Homeless Folks

[Vesayen]

I am unsure of that, our society tends to take care of the insane.... it is however unquestionable that sane people have the right to be homeless-we would undoutably end up throwing some of them away too.

NOT a good idea-this is one hell of a slippery social engineering slope.

[DanS]

Societies the world over lock up their insane people in asylums. That's their way of "taking care" of insane people. But we don't, unless they are violent. Hence lots of insane homeless people in an otherwise very wealthy society.

[Vesayen]

Ah, I was unsure how we treat them, actually.

The libretarian in me likes that but the concerned social activist wishes we could take care of the disenfranchised....

[Flubber]

Originally posted by General Ludd




Not all homeless people, long-term or short-term, are addicts.

Then I'll say it ..

Please keep up-- I specifically asked kid not to make the claim that oerdin is saying that " ALL homeless are anything" because as I said before there are many many types of homeless and oerdin ahs likewise said this

But addicts and people with marginal mental abilities do make a large portion of the homeless-- I don't think that can be disputed

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS
I'm sympathetic to Oerdin's view as the only way to get rid of this kind of homelessness, but for me it comes down to the fact that the homeless have just as much right to the street as I do. Obviously, if somebody's doing the equivalent of pitching a tent, then that's another kettle of fish. Further, if there are legitimate public health issues, then that can override the right of the homeless. Also, aggressive panhandling is not OK.

I agree completely. same rights to the parks as everyone else.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

1/3 of homeless are war veterans with mental disabilities. you can bet there will be a lot more when the war in iraq is over

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Some of you are neglecting the fact that SANE people have the right to be homeless, if they wish to be.

How do you distinguish between people who are homeless and not mentally deficient?

very true. There are some very mentally competent people that are homeless due to addiction, illness or simply economic circumstances.

Thats why combatting homelessness has to look at all the causes. the economic ones are easiest in a sense since money ALONE can fix their problems if they are competent and employable.

The addicts and mentally ill are tougher since in neither case can anyone outside the person fix their problems for them. Considerig the mentally ill there are ranges from perople with severe delusions to those that are simply developmentally delayed. Some form of assisted living might be most appropriate for them, ranging from mentall hospitals to those who can get by pretty well with just a bit of mentoring. Addicts are tough sicne nothing works for as long as they are in the grips of a severe addiction

[Flubber]

Originally posted by General Ludd


And you didn't answer why poorer addicts should be given a hard time where other's are not. It's alright for somone with a house to spend all his money on booze, but not for a street person to - why?

I don't care where either spend their money if I'm not being asked to take care of them and they are law abiding. I treat them totally equally.

I don't care if the person taking a dump on the childrens playpark is a millionare or penniless, its not acceptable. I wouldn't hassle one more than another.

I only care that the homeless spends their money on booze if we are being asked to pony up more money for their care.

[Mr. Harley]

Che largely has the history correct, the current situation with the homeless mentally ill was a hideous convergence of conservative, libetarian, and liberal thought. The libetarian ideal was the fact that is they dd not constitute a direct risk to others, they should have a right not to be institutionalized. The conservatives realized that mental institutions were hideously expensively, and happily took the tax savings. Liberals largely agreed with the libetarian ideal, except it had to do with the rights of the mentally ill (versus generic rights, same result, different rationale) and then said they would put the saved money into community support services.

What happened was that the money that had gone into the mental institutions got diverted into more convenient pet projects of the politiicans, and substantially less money was being spent. In addition, the criteria was rights versus competency, and many of the released individuals were never, and will never, be competent to manage their own lives. As I say about my little girl's godmother's moderately autistic brother - he is just competent enough to be homeless.

The cost of assisted living for the mentally ill and handicapped who are unable to manage their own lives is expensive. Many voters who don't want "those people" cluttering their sidewalks, urinating and defecating in public areas, walking around being strange, weird, or belligerant, are not willing to pay increased taxes to deal with these individuals.

There are code words to deal with the mentally ill, and make excuses to avoid the cost of comprehensive treatment. Some of the mentally ill are drug addicts, as they attempt to self-medicate (even though they could not explain it in those words), or are addicts because, for a variety of reasons, it is both much easier for them to fall into that trap, and much harder for them to get out of it. Then it's not "helping the mentally ill" but it becomes "handouts for addicts" ignoring the overlap in the populations.

Elimating waste and fraud will not free up sufficient funds to deal with these issues. A comprehensive plan akin to Oerdin's is what works, though my personal choice is that you use laws on public defecation and squatting versus homelessness and vagrancy (it takes longer but there is a more legitimate public interest IMHO). Giving them money, as both Oerdin and Flubber rightfully pont out, does not work. As I've mentioned, they are not competent to manage their own affairs, and routinely get victimized and the money pissed away, even when no substance abuse occurs.

Properly maintaining the mentally ill outside of institutions takes money and that means somebody has to pay. As in taxpayers. As in who was the last politician to get elected pushing for higher taxes to solve the homelessness problem in the US? For the most part, US voters are spoiled brats - they want to "deal with the problem" on the cheap, as long it is not "their" problem. As long as that ethos rules in the US, then this problem will remain (I cannot speak on the Canadian side of things, I don't know your personal right/budgetary history/political system well enough to discuss how those interact up there).

[Meticulous Man]

http://costofwar.com/index-public-housing.html

[Flubber]

Good post Shawnmmcc.

I don't know the history for the mentally ill but we do have a similar "rights" based approach where we seem to go out of our way to protect a person's right to be miserable and impoverished in situations where their competency is so marginal that any other result is improbable without significant supports.

Add to that the generally stronger social safety net and free healthcare means that our homeless should be better off than your homeless ( wow thats a weird statement to express). Unfortunately, many of the worst off do not avail themselves of healthcare nor collect their social assistence money

[Flubber]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
The cost of assisted living for the mentally ill and handicapped who are unable to manage their own lives is expensive. Many voters who don't want "those people" cluttering their sidewalks, urinating and defecating in public areas, walking around being strange, weird, or belligerant, are not willing to pay increased taxes to deal with these individuals.

There's the rub-- I'm living in a rich province with a large budget surplus and debt free in a country with an even larger surplus (although large debt) so taxes wouldn't have to increase to deal better with this issue. But I just don't think that anyone is pushing this as an agenda item and in a world where squeaky wheels get the grease, there doesn't seem to be anyone with major clout really concerned.

I do know that I would oppose more shelters here. Our recent experience here has shown that more and better shelters here just increases the number of homeless in the area. Plus it is just a stop-gap anyway.

But money for more assisted living situations can be money well spent IMHO. Personally I think government should see itself as having a duty to provide this option to the mentally ill. I believe that with some mentoring and support, there are a number of the developmentally delayed or mentally ill that could in time transition into more independent lifestyles.

Addictions I have a tougher time with. I know that many of those folks struggle with mental illness so i wrestle with how much is personal responsibility versus how much is a problem needing treatment. Definitely have available treatment and counselling. ... and perhaps giving addicts a ahrd time when they exhibit unacceptable behaviors is a good idea. If thhere are negative consequences for certain behaviors, even the most drug-addled person will start to catch on and try to find different behaviors

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
As I recall (hazily), che is right that the cuts happened at roughly the same time as the court decision. Obviously, if people are leaving your asylum, then your asylum will be shut down.

It went a bit beyond that. Before the cuts, it was possible for non-violent to have voluntary long term stays until (if) they were capable of taking care of themselves. After the cuts, at least in Illinois, 21 days became the max. That, of course, is not nearly enough time to deal with mental illness. This means that you have people rotating in and out of mental institutions and the street.

It would have been nice if the funding had stayed the same, so that a higher quality of care could have been offered to those who wanted to get help. Better funding and oversight would have reduced a lot of the abuse of the mentally ill, I think. Even today, these places are chronically understaffed, and generally some of the worst sorts of people work with the mentally ill (along with some of the most saintly people I've ever met).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
I do know that I would oppose more shelters here. Our recent experience here has shown that more and better shelters here just increases the number of homeless in the area.

But it decreases the amount of homeless in other areas.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


But it decreases the amount of homeless in other areas.

Exactly-- how exactly does moving the problem from one place to another help anybody ??