A lot of homeless people choose to be homeless. I remember I was talking to a homeless in downtown Los Angeles and he told me he used to be a housing contractor and was a millionaire. He said he preferred the street because he likes the drugs and likes to harass women with impunity. I was also told by other homeless that they don’t like the housing projects and prefer being outside.
Edit: you can downvote me all you want but this is my experience. Sure there are many that want to be in homes but they also want no strings attached honestly for free like if they are babies.
That sounds like an excuse for him. He is a drug addict, he doesn’t really have a choice.
First you get people of the streets, then you give them treatment for drugs.
People in high stress situations are far more likely to get and stay addicted.
Could also just be the fact that those housing projects aren’t well-maintained or well-run. A lot of homeless people don’t like places like that because they’re just one step removed from a slum. I know the Section 8 housing in my city is generally pretty shitty, and a well-kept tent would be more comfortable - to say nothing of landlords looking for any excuse to get rid of you or calling the police at the drop of a hat.
Let’s assume that’s the case. What’s wrong with providing an option to the homeless (shitty housing projects that are as bad as the streets or even worse don’t count as a proper option)?
… imagine USA providing sufficient housing (or any infrastructure and safety nets really)? Lul. There were successful efforts against it actually, according to copious amount of news & practices that have normalised working class living on the street somehow.
NIMBY. The real culprit is the housing crisis. Build more homes, reduce prices of homes and people can stay. You can’t just make shelters and hope these people get on their 2 feet if everyone is struggling.
As for the choice thing, I was being a bit hyperbolic but there are some people who really do choose to be outside of a shelter. These are either addicted or mentally unstable people.
Oh, yes, ofc, basically all EU countries do that to divergent extend (mostly in term of non-profit housing), it keeps the supply part of the market in check not only by increasing supply, but also by not being incectivized by hiking rents just because they can.
Afaik US does or did that too, but I guess was always lobbied against.
The “hyperbole” - it’s like mentioning some people would actually like to die in context of defunding hospitals or starting a war.
They aren’t forced to take it, or get kicked out for being violent for example. Now don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have these programs and offer it to all, but it does mean you’ll still have some who will sleep rough unless you start doing forced institutionalization.
Like it or not that means a bit of hostile architecture is still needed even if you’ve done everything else right to keep these bits of public infrastructure clean/safe/available for that public it’s meant for.
Im just guessing, but probably by seeing a comment about millionaire junky living on the street & how homeless actually like that … right under a post about solving homelessness (like basically all rich countries do). And also in a time with record homelessness in all major US cities prob not seen since the previous 20s.
A lot of homeless people choose to be homeless. I remember I was talking to a homeless in downtown Los Angeles and he told me he used to be a housing contractor and was a millionaire. He said he preferred the street because he likes the drugs and likes to harass women with impunity. I was also told by other homeless that they don’t like the housing projects and prefer being outside.
Edit: you can downvote me all you want but this is my experience. Sure there are many that want to be in homes but they also want no strings attached honestly for free like if they are babies.
That sounds like an excuse for him. He is a drug addict, he doesn’t really have a choice. First you get people of the streets, then you give them treatment for drugs. People in high stress situations are far more likely to get and stay addicted.
High level mom energy. If these people want to live their lives this way you should let them.
Also in Finland’s case - they provide apartments, not prisons, nobody is being sentenced to having an apartment.
Ok great, let me know when Finland becomes the US so we can compare the 2 populations.
… comparing humans to humans?
Humans 🤢🤮
Could also just be the fact that those housing projects aren’t well-maintained or well-run. A lot of homeless people don’t like places like that because they’re just one step removed from a slum. I know the Section 8 housing in my city is generally pretty shitty, and a well-kept tent would be more comfortable - to say nothing of landlords looking for any excuse to get rid of you or calling the police at the drop of a hat.
Let’s assume that’s the case. What’s wrong with providing an option to the homeless (shitty housing projects that are as bad as the streets or even worse don’t count as a proper option)?
You think these people aren’t offered housing and assistance? You seem to not understand the situation.
Clearly the housing and assistance offered isn’t sufficient.
… imagine USA providing sufficient housing (or any infrastructure and safety nets really)? Lul. There were successful efforts against it actually, according to copious amount of news & practices that have normalised working class living on the street somehow.
NIMBY. The real culprit is the housing crisis. Build more homes, reduce prices of homes and people can stay. You can’t just make shelters and hope these people get on their 2 feet if everyone is struggling.
As for the choice thing, I was being a bit hyperbolic but there are some people who really do choose to be outside of a shelter. These are either addicted or mentally unstable people.
Oh, yes, ofc, basically all EU countries do that to divergent extend (mostly in term of non-profit housing), it keeps the supply part of the market in check not only by increasing supply, but also by not being incectivized by hiking rents just because they can.
Afaik US does or did that too, but I guess was always lobbied against.
The “hyperbole” - it’s like mentioning some people would actually like to die in context of defunding hospitals or starting a war.
They aren’t forced to take it, or get kicked out for being violent for example. Now don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have these programs and offer it to all, but it does mean you’ll still have some who will sleep rough unless you start doing forced institutionalization.
Like it or not that means a bit of hostile architecture is still needed even if you’ve done everything else right to keep these bits of public infrastructure clean/safe/available for that public it’s meant for.
Bootlicker spotted 🤣
Xddddddddddd hahahahha hohohohoho heeheheheheheh
How did you even come up with that conclusion?
Im just guessing, but probably by seeing a comment about millionaire junky living on the street & how homeless actually like that … right under a post about solving homelessness (like basically all rich countries do). And also in a time with record homelessness in all major US cities prob not seen since the previous 20s.
Thanks. I initially thought OP’s comment was purely anecdotal but now I’m starting to second guess that…
Sounds like coping mechanism to me