Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gregorydgraham t1_iwfcw2g wrote

Reply to comment by SerendipitySue in Salt Lake City's city council voted in favor of a project to build a small community of tiny homes for people experiencing chronic homelessness! by Taintastic

The secret sauce is not having stupid restrictions and accepting that some unsightly things will occur

27

FeelDeAssTyson t1_iwfdas7 wrote

Stupid as in staying sober? Don't the staff and specialists who work there deserve a safe working environment?

38

gregorydgraham t1_iwfg7t9 wrote

Yep, its stupid to demand people with problems fix their problems BEFORE you offer support for their problems

49

Zergzapper t1_iwfi6j3 wrote

And the Finn's proved it, housing first assistance is incredibly helpful, imagine trying to get clean when every night you are sleeping in a different place where it's not really safe well how bout you take a drink or a hit and now that problem is much less stressful. It's literally keeping them using just to keep them from a stress breakdown on the street which is of course also not a good mental health solution. You get people off the street, an address to have mail and checks sent to, a place with a locking front door, they immediately feel safer and those stressors are no longer there and no it's easier to.get them help.

30

Northstar1989 t1_iwfoiv8 wrote

>imagine trying to get clean when every night you are sleeping in a different place where it's not really safe

Exactly this.

Asking homeless people with addictions to be completely, 100% clean for an entire month before providing them housing is horribly unrealistic, and grounded in a lack of empathy or understanding of what these peoples' experiences are like...

18

Vyzantinist t1_iwg9ebt wrote

> imagine trying to get clean when every night you are sleeping in a different place where it's not really safe well how bout you take a drink or a hit and now that problem is much less stressful. It's literally keeping them using just to keep them from a stress breakdown on the street which is of course also not a good mental health solution.

This so much. Normies really don't know how bleak and soul-crushing homelessness is. You'd have to be a lottery-odds level of person to get and/or stay sober when you're in that environment.

8

corsicanguppy t1_iwfj9yh wrote

> fix their problems BEFORE you offer support for their problems

Alcohol and homelessness are comorbid and complex but not the same problems; and they require separate, layered solutions.

7

Northstar1989 t1_iwfoe7f wrote

>they require separate, layered solutions.

Solutions which are extremely, extremely difficult to provide in a sufficiently reliable manner while a person is still living on the streets or in shelters.

13

gregorydgraham t1_iwfpmi6 wrote

Oh no! Things are hard! Guess we’ll just leave them too die

/s for the eradication of doubt

3

Northstar1989 t1_iwfob1s wrote

>Stupid as in staying sober?

Stupid because it's incredibly difficult for someone struggling with addiction to BECOME (not "stay" as you misleadingly and falsely claim) sober while out on the streets.

Experience proves it's extremely difficult for an addict to become sober even when they have never been homeless. Doing it while still living on the streets, for an entire month (not some more realistic, reasonable requirement, like a few days) is nigh-impossible.

Asking for near-impossible things as a prerequisite to providing someone help is wishful thinking at best, and malice fueled by resentment and pride at worst...

33

g_cheeks t1_iwfys0e wrote

Much better for them to be in a program that they must participate in while being homed. Having a safe place to sleep and your own space makes a HUGE difference and will assist with many of the occupants progression of getting back on their feet

13

Northstar1989 t1_iwjbp2e wrote

Exactly.

Make participation mandatory, but don't make it a prerequisite to get off the streets.

1

Ryan7456 t1_iwfz63d wrote

Because every person who isn't sober is a violent psychopath.

0

SerendipitySue t1_iwfj4bk wrote

There are safety concerns for the other resident and staff and also the very facililities. Not unsightly..but dangerous.

So in Albuquerque they are selective. They also found some that qualified declined housing when they found it included participation in social services and minimal worl cleaning up the facilities. Last I read, they did get a few residents who were overjoyed.

The alburqerque project has no fed funding, so they could experiment with this model. As best as i recall.

18

corsicanguppy t1_iwfj6mp wrote

I don't think no restrictions worked well in the past. They may work better in tiny homes which are fully detached and have that added noise barrier of no shared walls, but that may be rare and doesn't seem to be definitely the case here.

1

gregorydgraham t1_iwfpig8 wrote

“I don’t think” - this is weak, you need to pump it up with “only an idiot thinks”

“Worked well” - this is an obvious weasel word (albeit a compound one), avoid slipperiness with “worked at all”.

“They may work better” - this is both weak and weaselly. Try “they only ever work”

“But that may be rare and doesn’t seem to be definitely the case here” - Ay caramba! Do you kiss your girlfriend with those lips? Even “but I don’t think so” would’ve been better

−17