All the progressive solutions seem to only not work, but exacerbate the problem and expose the public to more risk. Not to mention all the sympathy and gentle parenting the problem under the masquerade of tolerance just keeps the homeless in their addictions and spirals while those that dictate policies can get away with doing nothing and live in their secure buildings and escorted by private cars and security so as to never look at the problem. The lack of authority on the matter leaves it to random citizens to deal with, sometimes with deadly or legal consequences when its mishandled instead of being handled appropriately by trained law enforcement or social workers. Sadly, the past solution was more humane than the current ones when you look purely at the end results.
Which solutions are you writing about that have been tried? Were those solutions properly funded? Were those solutions watered down into broken systems moments before signing the bill?
The past solution was not more humane. Tell me this, what part of the past solution was different from a prison? Why do you think they broke them up in the first place?
You want to round people up against their rights, then give everyone healthcare so you don’t burden them with debt by forcing them into care.
> Which solutions are you writing about that have been tried? Were those solutions properly funded? Were those solutions watered down into broken systems moments before signing the bill?
Last time I parked in that garage that's right across the street from Berkeley, I saw a middle aged woman screaming in some kind of mental anguish in a dirty sleeping bag covered in her own shit. From what I remember the students having a coffee at the cafe 20 feet away just sort of dealt with it, I think I was around Fulton and Oxford. If you can't propose a solution to this, I don't see what you are adding to conversation.
And yes, we should give everyone healthcare, that's a foregone conclusion here. The question is, _what_ is the solution to the above scenario. Is it a checkup, a clean needle (is that van still parked at the BART downtown idk), a pat on the back, a pile of job applications, a warm sandwich and a pamphlet that says vote democrat. Man we are so far beyond stupidity, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, here's your prompt. The above situation is a microcosm of a broader issue, engineer your way out of it, or stay out of the conversation.
You’re not listening then, you have to incentivize the use of healthcare. That solves that situation. If using healthcare isn’t a stigma that leaves you with a horrendously expensive bill, then people would feel confident in getting the help.
I am sorry you had to listen to someone scream. At least that person wasn’t unjustly locked up and stripped of their rights because you got anxiety. Her screaming is a 10000% better than creating another “mental health” private prison system.
There are people who are literally insane. The issue isn’t “healthcare” it’s that they are literally insane. They don’t even know what is going on all day
You didn't answer the question. What past solution was tried and actually worked and wasn't cruel or abusive to those who were "helped"?
People adopt this attitude that "obviously we just need to fix the problem using tried and true methods" but they can't actually articulate what those methods are. It's all just hot air.
I would like to suggest that at least in the case of the US the problems are largely political and thus there can be no straightforward solution since the people who would enact any solution are themselves the root cause.
> engineer your way out of it, or stay out of the conversation.
Yet a solution is conspicuously missing from your own rant.
> engineer your way out of it, or stay out of the conversation
The civilian conservation core, as conceived and executed in the 33-42 era, while updated to more modern standards of participation and scope would work wonders.
You're welcome.
EDIT: We're haunted by the same ghost. It's either up and out or over and through. Buenas noches.
That would certainly reduce the issue but it fails to address the most severe cases. The people yelling at shrubs on the sidewalk probably aren't going to be compatible with such an effort.
The solution is to take the screaming mentally insane off the street and put them into 24/7 mental care at asylums! Why can you not understand this clear solution?
I mean I completely agree with you but you have to understand that historically that doesn't have a great record for the people removed. It hid them away from the rest of us but at least past implementations were notoriously cruel and abusive to the imprisoned patients.
There are no modern techniques that’s why we left the old ways. The fact that you have nothing to offer but vague “use modern techniques” proves there are no modern techniques. It also shows you have a shallow understanding about health.
Do you understand how slippery of a slope “round them up and lock away mentally ill people” is? How do you determine who is dangerous and who is not? How do you determine which illnesses are for locking people up? How do you reason that with stripping away due process? Being mentally ill is not a crime.
FYI, a small state had great success in recent years, though this story is ten years old, have not seen any updates. They simply gave housing to the homeless as the first step. I do not think anyone would call Utah progressive.
I saw a report from another guy who couches it as not a homeless problem but a mental health and addiction problem. Everyone thinks its just people down on their luck and a home will solve it. He showed one person who had been given housing but for whatever (mental) reason, she slept on the street, that's how she always lived and wanted to live and her place sits empty. There's also a "homeless industrial complex" that is incentivized to offer temporary aid, but not solve the problem, which primarily treating the underlying mental health or addiction issues, because it keeps them employed. Not talking about the volunteers, talking about the leadership at the top that gets all the money.
The guy I'm talking about operates out of Portland.
All that to say, you can give normal "down on their luck" people homes and that solves the problem. Those people generally do pull themselves out of it somehow anyway or can take advantage of available assistance. But give an addict, or someone with schizophrenia housing and it will either be destroyed, or they can't live by the rules (usually staying clean or not using) and it won't workout. Letting them live on the streets hurts everyone, giving them houses just has negative results. The solution, sadly, the only one that "worked" despite how cruel it was, is to either incarcerate or isolate them from the public or treat them where possible which with an addict or mental health person requires voluntary choice or an asylum. Simply gentle parenting the problem and letting them live how they want to naturally is not working, as what they want is often harmful to everyone that lives around them. The only solutions that worked were often cruel, but skid row isn't kindness either and comes with its own cruelty, and leads to worse situations.
All that to say, there's no perfect solution, and the only working solutions might be ones that are considered cruel by some or tough love by others, but doing so in the least cruel manner and with treatment options where possible is probably the best way.
