Everybody's Trying To Do The Right Thing, It's Just Coming Out Wrong

I don’t know for sure, but I would assume a large chunk of that money going to the program is going to the corresponding infrastructure installation and improvements. As anyone who has built a home on an empty plot knows, building the house itself is but one of many costs associated with the project.

Permitting, utility upgrades, specific design features required, etc. Still, I don’t see how you would get close to $600k per unit even if the city has to buy the land at market rate.

Also, is that bond/levy funding more than just the tiny homes? Probly funds services as well.

In Seattle we have a bunch of tiny home villages. The ones I’ve been lightly involved in are built on church property- think big unused parking lots. They do come with their own set of social issues though…Tiny House Villages in Seattle: An Efficient Response to Our Homelessness Crisis — Shelterforce

Of course those prices are without land, delivery set-up, etc. In Dallas for a “affordable housing” project using similar units the estimated the cost at 125K each. In my area south of DFW there is not a single city that will sign off on anything like those. They don’t meet the square foot requirements.

Just sayin. I liked this idea before it was cool.

I remember this thread when it was current, and the amount of discussion spawned by the video.

Has anything been happening in the Western US since this thread tapered off? I noticed in news stories from up here in Canada that London had pop up shelters over the winter, which are gradually closing with the warmer weather.

I had a thread from a while back about opioids, but I think this thread is really the best place for this article.

Noteworthy I think is this:

“Over the winter, LIHC was part of a coalition of agencies called Winter Interim Solution to Homelessness (WISH) that operated two pop-up shelter sites. The sites offered shelter in converted construction trailers and 24/7 support to roughly 60 of the estimated 200 to 300 high-acuity homeless people in London unable or unwilling to seek traditional shelters or housing.”

And this:

"City hall is preparing a plan for politicians on the next steps for sheltering and housing high-acuity homeless people.

“It’s meeting people where they’re at. That can look like low-barrier, it can be temporary, meeting their most basic needs. So let’s not talk about permanent housing if you don’t know where your next meal is coming from,” housing manager Kevin Dickins said."

This last part about not knowing where the person’s next meal is coming from maybe is an indicator of how it might be one of the challenges of getting homeless people to sort of ‘follow the program’ if they are juggling critical priorities. There might be stubbornness too with some.

I was debating posting this picture in the stupid thread, but it’s worth bumping this thead over four years after I started it. In the time since then, my state of Maine has largely adopted west-coast policies on homelessness, including implementing a so-called “homelessness crisis protocol”, which de-facto legalizes public use of hard drugs in self-governed temporary shanty towns.

There’s an ongoing demonstration in Portland against today’s scheduled removal of the latest homeless encampment. Witness peak Maine Liberal on the right of this photo. Dude shows up to an outdoor protest with an N95 mask and a $1,500 Canada Goose designer parka to do his part so that mentally ill drug addicts can destroy themselves and cause havoc in the community, all in winter conditions.

There are 95 open shelter beds in Portland right now, and not a single one of these people want one of them. They’ve all been offered, but won’t agree to the conditions of staying there. Nearly every woman living in this encampment and others like it has been a recent sexual assault victim. Almost all are hard drug addicts and/or severely mentally ill. Nobody of sound mind and body would choose that over a shelter spot.

image

Peak liberal dude is literally protesting that these hell-on-earth conditions must persist while he shields himself from the elements with an expedition-quality designer coat that costs about ten times as much as a Carhartt. With a coat like that, I’m guessing he’s got someplace safe and warm to stay, and I’m guessing he hasn’t invited any of the encampment residents to crash with him.

image

Link your Outdoor Research and L.L. Bean gloves together, comrades.

Meanwhile, area activists are hard-at work to open up (and fund, of course) “low-barrier” shelters, where people like this might be more agreeable to staying at. Places where they can keep doing drugs, specifically. Or stay at even if they are, say, a rapist.

Rest assured, you have well-meaning liberals working hard to make sure that your town or maybe even your street is the next location for their low-barrier shelter, along with all of the other policy outcomes they’ve entrenched in the community.

This low-barrier shelter model and public tolerance of hell-on-earth is nothing more than the commoditization of the most troubled people in our population, with no regard for the easily-predicted outcomes that persist and grow worse.

Here’s a link to the state’s Homeless Crisis Protocol

https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/17-a/title17-Asec18-1.html

From the below article:

L.D. 1478 became law in June 2021 without the governor’s signature and required the Office of the Maine Attorney General to develop the protocols that would divert those who are homeless to other available social services in lieu of entering the criminal justice system. As reported last week, some departments adopted it early on while others are still in process or haven’t yet done so.

While the intent to divert those who need additional services to appropriate resources is worthy – Sanford’s task force has done a great job in identifying individuals who need greater case management – the execution of it is what’s wrong here. Telling someone they can commit a crime and avoid a penalty is never OK.

Why? We learn from the youngest of ages that actions have consequences. Whether it’s taking a toy away from a sibling or fighting in the schoolyard, the immediate feedback we receive is formative to our future behavior as we grow. It’s called operant conditioning.

The question is whether taking away those consequences and providing diversionary services has worked in reducing homelessness. Considering MaineHousing counted 1,097 homeless individuals in Maine in 2021 and 3,455 in 2022, it seems to be getting worse. Moreover, the protocols may be leaving victims of crime in their wake.

4 Likes

Having had the unfortunate opportunity to catch a whiff of that area, I too may opt for an N95 if I were to spend any significant time there.

Too bad he doesn’t live in a sanctuary city, where the freedom fighters there would gladly liberate that coat and help him with the divestiture of his oppression symbols.

Our government is hard at work providing sanctuary as well.

Our leaders intend for this immigration policy to work in conjunction with our homeless crisis protocol, skyrocketing housing prices and banning the political opposition leader from the ballot.

It sounds completely insane when you put it like that.

But there’s really no other way to put it, is there?

Yes, a new government office. Government jobs for people who majored in what could fall under the umbrella of grievance studies. Starbucks can’t hire all of them.

More ways for Maine to up it’s woke game:

The only solution for homelessness and drug addiction is work camps. Not prison, not some sadistic camps. Just a camp where people can learn to work.

I have a friend who was a criminal drug addict. What saved him was a prison with a program for mechanics work. He is addicted to mechanics now and a good family man.

I generally support the idea of voluntary work/vocational/rehabilitation camps in lieu of prison or involuntarily committing people to mental institutions, but only in conjunction with the repeal of policies like our “homeless crisis protocol” that sanctions the destruction of our communities. Give people a way out while simultaneously being intolerant of public mayhem. If that way out isn’t for you, prison or involuntary commitment is.

Unfortunately, there is no government “solution” when it comes to most problems, especially personal problems of private citizens. There are only trade-offs. In the case of my state of Maine, we’re experiencing this trade-off in real time. Our government has prioritized solving the personal problems of the most troubled people in our population, but only under terms that don’t involve enforcing basic behavioral standards in public.

The trade-off for this priority is one of public safety and prosperity. The businesses that are already there end up closing, and no new businesses seem to be interested in opening up next to my town’s “Church of Safe Injection”, which doesn’t seem safe at all by the looks of it. Anyone who has to work or live around people who don’t follow basic behavioral standards is a victim of these policies.

You can’t arrest someone out of bad decision-making, but you can arrest your way out of acute hazards to public safety and prosperity. As I commented upthread four years ago…

2 Likes