> It would be cheaper to rent apartments at current market rates, even in San Francisc
Indeed it would, but that is not a realistic option. These are high needs groups, many with severe mental disorders and drug addictions.
It is an embarrassment that we don't have better infrastructure to serve these groups, but it's tough renting out market rate apartments to serve them. Landlords of course have to agree.
SF is able to do this with custom-built housing, or Project Roomkey, but it's not like we can find 4,500 private apartments where landlords will happily put up a schizophrenic guy with a meth addiction.
It's also worth pointing out that $60k for these sites is not just payment for shelter. It includes three meals a day, social services, security, sanitation.
May be for some of the houseless but many don't have mental disorders or drug addictions, many people are just down on their luck. Also, pretty sure Finland has people with those issues as well.
That’s just for the visible chronic homeless. There are plenty of homeless people living under the radar in their cars and such that really are just down in their luck, and don’t get noticed them because they aren’t chronic cases.
69% are reporting being disabled in some way that’s preventing them from being housed (read: addiction, mental illness, health issues resulting from these, etc). 42% are self reporting current addiction, 39% have self reported current psychiatric/emotional disorder of some kind, and 37% with PTSD (apparently getting separately reported from the prior stat). These numbers are likely higher in reality.
Of course there are some that lost their job, don’t make enough, etc. That’s the population that you could expect to make a come back with support. But a very significant portion are beyond tractable. Drive thru the tenderloin and tell me what you see is rehabilitatable.
Seems to me the easier story would be preventing homelessness in the first place, which would involve making our society kinder for all, not just the homeless. It got significantly worse after Regan defunded the mental health wards. Many progressives support this cause of holding people against their will — I’m not sure being homeless and mentally ill is more humane. At some point it’s easier to centralize long term care than to ad hoc beds and social services.
That isn’t a given. It could be that the standard strong social safety net is enough to keep people without substance abuse or mental illness problems out of homelessness. It would be interesting to do an honest accounting, at any rate.
Are you saying talking about the social safety net in Finland or the US? I don't understand the argument you're making, if anything the weakness of the social safety net in the US bolsters my argument that a larger fraction of homeless people in the US are just down on their luck relative to the fraction of homeless people in Finland.
EDIT: In order to avoid deepening the thread, may you restate your point so that I can understand what you mean?
Also I’m not sure how to evaluate “a large fraction of the homeless are just down in their luck.” Those are the easy cases that are more likely to get effective help already, even in more dysfunctional American cities. And if they aren’t, we have a much better chance of doing a better job there, since their problems are much easier to solve than those of the more chronic homeless.
In fact, our first priority should be to prevent “down in their luck” homeless cases from becoming chronic “substance abuse/mental illness” homeless cases.
Neither the mentally ill nor drug addicts are protected classes. The best protection they will get is under the ADA, and I’ve never seen it be used to argue for access to housing for non-physical handicaps.
That is not correct. I'm sure mental illness would qualify for ADA protection with the correct doctor's note and filings. Drug addiction is definitely protected under the ADA.
Not for housing. Protection yes, but landlords are not required to not evict a paranoid schizophrenic that has threatened violence on other residents (and the eviction sticks when they try to rent later). The ADA also doesn’t prevent landlords from ignoring drug convictions from someone a substance abuser. They can’t ask you for your status, but they won’t ignore any other signals that are a consequence of that status.
Maybe… but most localities will allow you to do a background check.
As a former landlord, I can almost guarantee someone with the problems you mention will and felonies, poor rental references, and/or evictions. You can easily use those to legally disqualify a prospective tenant.
Indeed it would, but that is not a realistic option. These are high needs groups, many with severe mental disorders and drug addictions.
It is an embarrassment that we don't have better infrastructure to serve these groups, but it's tough renting out market rate apartments to serve them. Landlords of course have to agree.
SF is able to do this with custom-built housing, or Project Roomkey, but it's not like we can find 4,500 private apartments where landlords will happily put up a schizophrenic guy with a meth addiction.
It's also worth pointing out that $60k for these sites is not just payment for shelter. It includes three meals a day, social services, security, sanitation.