This reminds me of the Anatole France quote: Also: Stay limits and mandatory religious programs allowing you to refuse a person stay in your shelter doesn't seem very charitable to me.
This reminds me of the Anatole France quote:
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
Also:
But the appeals court said shelters could still turn away homeless people who exceeded their stay limits or refused mandatory religious programs.
Stay limits and mandatory religious programs allowing you to refuse a person stay in your shelter doesn't seem very charitable to me.
I remember learning about Housing First years ago and it's fundamentally informed the way I view social services. I wish more people knew about it and I try to highlight it whenever it's germane....
I remember learning about Housing First years ago and it's fundamentally informed the way I view social services.
I wish more people knew about it and I try to highlight it whenever it's germane. The idea is that people who lack the basic human needs for shelter and to feel safe can't be expected to live without substance abuse. Sort of like Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Cases like these are important. Let's say we buy the argument that there are moral failings on the part of most homeless people (I don't, but let's accept the hypothetical for the sake of...
Cases like these are important. Let's say we buy the argument that there are moral failings on the part of most homeless people (I don't, but let's accept the hypothetical for the sake of arguing). Let's consider, then, someone without those hypothetical moral failings and see how they would fare. If someone were to, say, experience a house fire, not have enough money to move into a new place, not be able to find a shelter with room available, and not have any friends or family available to turn to (a very, very likely scenario), then where could they possibly turn? How could they possibly be able to sleep somewhere and not violate the law? Are we to expect them to leave city limits on foot, sleep outdoors, and hopefully be able to return to the city within a reasonable enough time to get to their job, and hopefully not also lose said job for arriving in a disheveled state because they don't have a place to shower or wash their clothes? Can we really expect someone to do this for potentially months at a time to save up the money necessary to pay down first and last months rent plus deposit in a new place? Especially in the colder months, can we expect someone to survive long enough to get back on their feet? Particularly when they don't have a place to store their essential belongings like a sleeping bag that could end up being stolen while they're working so that they can get off the street?
Obviously that expectation is ridiculous. If we expect someone without the vague, hypothetical moral failings to get back on their feet, then how could they possibly accomplish this with so many barriers in place? If all of their time is spent walking into and out of city limits to avoid jail time for trying to fulfill one of their most basic physical needs, then how the hell are they going to maintain their hygiene or do any of the other important things that they need to do in order to keep their job and find a new place to live?
The fact that we continue to punish people for being in a situation they never asked to be in is ridiculous. The fact that we punish people who try to make the best of their situation by asking passersby on the street for help, or sleeping somewhere protected from the elements within a short walking distance from where they need to be the next day, just because we consider it a personal inconvenience is infuriating.
I'm kind of rambling here, I realize, but honestly the prospect of homelessness terrifies me because it's such an easy pit to fall into and it can be difficult if not impossible to get out of without someone's help and generosity, and it upsets me knowing that so many people have fallen into that exact pit and can't get out of it and are only punished and forced out of sight when they try.
I'm also terrified of homelessness, and I think we'd be a lot better off if more people thought about it as 'something that could happen to me,' rather than 'something that happens to those people.'
I'm also terrified of homelessness, and I think we'd be a lot better off if more people thought about it as 'something that could happen to me,' rather than 'something that happens to those people.'
Trying to "manage" homelessness by performing sweeps is expensive and useless, merely moving homeless from one place to another. Housing First is an effective tool in solving the problem. A great...
Trying to "manage" homelessness by performing sweeps is expensive and useless, merely moving homeless from one place to another. Housing First is an effective tool in solving the problem. A great essay on homelessness, "Million Dollar Murray" by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker (2006) opened a lot of eyes about the community cost of trying to manage homelessness. Here is a link, but you may need to use your subscription or search other sources to read the entire essay. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar-murray
This reminds me of the Anatole France quote:
Also:
Stay limits and mandatory religious programs allowing you to refuse a person stay in your shelter doesn't seem very charitable to me.
I remember learning about Housing First years ago and it's fundamentally informed the way I view social services.
I wish more people knew about it and I try to highlight it whenever it's germane. The idea is that people who lack the basic human needs for shelter and to feel safe can't be expected to live without substance abuse. Sort of like Maslow's hierarchy of needs
I was reminded of the exact same quote.
Honestly that kind of charity sounds more like blackmail.
Cases like these are important. Let's say we buy the argument that there are moral failings on the part of most homeless people (I don't, but let's accept the hypothetical for the sake of arguing). Let's consider, then, someone without those hypothetical moral failings and see how they would fare. If someone were to, say, experience a house fire, not have enough money to move into a new place, not be able to find a shelter with room available, and not have any friends or family available to turn to (a very, very likely scenario), then where could they possibly turn? How could they possibly be able to sleep somewhere and not violate the law? Are we to expect them to leave city limits on foot, sleep outdoors, and hopefully be able to return to the city within a reasonable enough time to get to their job, and hopefully not also lose said job for arriving in a disheveled state because they don't have a place to shower or wash their clothes? Can we really expect someone to do this for potentially months at a time to save up the money necessary to pay down first and last months rent plus deposit in a new place? Especially in the colder months, can we expect someone to survive long enough to get back on their feet? Particularly when they don't have a place to store their essential belongings like a sleeping bag that could end up being stolen while they're working so that they can get off the street?
Obviously that expectation is ridiculous. If we expect someone without the vague, hypothetical moral failings to get back on their feet, then how could they possibly accomplish this with so many barriers in place? If all of their time is spent walking into and out of city limits to avoid jail time for trying to fulfill one of their most basic physical needs, then how the hell are they going to maintain their hygiene or do any of the other important things that they need to do in order to keep their job and find a new place to live?
The fact that we continue to punish people for being in a situation they never asked to be in is ridiculous. The fact that we punish people who try to make the best of their situation by asking passersby on the street for help, or sleeping somewhere protected from the elements within a short walking distance from where they need to be the next day, just because we consider it a personal inconvenience is infuriating.
I'm kind of rambling here, I realize, but honestly the prospect of homelessness terrifies me because it's such an easy pit to fall into and it can be difficult if not impossible to get out of without someone's help and generosity, and it upsets me knowing that so many people have fallen into that exact pit and can't get out of it and are only punished and forced out of sight when they try.
I'm also terrified of homelessness, and I think we'd be a lot better off if more people thought about it as 'something that could happen to me,' rather than 'something that happens to those people.'
Trying to "manage" homelessness by performing sweeps is expensive and useless, merely moving homeless from one place to another. Housing First is an effective tool in solving the problem. A great essay on homelessness, "Million Dollar Murray" by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker (2006) opened a lot of eyes about the community cost of trying to manage homelessness. Here is a link, but you may need to use your subscription or search other sources to read the entire essay. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar-murray
This would be immoral even if it was legal...