offering that kind of wage for entry level warehouse grunt work, and the cost of living was less back then. Wages today are complete bullshit, and there's been a race to the bottom for the last 10-15 years even in traditionally corporate office jobs like software devs.
Hell, people were making 100k+ as devs back in the 1990s, too, if not more. Amazon offering 100k today is actually kind of insulting when you look at it through inflation and cost-adjusted glasses,
I feel for millennials and I know they're at the bottom of a giant mountain of bullshit, but I am sincerely resentful that they seem to be refusing to form unions, to collectivize or even think about disobedience like going on strike to protect themselves and the new working class - and that this has damaged wages and collective bargaining in a number of industries, or prevented the formation of desperately needed new kinds of unions, like one for food service industry workers.
I really wish millennials would get mad as hell, stop being so polite and stand up to take their birthright.
posted by loquacious at 12:15 PM on December 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Sorry, it should. It's actually super barbed and pokey and meant to provoke someone into being pissed off about it.
Keep in mind that comment was written for reddit, where for the past 5+ years where many/most millennial users I've encountered have been standing on a "Unions are bad!" and "raising minimum wage is bad!" platform.
The amount of pushback I've encountered from millennials about the $15 minimum wage movement in Seattle is really alarming crabs in a bucket territory, because you'll have people working as techs going "Wait, I pretty much make $15 an hour. Why should a McDonald's worker get $15 an hour!? I have student loan debt! That does it! I refuse to tip anyone anywhere, ever!!" (Paraphrased, but accurate.)
Yeah, and I was making $15 an hour in 1993 doing stupid warehouse work that any monkey could do. Places all over town were offering that kind of wage for entry level warehouse grunt work, and the cost of living was less back then. Wages today are complete bullshit, and there's been a race to the bottom for the last 10-15 years even in traditionally corporate office jobs like software devs.
Hell, people were making 100k+ as devs back in the 1990s, too, if not more. Amazon offering 100k today is actually kind of insulting when you look at it through inflation and cost-adjusted glasses,
I feel for millennials and I know they're at the bottom of a giant mountain of bullshit, but I am sincerely resentful that they seem to be refusing to form unions, to collectivize or even think about disobedience like going on strike to protect themselves and the new working class - and that this has damaged wages and collective bargaining in a number of industries, or prevented the formation of desperately needed new kinds of unions, like one for food service industry workers.
I really wish millennials would get mad as hell, stop being so polite and stand up to take their birthright.
posted by loquacious at 12:15 PM on December 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
I am sincerely resentful that they seem to be refusing to form unions, to collectivize or even think about disobedience like going on strike to protect themselves and the new working class - and that this has damaged wages and collective bargaining in a number of industries, or prevented the formation of desperately needed new kinds of unions, like one for food service industry workers.
You know what? We* are mad as hell, we just turn it inward and get anxious and depressed because we don't want to be homeless because we lost our damn jobs organizing and going on strike. That may have worked in another generation but there are plenty of scabs ready to take my place any second, probably even for cheaper.
*I'm 35, do I still count? Graduated HS in 2000.
posted by fiercecupcake at 12:24 PM on December 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
You know what? We* are mad as hell, we just turn it inward and get anxious and depressed because we don't want to be homeless because we lost our damn jobs organizing and going on strike. That may have worked in another generation but there are plenty of scabs ready to take my place any second, probably even for cheaper.
*I'm 35, do I still count? Graduated HS in 2000.
posted by fiercecupcake at 12:24 PM on December 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
...is what I said instead of the much more concise, two-word reply I would have liked to give.
posted by fiercecupcake at 12:25 PM on December 22, 2017
posted by fiercecupcake at 12:25 PM on December 22, 2017
Just to chime in for a moment and remind everyone that "homeless" does not mean "sleeping on the street."
Re-iterating this, especially in context of some folks experiences and anecdotes in this thread.
The crusty punk kids you see on the streets with dogs (especially on the west coast) may or may not be chronically homeless. A lot of those folks are vagabonds and many of them are there by some combination of choices which can often be summarized as "fuck society and capitalism". Crusty punks are generally called "oogies". These are the homeless youth and young adults you see often in all black, sporting punk or punk-like fashion accessories like studded jackets, patches, wallet chains and the like.
Many are queer runaways from conservative/religious homes. Some more may have mental health issues. Many have addiction problems.
Another highly visible segment on the West Coast goes by the nickname "criddlers" and they sometimes look like oogies, but they're much less organized. I'm not sure of the etymology but criddlers are essentially homeless methamphetamine addicts. These are the folks that steel scrap metal from construction sites, set up bicycle chop shops on sidewalks, burn down RVs making meth on the streets more. These are the folks that are causing huge trash pileups in camps.
I'm objectifying a little, here, but I have yet to meet anything or anyone hungrier, more driven and more terrifying than someone dealing with prolonged meth psychosis. That shit is a real life zombie plague.
Combine these two demographics with the untreated acutely mentally ill and you have 90-99% of the visible homeless population, and 90-99% of its most visible and often complained about problems - trash, crime, theft, open hard drug use and violence.
And these combined and overlapping visible populations are maybe 10% of the actual homeless population here on the West Coast. You don't really see the rest of the population, because they look and behave like everyone else.
They spend most of their time and energy trying very hard to blend in, not be noticed, not get hassled by the cops, not get kicked out of of the coffee shop or library where they've been parked all day "working" or "studying" and just trying to pass the time. These people sleep in their cars, friends couches, hidden on college campuses. They've figured out how to take showers and do laundry, and they're desperate to not be counted or acknowledged as homeless at all.
So when people complain about having a homeless shelter or affordable housing near them, I can't help but think "But that could easily be you."
posted by loquacious at 12:42 PM on December 22, 2017 [8 favorites]
Re-iterating this, especially in context of some folks experiences and anecdotes in this thread.
The crusty punk kids you see on the streets with dogs (especially on the west coast) may or may not be chronically homeless. A lot of those folks are vagabonds and many of them are there by some combination of choices which can often be summarized as "fuck society and capitalism". Crusty punks are generally called "oogies". These are the homeless youth and young adults you see often in all black, sporting punk or punk-like fashion accessories like studded jackets, patches, wallet chains and the like.
Many are queer runaways from conservative/religious homes. Some more may have mental health issues. Many have addiction problems.
Another highly visible segment on the West Coast goes by the nickname "criddlers" and they sometimes look like oogies, but they're much less organized. I'm not sure of the etymology but criddlers are essentially homeless methamphetamine addicts. These are the folks that steel scrap metal from construction sites, set up bicycle chop shops on sidewalks, burn down RVs making meth on the streets more. These are the folks that are causing huge trash pileups in camps.
I'm objectifying a little, here, but I have yet to meet anything or anyone hungrier, more driven and more terrifying than someone dealing with prolonged meth psychosis. That shit is a real life zombie plague.
Combine these two demographics with the untreated acutely mentally ill and you have 90-99% of the visible homeless population, and 90-99% of its most visible and often complained about problems - trash, crime, theft, open hard drug use and violence.
And these combined and overlapping visible populations are maybe 10% of the actual homeless population here on the West Coast. You don't really see the rest of the population, because they look and behave like everyone else.
They spend most of their time and energy trying very hard to blend in, not be noticed, not get hassled by the cops, not get kicked out of of the coffee shop or library where they've been parked all day "working" or "studying" and just trying to pass the time. These people sleep in their cars, friends couches, hidden on college campuses. They've figured out how to take showers and do laundry, and they're desperate to not be counted or acknowledged as homeless at all.
So when people complain about having a homeless shelter or affordable housing near them, I can't help but think "But that could easily be you."
posted by loquacious at 12:42 PM on December 22, 2017 [8 favorites]
...is what I said instead of the much more concise, two-word reply I would have liked to give.
You can swear here, and "fuck you!" is probably an appropriate response though the mods would probably prefer not. But this is the kind of anger I actually want to hear from millennials. Tell me why I'm wrong and why every other attempt to collectivize or unionize didn't involve the risk of ruin and ending up homeless? Or dead?
Why is your (collective) situation different or riskier?
Again, keep in mind I was writing for a general audience on reddit, and the specific and vocal anti-union segment I'm aiming that at probably doesn't readily map to MetaFilter, which leans much farther left.
posted by loquacious at 12:51 PM on December 22, 2017
You can swear here, and "fuck you!" is probably an appropriate response though the mods would probably prefer not. But this is the kind of anger I actually want to hear from millennials. Tell me why I'm wrong and why every other attempt to collectivize or unionize didn't involve the risk of ruin and ending up homeless? Or dead?
Why is your (collective) situation different or riskier?
Again, keep in mind I was writing for a general audience on reddit, and the specific and vocal anti-union segment I'm aiming that at probably doesn't readily map to MetaFilter, which leans much farther left.
posted by loquacious at 12:51 PM on December 22, 2017
Why is your (collective) situation different or riskier?
Not a millenial (gen-xer), but I may know some of this.
It's much, much harder to strike when you don't work for the same employer despite working at the same location. Offices and a lot of other places have networks of contractors now; the company that signs your check is not the one that assigns you tasks.
While many people know that discussing wages is legal, it's still often suppressed - and it's less meaningful, because you have no idea how much the staffing company is taking on top of your wages.
Wages are kept low their entire working lives so there's no savings buildup, no PTO available; there's zero cushion if they start to strike - they're immediately also facing rent and bills they can't pay. And their entire social community is likely to have the same issue; there's no support network to fall back on for a couple of weeks while fighting for better working conditions.
And there's damn little accurate information about how unions work, so they wouldn't know where to start, even if they could deal with trying to coordinate across their several different staffing employers and the "annoy a manager and you're fired tomorrow" working conditions. They just know that every employer expects them to change jobs every 2-4 years - that's about the only way to get a raise - so they're considered entirely expendable.
So what you said may have come across as, "why don't you just form a union?" which, even to left-leaning people, comes across like any other "why don't you just..." question.
Tying it back to the thread: A whole lot of them are homeless, of the couch-crashing variety, or the borderline-homeless of living with a boyfriend/girlfriend whose landlord doesn't technically allow that but isn't paying attention, or living with parents - not homeless yet - knowing that one sharp argument there means homelessness, and that includes "making noise about starting a union, my god, kid, do you think you work in a coal mine?"
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:05 PM on December 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
Not a millenial (gen-xer), but I may know some of this.
It's much, much harder to strike when you don't work for the same employer despite working at the same location. Offices and a lot of other places have networks of contractors now; the company that signs your check is not the one that assigns you tasks.
While many people know that discussing wages is legal, it's still often suppressed - and it's less meaningful, because you have no idea how much the staffing company is taking on top of your wages.
Wages are kept low their entire working lives so there's no savings buildup, no PTO available; there's zero cushion if they start to strike - they're immediately also facing rent and bills they can't pay. And their entire social community is likely to have the same issue; there's no support network to fall back on for a couple of weeks while fighting for better working conditions.
And there's damn little accurate information about how unions work, so they wouldn't know where to start, even if they could deal with trying to coordinate across their several different staffing employers and the "annoy a manager and you're fired tomorrow" working conditions. They just know that every employer expects them to change jobs every 2-4 years - that's about the only way to get a raise - so they're considered entirely expendable.
So what you said may have come across as, "why don't you just form a union?" which, even to left-leaning people, comes across like any other "why don't you just..." question.
Tying it back to the thread: A whole lot of them are homeless, of the couch-crashing variety, or the borderline-homeless of living with a boyfriend/girlfriend whose landlord doesn't technically allow that but isn't paying attention, or living with parents - not homeless yet - knowing that one sharp argument there means homelessness, and that includes "making noise about starting a union, my god, kid, do you think you work in a coal mine?"
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:05 PM on December 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
So what you said may have come across as, "why don't you just form a union?" which, even to left-leaning people, comes across like any other "why don't you just..." question.
Sure, and I totally get and accept this, and this part.
The part that's sticking in my craw is the very vocal pushback to the very idea of unions at all, and minimum wage cost of living hikes - especially from the younger tech crowd. Or even trying to talk about collective bargaining. I'm not talking about responses like yours that make sense, but responses like "Fuck unions. They're just organized crime and communists."
Or even talking about public health or housing for the homeless, because I'm also hearing a lot of defeatism and nihilism along the lines of "Why should we house junkies? Let 'em die!"
It's really disheartening to hear this kind of pushback, and what I feel is an unwillingness to even consider fighting at all and taking those risks.
posted by loquacious at 4:24 PM on December 22, 2017
Sure, and I totally get and accept this, and this part.
The part that's sticking in my craw is the very vocal pushback to the very idea of unions at all, and minimum wage cost of living hikes - especially from the younger tech crowd. Or even trying to talk about collective bargaining. I'm not talking about responses like yours that make sense, but responses like "Fuck unions. They're just organized crime and communists."
Or even talking about public health or housing for the homeless, because I'm also hearing a lot of defeatism and nihilism along the lines of "Why should we house junkies? Let 'em die!"
It's really disheartening to hear this kind of pushback, and what I feel is an unwillingness to even consider fighting at all and taking those risks.
posted by loquacious at 4:24 PM on December 22, 2017
very vocal pushback to the very idea of unions at all, and minimum wage cost of living hikes - especially from the younger tech crowd
Are those crowds overwhelmingly white and male?
what I feel is an unwillingness to even consider fighting at all and taking those risks.
You have to believe you have a safety net to take risks. If you've been raised with the notion of "your only security is what you make for yourself," and that's what you see all around you, you're not going to trust that a nebulous "something" is going to prevent you from being broke, homeless, and addicted if you don't stay focused on maximizing what benefits you can get.
And in looking for causes for that, it's easy to believe "junkies are draining the resources that should be there to help me," because it doesn't look like rich white dudes are draining those resources - after all, they're not in line in front of you at the shelter or the free grocery handout place.
You can't get the perspective to understand that without some breathing room, though, which is how totalitarian regimes keep the underclass in oppression. When you're struggling not to drown, you're not going to spend any time discussing better boat design or iceberg detection methods.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 4:35 PM on December 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Are those crowds overwhelmingly white and male?
what I feel is an unwillingness to even consider fighting at all and taking those risks.
You have to believe you have a safety net to take risks. If you've been raised with the notion of "your only security is what you make for yourself," and that's what you see all around you, you're not going to trust that a nebulous "something" is going to prevent you from being broke, homeless, and addicted if you don't stay focused on maximizing what benefits you can get.
And in looking for causes for that, it's easy to believe "junkies are draining the resources that should be there to help me," because it doesn't look like rich white dudes are draining those resources - after all, they're not in line in front of you at the shelter or the free grocery handout place.
You can't get the perspective to understand that without some breathing room, though, which is how totalitarian regimes keep the underclass in oppression. When you're struggling not to drown, you're not going to spend any time discussing better boat design or iceberg detection methods.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 4:35 PM on December 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
> I see what you mean, but I kind of also (on behalf of millenials) feel a bit resentful here.
Sorry, it should. It's actually super barbed and pokey and meant to provoke someone into being pissed off about it.
You're absolutely right. And I always thought that the fact I earned £15 an hour in 2001 and £15 an hour today was solely about my life and its constantly thwarted ambitions, but a lot of it's about a failed society, too.
posted by ambrosen at 5:34 PM on December 22, 2017
Sorry, it should. It's actually super barbed and pokey and meant to provoke someone into being pissed off about it.
You're absolutely right. And I always thought that the fact I earned £15 an hour in 2001 and £15 an hour today was solely about my life and its constantly thwarted ambitions, but a lot of it's about a failed society, too.
posted by ambrosen at 5:34 PM on December 22, 2017
You have to believe you have a safety net to take risks. If you've been raised with the notion of "your only security is what you make for yourself,"
I'm certainly not going to stand here and demand that millennials die for unions. There are structural issues in today's workplace (as well as some unfavorable laws) that make old-school collective action more challenging to organize. But I'm just gobsmacked that any educated American person could be under the impression that early unionists had such things as safety nets and breathing room and cushions that made it possible for them to comfortably take the risk of acting collectively. The workers at the mines and mills and factories were often raised and lived in conditions degraded almost beyond the imaginable. When they went on strike, their bosses brought in armed men to shoot them. You think miners in West Virginia in the early 1920s had safety nets? They didn't even have access to food stamps!
posted by praemunire at 10:15 PM on December 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
I'm certainly not going to stand here and demand that millennials die for unions. There are structural issues in today's workplace (as well as some unfavorable laws) that make old-school collective action more challenging to organize. But I'm just gobsmacked that any educated American person could be under the impression that early unionists had such things as safety nets and breathing room and cushions that made it possible for them to comfortably take the risk of acting collectively. The workers at the mines and mills and factories were often raised and lived in conditions degraded almost beyond the imaginable. When they went on strike, their bosses brought in armed men to shoot them. You think miners in West Virginia in the early 1920s had safety nets? They didn't even have access to food stamps!
posted by praemunire at 10:15 PM on December 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
I'm just gobsmacked that any educated American person could be under the impression that early unionists had such things as safety nets and breathing room
They often had community resilience that's missing today. Much of it was focused through churches; some was through extended families. They didn't have today's resources, but they were connected to the people they worked with, and to others in their nearby area.
They didn't have protection from their bosses, but they had access to communities that millennials don't have, of the kind that lets strikes and union activism begin. You have to talk with your coworkers to get that started. You have to belong to a culture where that's a normal way to build social ties.
Many companies today, especially in urban areas, strive to keep employee groups fragmented. And of course, our communities are fragmented as well; your physical neighbors are not likely to be the people you chat with after work. This ties back to the homelessness problems - if you lose your job, your coworkers barely notice, and they likely never see you again. If you become homeless, your neighbors won't notice.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 1:39 AM on December 23, 2017 [3 favorites]
They often had community resilience that's missing today. Much of it was focused through churches; some was through extended families. They didn't have today's resources, but they were connected to the people they worked with, and to others in their nearby area.
They didn't have protection from their bosses, but they had access to communities that millennials don't have, of the kind that lets strikes and union activism begin. You have to talk with your coworkers to get that started. You have to belong to a culture where that's a normal way to build social ties.
Many companies today, especially in urban areas, strive to keep employee groups fragmented. And of course, our communities are fragmented as well; your physical neighbors are not likely to be the people you chat with after work. This ties back to the homelessness problems - if you lose your job, your coworkers barely notice, and they likely never see you again. If you become homeless, your neighbors won't notice.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 1:39 AM on December 23, 2017 [3 favorites]
Just a few more stats on San Francisco. For six years around 2010-2016, San Francisco added over 100,000 jobs and built fewer than 16,000 housing units. Rents jumped 43 percent from 2007 to 2017 (per the first link in this comment). So I'm not surprised at stats like 71 percent of the homeless became homeless in the city. Obviously supply-side, "just build more housing" solutions are oversimplistic, especially when combined with deregulation as the strategy for making that happen, so that's not what I'm saying. But yeah, efforts to streamline the permitting process (in reasonable ways), make sure the permit-review departments are staffed up, and so forth probably wouldn't hurt.
posted by salvia at 8:03 AM on December 23, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by salvia at 8:03 AM on December 23, 2017 [2 favorites]
« Older Erykah Badu & The Roots X Fela Kuti | First J20 defendants not guilty! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by miyabo at 10:32 AM on December 21, 2017 [17 favorites]