Beer + Bums = Free Housing.
October 15, 2002 11:23 AM Subscribe
Beer + Bums = Free Housing. Being a bum isn't easy. You have to panhandle lots of money, go Dumpster diving for treasure and hit up the friendly neighborhood liquor store a few times a day. Luckily, Seattle is finally recognizing how tough it is to bum for booze. Fat Tire with that free apartment, anyone? (Via The Raven)
once it had pressed all the populist buttons, the article you got the link from concluded with: On the other hand, this does get the undesirables off the street, puts limited social services within reach, helps city services target the needy, and similar programs have been shown to work (i.e., not turn out disasterously). Here's something to consider: The estimated cost of putting up 75 of these "gentlemen of the road" will run about $650,000 annually, "a fraction of the amount spent on them currently via police, court, ambulance and emergency-room services." We'll keep on eye on this project and see how it pans out. Prevention is always cheaper than the cure.
did you miss that bit, or just think mindead populism was the way to go with the fpp?
posted by andrew cooke at 11:30 AM on October 15, 2002
did you miss that bit, or just think mindead populism was the way to go with the fpp?
posted by andrew cooke at 11:30 AM on October 15, 2002
i think i've just invented a new word.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:31 AM on October 15, 2002
posted by andrew cooke at 11:31 AM on October 15, 2002
Well I'm movin on up (movin on up) to the East side...
posted by foxyfoxinsox at 11:32 AM on October 15, 2002
posted by foxyfoxinsox at 11:32 AM on October 15, 2002
Should we listen to NPR?, and Should we listen to the homeless? The answers are, "no."
Ah, i'll be reading these for a bit. Brad Edmonds is a fun guy!
posted by robself at 11:37 AM on October 15, 2002
Ah, i'll be reading these for a bit. Brad Edmonds is a fun guy!
posted by robself at 11:37 AM on October 15, 2002
Andrew-
Yeah I got that bit as well. So it's cheaper to house them? Fine ... but like Brad Edmonds says, "don't feed the animals!" :-) Also, it kinda tanks property values. Just a little bit.
"And this place over here, opposite your new apartment, is our bum housing! You should bring your friends and visit them! After all, they can have guests!"
posted by Happydaz at 11:51 AM on October 15, 2002
Yeah I got that bit as well. So it's cheaper to house them? Fine ... but like Brad Edmonds says, "don't feed the animals!" :-) Also, it kinda tanks property values. Just a little bit.
"And this place over here, opposite your new apartment, is our bum housing! You should bring your friends and visit them! After all, they can have guests!"
posted by Happydaz at 11:51 AM on October 15, 2002
While I think that this is a good idea SOMEPLACE, I have to agree with the guy in the article who suggested an industrial area.
Not only will this hurt businesses (and therefore their employees), it will also cause problems for Capitol Hill, the residential neighborhood just over the bridge from the proposed location.
I used to live near the Wintonia, and I still live in the neighborhood. I can testify that the problems associated with the building are far, far worse than the article makes them seem. pedestrian traffic passes on the other side of the street to avoid the drunks who congregate on the building's doorstep and harass passersby. Drunks from the Wintonia also wander up and down the adjoining streets, harassing patrons of the cafes and restaurants nearby, once they've gotten drunk in their rooms.
The business owner quoted owns Uncle Elizabeth's, a cafe which is less than a year old. Perhaps she hasn't been in that location long enough to see that the building is a business black hole - several stores in that location have gone belly-up, precisely because people don't want to walk on that block at night.
On top of all this, the Wintonia has had hidden costs for the neighborhood: the nearby small park has become such a gathering point for street drunks that no one uses it anymore. the neighborhood association just got a large grant from the city to add features in an attempt to bring the park back into use again...lights, pavement, etc. That money could have gone elsewhere, but was essentially spent on mitigation for a problem at least partially caused by the Wintonia (the drunks in the park are often the same ones I see later on the stoop.)
Again, housing for this population is a good idea. Putting it in a residential and business area is not.
posted by 23lemurs at 11:53 AM on October 15, 2002
Not only will this hurt businesses (and therefore their employees), it will also cause problems for Capitol Hill, the residential neighborhood just over the bridge from the proposed location.
I used to live near the Wintonia, and I still live in the neighborhood. I can testify that the problems associated with the building are far, far worse than the article makes them seem. pedestrian traffic passes on the other side of the street to avoid the drunks who congregate on the building's doorstep and harass passersby. Drunks from the Wintonia also wander up and down the adjoining streets, harassing patrons of the cafes and restaurants nearby, once they've gotten drunk in their rooms.
The business owner quoted owns Uncle Elizabeth's, a cafe which is less than a year old. Perhaps she hasn't been in that location long enough to see that the building is a business black hole - several stores in that location have gone belly-up, precisely because people don't want to walk on that block at night.
On top of all this, the Wintonia has had hidden costs for the neighborhood: the nearby small park has become such a gathering point for street drunks that no one uses it anymore. the neighborhood association just got a large grant from the city to add features in an attempt to bring the park back into use again...lights, pavement, etc. That money could have gone elsewhere, but was essentially spent on mitigation for a problem at least partially caused by the Wintonia (the drunks in the park are often the same ones I see later on the stoop.)
Again, housing for this population is a good idea. Putting it in a residential and business area is not.
posted by 23lemurs at 11:53 AM on October 15, 2002
Great idea.
Inner city public housing was a huge success. This should be even better.
posted by four panels at 11:57 AM on October 15, 2002
Inner city public housing was a huge success. This should be even better.
posted by four panels at 11:57 AM on October 15, 2002
75 chronic alcoholics, plus guests, all living under the same roof? I would love to be a fly on the wall at those tenant meetings.
I feel for the Super though.
posted by Bonzai at 11:58 AM on October 15, 2002
I feel for the Super though.
posted by Bonzai at 11:58 AM on October 15, 2002
That dumpster diving article you linked to really had nothing to do with homeless people who have drinking problems, so I don't quite understand why its there.
posted by gluechunk at 12:00 PM on October 15, 2002
posted by gluechunk at 12:00 PM on October 15, 2002
andrew did a good job of highlighting the reasons a project like this can work.
In Seattle, the well-to-do so often seem to have nothing better to complain about than the unattractiveness of homeless people, panhandlers, and the lower class in general.
Anti-sitting ordinances make it illegal for someone to even sit down on the sidewalk for a rest. So you'd assume public parks would be a good place for these homeless people to hang out. Of course, the city has made it possible for individuals to be banned from parks if deemed a nuisance.
Four panels, the reason inner city housing projects were such a resounding failure is that the poor(and usually minorities) were isolated from the rest of society. If these projects had been integrated into the greater community, rather than isolated in ghettos, perhaps we would have seen different results.
This project actually addresses many of the aesthetic concerns of middle/upper class NIMBY Seattle. "Get those alcoholic bums off the street and make sure I don't have to see them," seems to sum up the popular attitude. At least judging by the kind of people that keep getting voted to city office.
Upon preview, I see the NIMBYs have already come out.
Yeah put it in an industrial neighborhood! That way there's even LESS chance of our having to interact with these nasty untouchable drunks? Hey let's make them wear bells and beat a drum when they walk around so we can know where they are and avoid having to see them. Oh wait, that would be too loud. I might have trouble hearing my television in the comfort of my home.
Sorry, but putting these services in remote neighborhoods just ensures that many of the people they are catering to WON'T use them. Thus, we have more wasted spending.
If the major concern is property values, I say put one of these drunk tank hotels in every low/middle income urban neighborhood to ensure that rents stay low enough that families can afford to live in the city they work.
posted by wrench at 12:06 PM on October 15, 2002
In Seattle, the well-to-do so often seem to have nothing better to complain about than the unattractiveness of homeless people, panhandlers, and the lower class in general.
Anti-sitting ordinances make it illegal for someone to even sit down on the sidewalk for a rest. So you'd assume public parks would be a good place for these homeless people to hang out. Of course, the city has made it possible for individuals to be banned from parks if deemed a nuisance.
Four panels, the reason inner city housing projects were such a resounding failure is that the poor(and usually minorities) were isolated from the rest of society. If these projects had been integrated into the greater community, rather than isolated in ghettos, perhaps we would have seen different results.
This project actually addresses many of the aesthetic concerns of middle/upper class NIMBY Seattle. "Get those alcoholic bums off the street and make sure I don't have to see them," seems to sum up the popular attitude. At least judging by the kind of people that keep getting voted to city office.
Upon preview, I see the NIMBYs have already come out.
Yeah put it in an industrial neighborhood! That way there's even LESS chance of our having to interact with these nasty untouchable drunks? Hey let's make them wear bells and beat a drum when they walk around so we can know where they are and avoid having to see them. Oh wait, that would be too loud. I might have trouble hearing my television in the comfort of my home.
Sorry, but putting these services in remote neighborhoods just ensures that many of the people they are catering to WON'T use them. Thus, we have more wasted spending.
If the major concern is property values, I say put one of these drunk tank hotels in every low/middle income urban neighborhood to ensure that rents stay low enough that families can afford to live in the city they work.
posted by wrench at 12:06 PM on October 15, 2002
Seattle has come up with an enlightened approach to dealing with this horrific disease (one can argue that alcohol and tobacco addiction are the most important public health problems in the United States).
This silly front page post may just as well have read "Having cancer isn't easy. You have to get expensive treatment which drives all our health care costs up, and you have to hit up your oncologist every few weeks. Why, sometimes the chemotherapy makes you go bald, and bald women scare my kids. No outpatient clinics in My Back Yard."
To hell with "property values" forever. Industrial areas? Be sure and put the mental health clinics out there too, for the proper stigmatization.
People are sick at times and need help. And yeah, they need help In Your Back Yard.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:08 PM on October 15, 2002
This silly front page post may just as well have read "Having cancer isn't easy. You have to get expensive treatment which drives all our health care costs up, and you have to hit up your oncologist every few weeks. Why, sometimes the chemotherapy makes you go bald, and bald women scare my kids. No outpatient clinics in My Back Yard."
To hell with "property values" forever. Industrial areas? Be sure and put the mental health clinics out there too, for the proper stigmatization.
People are sick at times and need help. And yeah, they need help In Your Back Yard.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:08 PM on October 15, 2002
oh yeah, four panels, the reason inner city housing projects have usually been a failure is lack of integration. the projects tend to isolate poor people(usually minorities) into segregated communities.
this only strengthens my argument that you shouldn't stick these kinds of services into industrial neighborhoods where rich/middle class people don't have to interact with the people who use them.
posted by wrench at 12:12 PM on October 15, 2002
this only strengthens my argument that you shouldn't stick these kinds of services into industrial neighborhoods where rich/middle class people don't have to interact with the people who use them.
posted by wrench at 12:12 PM on October 15, 2002
I always felt sorry for homeless alcoholics and drug addicts. Then I read that Brad Edmonds diatribe, and now I realize that these bums make more money than I do, and they don't even have to pay taxes!
Hell, for those kind of perks, I'm wondering why I don't pawn all of my worldly possessions and take up a crippling drug habit?
You know what else makes me mad? All those single welfare mothers sitting in their hot tubs, drinking and watching cable television with their kids all day while I have to go to work.
What a freaking idiot.
posted by Fabulon7 at 12:30 PM on October 15, 2002
Hell, for those kind of perks, I'm wondering why I don't pawn all of my worldly possessions and take up a crippling drug habit?
You know what else makes me mad? All those single welfare mothers sitting in their hot tubs, drinking and watching cable television with their kids all day while I have to go to work.
What a freaking idiot.
posted by Fabulon7 at 12:30 PM on October 15, 2002
Oh, for goodness sake. There are housing units for the mentally ill in the neighborhood, fold_and_mutilate. I'd like to see more of these, and nearby. The purpose of housing for the homeless mentally ill is to help them maintain a treatment regimen and re-integrate into society to the extent that this is possible. Housing for the mentally ill should always be in my urban backyard or a similar neighborhood for this reason.
Ditto housing for formerly homeless extremely-low-income families. Wrench is right: the city's top priority for housing should always be keeping the city affordable to the people who work there. NIMBY arguments just don't fly.
but...The Wintonia isn't there to provide treatment for the disease of alcoholism...even the building staff admits that the short-term recovery rate is only 10%. You don't have to want to recover to live there, and you don't have to try. What this project is doing is providing safe housing for people who simply do not want to cure their disease, and have no intention of re-integrating into society to any extent at all. Again, I support using my tax dollars to do so, because I don't want to see people living on the streets in an unsafe situation.
What I don't support is the idea that the consequences of a permanently and voluntarily diseased population should be suffered by the residents and workers of Capitol Hill. My post points out some of those consequences: extreme levels of street harassment, the high cost of "reclaiming" a local park, and the loss of low-wage jobs in nearby stores. Sorry if that offends you.
posted by 23lemurs at 12:47 PM on October 15, 2002
Ditto housing for formerly homeless extremely-low-income families. Wrench is right: the city's top priority for housing should always be keeping the city affordable to the people who work there. NIMBY arguments just don't fly.
but...The Wintonia isn't there to provide treatment for the disease of alcoholism...even the building staff admits that the short-term recovery rate is only 10%. You don't have to want to recover to live there, and you don't have to try. What this project is doing is providing safe housing for people who simply do not want to cure their disease, and have no intention of re-integrating into society to any extent at all. Again, I support using my tax dollars to do so, because I don't want to see people living on the streets in an unsafe situation.
What I don't support is the idea that the consequences of a permanently and voluntarily diseased population should be suffered by the residents and workers of Capitol Hill. My post points out some of those consequences: extreme levels of street harassment, the high cost of "reclaiming" a local park, and the loss of low-wage jobs in nearby stores. Sorry if that offends you.
posted by 23lemurs at 12:47 PM on October 15, 2002
They view it as a publicly funded experiment that rounds up downtown's unappealing neighbors and deposits them in their lap. With the apartment supervision as little as two staffers during overnight hours, opponents fear the building will be a party house.
There's also the danger that a hilarious sequel to BUMFIGHTS might be filmed on location...
posted by timecube at 12:50 PM on October 15, 2002
There's also the danger that a hilarious sequel to BUMFIGHTS might be filmed on location...
posted by timecube at 12:50 PM on October 15, 2002
that many, perhaps most, of those who remain homeless for any significant length of time do so because they are simply averse to work
Well, my anecdotal evidence is a good as Edmonds's--if not better--and in my city, at least, most of the people who remain homeless for any length of time do so because they're fucking nuts. Each week our state hospital puts a few more of them on the streets where they're at best not getting the help they need and at worst a danger to themselves or someone else. Just the other day a man (an ex-vet, I'm guessing) walked up to a coffee shop where I was and started screaming about war and ubiquitous snipers. The nice lady sitting next to me was totally freaked and I’m sure screaming guy wasn’t having too good a day, either. And after I sort of talked Mr PTSD down a bit and he wandered off, I wondered how many more nice ladies will have to be freaked before they decide to re-fund mental health services at an adequate level.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:54 PM on October 15, 2002
Well, my anecdotal evidence is a good as Edmonds's--if not better--and in my city, at least, most of the people who remain homeless for any length of time do so because they're fucking nuts. Each week our state hospital puts a few more of them on the streets where they're at best not getting the help they need and at worst a danger to themselves or someone else. Just the other day a man (an ex-vet, I'm guessing) walked up to a coffee shop where I was and started screaming about war and ubiquitous snipers. The nice lady sitting next to me was totally freaked and I’m sure screaming guy wasn’t having too good a day, either. And after I sort of talked Mr PTSD down a bit and he wandered off, I wondered how many more nice ladies will have to be freaked before they decide to re-fund mental health services at an adequate level.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:54 PM on October 15, 2002
I think this project is a good idea. If all it achieves is harm reduction it would still be worth doing.
posted by timeistight at 1:00 PM on October 15, 2002
posted by timeistight at 1:00 PM on October 15, 2002
Exactly, 23lemurs.
The fact is this is a cost saving measure for the city. They're making some resources available to make it seem like the tenants are being helped, but this is really just a very cynical capital expenditure, justified by the potential to lessen future expenses for police and hospitalization.
I would have much less of a problem with this if treatment and rehabilitiation were the real goals, and some sort of real demands were placed on the residents. Then its location would be justified, since to help the homeless, the facility would have to be where the homeless actually are.
As it is, I bet the city has failed to factor into the equation the more complex costs to the neighborhood. Doing so might invalid the city's cost-benefit analysis.
posted by uberfunk at 1:09 PM on October 15, 2002
The fact is this is a cost saving measure for the city. They're making some resources available to make it seem like the tenants are being helped, but this is really just a very cynical capital expenditure, justified by the potential to lessen future expenses for police and hospitalization.
I would have much less of a problem with this if treatment and rehabilitiation were the real goals, and some sort of real demands were placed on the residents. Then its location would be justified, since to help the homeless, the facility would have to be where the homeless actually are.
As it is, I bet the city has failed to factor into the equation the more complex costs to the neighborhood. Doing so might invalid the city's cost-benefit analysis.
posted by uberfunk at 1:09 PM on October 15, 2002
From Edmonds: More than one reader informed me they’d one-upped my business card idea (I suggested that people give a Salvation Army business card to the next homeless person who wants a dollar): When approached by bums asking for money, they tried inviting the bums to lunch instead. So far, readers report that every offer has been refused, many of them rudely. As Edmonds admits, the experiences he lists are selective, negative ones. The two times I offered lunch, my offer was gladly accepted. Still, I’ll admit that I’ve given Samaritan Ministry cards and phone change to the same panhandler several times. Whether or not I’m helping the guy, I figure I’m reminding myself to be less concerned about my wallet and more concerned about other people. Fold_and_mutilate’s right. People have problems, some more than others; some people can benefit from help; and it’s worth trying. I’m curious to hear moral reasoning that defends ignoring sick, poor, and homeless people in favor of maintaining the separation, illusions, and property values of those who are better off. Also, I wonder how many of the people who criticize or mock aid have ever interacted with homeless people. (?)
posted by win_k at 1:09 PM on October 15, 2002
posted by win_k at 1:09 PM on October 15, 2002
I bet it's less expensive to grind them up into pe tfood and feed our nation's little friends!
posted by xmutex at 1:09 PM on October 15, 2002
posted by xmutex at 1:09 PM on October 15, 2002
This silly front page post may just as well have read "Having cancer isn't easy. You have to get expensive treatment which drives all our health care costs up, and you have to hit up your oncologist every few weeks.
Poor analogy. Not many cancer patients that I know of piss and shit themselves and then sit next to me on the bus while heavily mouth breathing. But hey, I guess it's an alternative lifestyle.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:15 PM on October 15, 2002
Poor analogy. Not many cancer patients that I know of piss and shit themselves and then sit next to me on the bus while heavily mouth breathing. But hey, I guess it's an alternative lifestyle.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:15 PM on October 15, 2002
Not many cancer patients that I know of piss and shit themselves and then sit next to me on the bus while heavily mouth breathing. But hey, I guess it's an alternative lifestyle.
Please, please, tell me you're joking. I don't want to have to go all the way out to Seattle to smack you. I'd rather avoid smackage altogether, but if this is your view of homeless people, anything I could explain rationally to you (about, say, my best friend's mom) is unlikely to change anything.
posted by hippugeek at 2:23 PM on October 15, 2002
Please, please, tell me you're joking. I don't want to have to go all the way out to Seattle to smack you. I'd rather avoid smackage altogether, but if this is your view of homeless people, anything I could explain rationally to you (about, say, my best friend's mom) is unlikely to change anything.
posted by hippugeek at 2:23 PM on October 15, 2002
hippugeek- Actually I was responding to foldy's absurd analogy between cancer patients and alcoholics in a style that he would recognize (that is, self-righteously and self-gratifyingly). As someone who has both cancer patients and alcoholics in the family, I know that there are several worlds of difference between the two.
As far as your smacking me, online threats of violence are always impressive.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:49 PM on October 15, 2002
As far as your smacking me, online threats of violence are always impressive.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:49 PM on October 15, 2002
An interview with a homeless man of 16 years here in Boston was in the papers today. He says the numbers are too low on drinking/drug use - it's at least 80% of the homeless population. Most of the rest have mental problems. I've yet to visit a city without a homeless shelter or that would refuse to build one - those that remain homeless, however, do so because a) they like the homeless lifestyle (one homeless man in Allston is so familiar they even put up a mural with him in it on teh side of a restaurant), b) they have serious mental problems and cant' get to a homeless shelter or c) they don't want to stop drinking or using.
It's not a complicated situation. Letting them drink will not solve it. Forcing homeless off the street is the number one most effective way to get them into shelters. San Francisco and my hometown, Eugene, are both learning that by tolerating homelessness, you just get more homeless.
posted by Kevs at 2:54 PM on October 15, 2002
It's not a complicated situation. Letting them drink will not solve it. Forcing homeless off the street is the number one most effective way to get them into shelters. San Francisco and my hometown, Eugene, are both learning that by tolerating homelessness, you just get more homeless.
posted by Kevs at 2:54 PM on October 15, 2002
The average homeless person is a nine year old girl.
posted by goneill at 2:56 PM on October 15, 2002
posted by goneill at 2:56 PM on October 15, 2002
Ty Webb--even given that you're not being serious, I still think that your post was in pretty bad taste (as are many in this thread, whether earnest or facitious--"BumHunt," anyone?). I don't deny that there's a huge difference between cancer patients and alcoholics, but I'm still part of the alcoholism-as-physical-disease school. I didn't think foldy's analogy was all that far off, considering that it was a commentary on the rather heartless attitudes of some people towards the homeless, rather than an actual comparism of cancer and alcoholism as health problems.
As for the smack bit...yeah, that was silly. I get a tad overwrought sometimes. Sorry.
posted by hippugeek at 4:07 PM on October 15, 2002
As for the smack bit...yeah, that was silly. I get a tad overwrought sometimes. Sorry.
posted by hippugeek at 4:07 PM on October 15, 2002
I'm glad to see my city do something compassionate for once, after so many years of boom-time greed. In Seattle, it's essentially a crime to be homeless. You can't sit on the sidewalks, and the police break up tent cities when churches offer their land. There will never be enough room in shelters. Where else are they supposed to go?
posted by Hildago at 4:10 PM on October 15, 2002
posted by Hildago at 4:10 PM on October 15, 2002
23lemurs: Voluntarily diseased? You think?
Yes - because most are refusing treatment which is offered to them. Again, look at the stats on the Wintonia from the article linked above.
Someone for whom treatment is unavailable, priced out of reach, or ineffective is not voluntarily ill. (Neither, for that matter, is someone who refuses treatment for uncontrollable reasons relating to the illness itself. Lots of people with serious mental illness simply can't be treated outside of a supervised housing situation because their condition causes paranoia which makes it impossible for them to take medicine, for example. Such patients often refuse outpatient treatment. Obviously, that's not a case of choosing to be sick.)
An alcoholic who has turned his or her illness into a choice, by refusing treatment for no other reason than that the illness has become a lifestyle, is choosing to be sick. Again, I do not see this as a reason to deny these people housing, but people with no intention of rejoining society should not be housed in residential areas. It doesn't benefit them (they don't want to join in anyway) and it does hurt the people around them (who are harassed and suffer economic effects, including job loss).
Goneill says that the average homeless person is a nine year old girl. This is exactly why I think that housing for people making the transition from homeless should be located next door to me (on the other side from the transitional home for the formerly homeless mentally ill I blocked in in my last post.)
In an urban neighborhood, that nine year old will have a good shot at participating in the community and the adults taking care of her will have a good shot at finding decently paid jobs.
People who have chosen to be lifelong alcoholics don't need the same services she needs, and should be housed elsewhere.
posted by 23lemurs at 4:25 PM on October 15, 2002
Yes - because most are refusing treatment which is offered to them. Again, look at the stats on the Wintonia from the article linked above.
Someone for whom treatment is unavailable, priced out of reach, or ineffective is not voluntarily ill. (Neither, for that matter, is someone who refuses treatment for uncontrollable reasons relating to the illness itself. Lots of people with serious mental illness simply can't be treated outside of a supervised housing situation because their condition causes paranoia which makes it impossible for them to take medicine, for example. Such patients often refuse outpatient treatment. Obviously, that's not a case of choosing to be sick.)
An alcoholic who has turned his or her illness into a choice, by refusing treatment for no other reason than that the illness has become a lifestyle, is choosing to be sick. Again, I do not see this as a reason to deny these people housing, but people with no intention of rejoining society should not be housed in residential areas. It doesn't benefit them (they don't want to join in anyway) and it does hurt the people around them (who are harassed and suffer economic effects, including job loss).
Goneill says that the average homeless person is a nine year old girl. This is exactly why I think that housing for people making the transition from homeless should be located next door to me (on the other side from the transitional home for the formerly homeless mentally ill I blocked in in my last post.)
In an urban neighborhood, that nine year old will have a good shot at participating in the community and the adults taking care of her will have a good shot at finding decently paid jobs.
People who have chosen to be lifelong alcoholics don't need the same services she needs, and should be housed elsewhere.
posted by 23lemurs at 4:25 PM on October 15, 2002
75 chronic alcoholics, plus guests, all living under the same roof? I would love to be a fly on the wall at those tenant meetings.
Sounds like a new reality TV series! Last week Rob urinated on John's bed in a drunked stupor, what will happen this week? (Consequently nothing happens as John had previously pissed his bed and didn't notice the difference). Will Derek ever beat the DT's he's been going through and watch for William's naked drunken rants again on the hot new reality series BumHouse.
Sweet.
posted by CoolHandPuke at 4:55 PM on October 15, 2002
Sounds like a new reality TV series! Last week Rob urinated on John's bed in a drunked stupor, what will happen this week? (Consequently nothing happens as John had previously pissed his bed and didn't notice the difference). Will Derek ever beat the DT's he's been going through and watch for William's naked drunken rants again on the hot new reality series BumHouse.
Sweet.
posted by CoolHandPuke at 4:55 PM on October 15, 2002
<jim morrison>
chosen to be lifelong alcoholics?
chosen to be lifelong alcoholics???
ONE DOES NOT CHOOSE TO BE A LIFELONG ALCOHOLIC!!!!
</jim morrison>
posted by quonsar at 5:00 PM on October 15, 2002
chosen to be lifelong alcoholics?
chosen to be lifelong alcoholics???
ONE DOES NOT CHOOSE TO BE A LIFELONG ALCOHOLIC!!!!
</jim morrison>
posted by quonsar at 5:00 PM on October 15, 2002
The average homeless person is a nine year old girl.
This is what I find wrong for the homeless, the children. Not to point why folks become homeless, I just feel for the children as it's never an option they choose just something handed out to them.
posted by thomcatspike at 5:16 PM on October 15, 2002
This is what I find wrong for the homeless, the children. Not to point why folks become homeless, I just feel for the children as it's never an option they choose just something handed out to them.
posted by thomcatspike at 5:16 PM on October 15, 2002
May I observe that there is a spectacularly positive correllation between the preponderance of market rate housing in an urban area and the safety / vitality / livability of same area?
Although housing policies which are designed to allow "the people who work in a city to live there" are, theoretically, desirable, as anybody who has been involved with housing policy on the sharp end of the stick, as it were, can tell you, public and subsidized housing is almost always reserved, as a practical matter, for the disfunctional and poverty stricken.
Housing authorities structure, or restructure, their waiting lists and eligibility criteria based upon long-term unemployment, risk of homelessness, etc. When developments are designated for "low-to-moderate income" people, the income limits and family size goals are set up such that a married couple, unless they are literally both working at McDonalds, will never be eligible.
I support a housing scheme for chronic alcoholics, for simple reasons of economy, given the burden they otherwise constitute, but it is insane to put them where they can destroy the value of other people's property. Whether or not alcoholism is a day to day choice of those afflicted, it is the result of conscious bad choices over an extended period of time, which convey no entitlement to nuisance productive citizens.
I like the idea of camps, comfortable but austere, far out in rural areas. Inexpensive, no one to bother, lots of opportunity for regenerative outdoor activities, and even simple labor to (gasp!) actually contribute a little to society.
posted by MattD at 5:19 PM on October 15, 2002
Although housing policies which are designed to allow "the people who work in a city to live there" are, theoretically, desirable, as anybody who has been involved with housing policy on the sharp end of the stick, as it were, can tell you, public and subsidized housing is almost always reserved, as a practical matter, for the disfunctional and poverty stricken.
Housing authorities structure, or restructure, their waiting lists and eligibility criteria based upon long-term unemployment, risk of homelessness, etc. When developments are designated for "low-to-moderate income" people, the income limits and family size goals are set up such that a married couple, unless they are literally both working at McDonalds, will never be eligible.
I support a housing scheme for chronic alcoholics, for simple reasons of economy, given the burden they otherwise constitute, but it is insane to put them where they can destroy the value of other people's property. Whether or not alcoholism is a day to day choice of those afflicted, it is the result of conscious bad choices over an extended period of time, which convey no entitlement to nuisance productive citizens.
I like the idea of camps, comfortable but austere, far out in rural areas. Inexpensive, no one to bother, lots of opportunity for regenerative outdoor activities, and even simple labor to (gasp!) actually contribute a little to society.
posted by MattD at 5:19 PM on October 15, 2002
I think my shirt was made out at one of those drunkentration camps. It's all fucked up!!
posted by Ty Webb at 5:23 PM on October 15, 2002
posted by Ty Webb at 5:23 PM on October 15, 2002
How about spending the money on rehab, so these fellows can fend for themselves, make a living, and find a place to live?
Providing free housing is a nice idea, but that's just a small part of the problem.
posted by hama7 at 5:30 PM on October 15, 2002
Providing free housing is a nice idea, but that's just a small part of the problem.
posted by hama7 at 5:30 PM on October 15, 2002
Actually, contrary to what some have said, treatment centers for the uninsured still have waiting lists. People -- alcoholics and not -- still line up to sleep on the floors of homeless shelters in New York, despite lawsuits filed against the City.
From an interesting article on Props N and R in California:
San Francisco has more homeless people than ever: estimates range from 7,000 to 15,000 a night. In New York, where former mayor Rudolph Giuliani used the police to "clean up" the streets, homelessness has risen steadily since 1998.
I'm not sure I agree that a drinking-allowed house is a good idea necessarily as a bridge to housing and treatment, but I do think that people shouldn't live without shelter. Like, starting immediately.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 5:42 PM on October 15, 2002
From an interesting article on Props N and R in California:
San Francisco has more homeless people than ever: estimates range from 7,000 to 15,000 a night. In New York, where former mayor Rudolph Giuliani used the police to "clean up" the streets, homelessness has risen steadily since 1998.
I'm not sure I agree that a drinking-allowed house is a good idea necessarily as a bridge to housing and treatment, but I do think that people shouldn't live without shelter. Like, starting immediately.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 5:42 PM on October 15, 2002
I like the idea of camps, comfortable but austere, far out in rural areas
Gee, those rural camps look pretty swank!
posted by octobersurprise at 7:24 PM on October 15, 2002
Gee, those rural camps look pretty swank!
posted by octobersurprise at 7:24 PM on October 15, 2002
I like the idea of camps, comfortable but austere, far out in rural areas. Inexpensive, no one to bother, lots of opportunity for regenerative outdoor activities, and even simple labor to (gasp!) actually contribute a little to society.
All the chappies need is a bit of vigorous activity and a daily constitutional to cleanse them of neurasthenia and re-energize their moral fiber, eh, wot? Perhaps we can send them to work on the Burma railway! Or maybe put them to use quelling those little uprisings on the subcontinent!
posted by Hildago at 7:38 PM on October 15, 2002
All the chappies need is a bit of vigorous activity and a daily constitutional to cleanse them of neurasthenia and re-energize their moral fiber, eh, wot? Perhaps we can send them to work on the Burma railway! Or maybe put them to use quelling those little uprisings on the subcontinent!
posted by Hildago at 7:38 PM on October 15, 2002
Hmm...
A bum is an alcoholic drink! It dissolves dirt!
Interesting.
posted by hippugeek at 8:11 PM on October 15, 2002
A bum is an alcoholic drink! It dissolves dirt!
Interesting.
posted by hippugeek at 8:11 PM on October 15, 2002
now I realize that these bums make more money than I do, and they don't even have to pay taxes
Quite. I remember during the 80s, when unemployment was at its highest, The Daily Mail (a right-wing tab) used to run weekly stories about beggars driving off in their BMWs at the end of the day. I didn't swallow it then when I was a child and I don't swallow it now. When I studied 16C history, we learned about the 'sturdy beggars' - bands of homeless people, made that way by the dissolution of the monasteries - who used to wander from town to town. People at the time said that the beggars were naturally violent, chose that way of life and were richer than the villagers they targetted.
I wonder what kind of mindset makes people despise and ridicule those clearly at the bottom of the heap.
those that remain homeless, however, do so because a) they like the homeless lifestyle (one homeless man in Allston is so familiar they even put up a mural with him in it on teh side of a restaurant),
Because he's long-term homeless it means he likes it? While some may remain homeless because they prefer it, maybe it's just that the alternatives (shelters where robbery and assault are common) are worse.
b) they have serious mental problems and cant' get to a homeless shelter or c) they don't want to stop drinking or using.
I don't think want comes into it. Addiction has a strange way of removing your choices.
posted by Summer at 4:15 AM on October 16, 2002
Quite. I remember during the 80s, when unemployment was at its highest, The Daily Mail (a right-wing tab) used to run weekly stories about beggars driving off in their BMWs at the end of the day. I didn't swallow it then when I was a child and I don't swallow it now. When I studied 16C history, we learned about the 'sturdy beggars' - bands of homeless people, made that way by the dissolution of the monasteries - who used to wander from town to town. People at the time said that the beggars were naturally violent, chose that way of life and were richer than the villagers they targetted.
I wonder what kind of mindset makes people despise and ridicule those clearly at the bottom of the heap.
those that remain homeless, however, do so because a) they like the homeless lifestyle (one homeless man in Allston is so familiar they even put up a mural with him in it on teh side of a restaurant),
Because he's long-term homeless it means he likes it? While some may remain homeless because they prefer it, maybe it's just that the alternatives (shelters where robbery and assault are common) are worse.
b) they have serious mental problems and cant' get to a homeless shelter or c) they don't want to stop drinking or using.
I don't think want comes into it. Addiction has a strange way of removing your choices.
posted by Summer at 4:15 AM on October 16, 2002
Don't even get me started on the profitability involved in becoming a professional mendicant. You just have to lose all respect for yourself, and people in big cities will give you money to leave you alone. It's a sight safer than bank robbery.
That being said, there are poor people all over the country who are addicted to drugs. Whether it is the duty of the taxpayers to foot their treatment bill is a separate issue. Referring to people as animals in any context, however, usually leads to very bad things.
Hildago: I doubt most folks even remember when World War II really ended. Stop scaring me like that.
posted by insomnyuk at 6:46 AM on October 16, 2002
That being said, there are poor people all over the country who are addicted to drugs. Whether it is the duty of the taxpayers to foot their treatment bill is a separate issue. Referring to people as animals in any context, however, usually leads to very bad things.
Hildago: I doubt most folks even remember when World War II really ended. Stop scaring me like that.
posted by insomnyuk at 6:46 AM on October 16, 2002
« Older If you can't stand the heat, | MAAD: Muslims Against Advertising. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by robself at 11:29 AM on October 15, 2002