Although understandable from an economicals standpoint, substantial evidence points to housing first as a solution to homelessness.
Yes, some people stay indefinitely, that’s the point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First
Edit: herea is a great documentation including explanations why it works
Housing first just concentrates and distills the underlying problems that led to homelessness in the first place.
You have drug addicted and mentally ill people housed, but they’ll never be functional.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5610885-housing-first-policy-failure/
So? Not everyone is capable of, wants to, or needs to function in society. They’re still people who shouldn’t be turned away if we can afford to help them. If we became a truly impoverished nation that couldn’t support everyone, I can understand prioritizing the cooperative, but if we don’t have to live by the rules of the jungle, why would we lower ourselves by doing so?
Things cost money. If you want things like food and housing, you have to function in society.
Agreed that everyone should get the care they need, and that means universal health care + mental health care + addiction treatment.
But, again, the expectation there is that everyone contributes and everyone benefits.
Homelessnes leads to drug addiction.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2025/02/429486/how-common-illegal-drug-use-among-people-who-are-homeless
“About 42% of all participants said they began using drugs regularly before they became homeless for the first time, and 23% said they began using drugs regularly after becoming homeless for the first time.”
Start using drugs > lose your job > lose money to pay for housing.
Pretty easy to see the progression.
I bet it’s cheaper to house these people indefinitely than it is to imprison or institutionalize them indefinitely.
Can only try to help unwilling people for so long that you have to consider that this kind of assistance is not limitless and has to be prioritized for people who are interested and willing to at least try to support themselves. Fill up shelters to use them, but when you’re at capacity based on what the local government and its policies by extension of the voterbase’s willingness to contribute financially can support, you have to make hard decisions.
Will these people end up on the street? Probably. If this feels unreasonable, support candidates pushing to increase/reallocate funding for the program, or volunteer your own time and money to contribute.
I mean, we could also adopt humane policies, my dude.
Humane policies only work with those willing to accept them.
For example:
Is it humane to leave a woman with an amputated foot and infected leg sitting in the dirt on the side of a freeway in 100 degree heat when she’s had not one but two wheelchairs stolen? Absolutely not.
“Vicky is known to our outreach workers, as well as teams who work with the city, all of whom have been attempting to provide services or engage for several weeks. At times, she has informed those teams that she has not been interested in care. But they continue to check in and try to work with her.”
The humane thing would be to tell her “We won’t let you die, come with us.” and get her hospitalized even if she doesn’t want it. If she were capable of taking care of herself, she wouldn’t be in this situation.
