U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 02-06-2019, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Barrington
44,447 posts, read 33,157,449 times
Reputation: 14849

Advertisements

The issue with homelessness has much to do with visibility of the homeless population.


According to the 2018 Point in Time Headcount, NYC has the highest homeless rate in the US. Despite this, it has amongst the lowest unsheltered homeless rate at 5%. In contrast, LA had an unsheltered homeless rate of 75%.

Some of the difference can be attributed to climate.

Some of the difference can be attributed to multi- family housing stock being far more common in NYC.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2019, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Barrington
44,447 posts, read 33,157,449 times
Reputation: 14849
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX View Post
Finland has greatly decreased their homeless population by implementing "Housing First". The government believes that first of all, people who are homeless need stable housing. Housing is not based on requirements to tackle addictions and other problems, they approach it the opposite way that having a home can make it easier to solve those problems. Seems to work for them, but in a capitalist society like the US it would likely be a hard sale.
Finland has a population of 5.3 million. What works well in Finland does not translate as well to the world’s third most populous country.

Homelessness is typically categorized, Temporary or Episodic or Chronic.

Utah, with great assist of the Mormon Church, used the Housing First model to address chronic homelessness.

The key thing about Housing First is that housing solves the immediate challenge but has to be backed up with an assortment of continuous social and medical serviced to make an impact.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2019, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Barrington
44,447 posts, read 33,157,449 times
Reputation: 14849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenal352 View Post
Yep. Happened to me after a divorce. Lost a house, and decent rentals were up at ridiculous prices. I had to do the motel thing, as well as rent a room at another point to stay from being homeless.

Homelessness isn't always about drugs and alcohol, or mental illnesses. Not all homeless are bums. Some work professional jobs, but are in unfortunate situations, and in many areas, the rental scenario is absurd.
Homelessness can be temporary, episodic or chronic.

There is no reasonable way to determine an approximate number of people who experience temporary or episodic homelessness because most manage to be sheltered with family, friends, motels, boarding and in their cars, weather permitting.

Divorce is a common cause of temporary homelessness.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2019, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
29,923 posts, read 12,728,265 times
Reputation: 21198
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
The issue with homelessness has much to do with visibility of the homeless population.


According to the 2018 Point in Time Headcount, NYC has the highest homeless rate in the US. Despite this, it has amongst the lowest unsheltered homeless rate at 5%. In contrast, LA had an unsheltered homeless rate of 75%.

Some of the difference can be attributed to climate.

Some of the difference can be attributed to multi- family housing stock being far more common in NYC.
New York state has a "right to shelter policy"

Quote:
The right to shelter was established in 1979, when the lawyer Robert Hayes teamed up with Kim Hopper, Ellen Baxter and other activists to bring a class-action lawsuit on behalf of homeless New Yorkers (and to found the Coalition for the Homeless). The argument was that Article 17 the New York State Constitution required the government to care for people in need – and that providing adequate shelter was part of that obligation. The lawsuit resulted in the parties agreeing to the “Callahan Consent Decree” establishing the legal right to shelter for homeless single men and guaranteeing certain conditions and standards in the shelters. Subsequent lawsuits established the right to shelter for single women and for families with children.
Today's Read: Behind New York's Right to Shelter Policy - Coalition For The Homeless
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2019, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
29,923 posts, read 12,728,265 times
Reputation: 21198
Quote:
Originally Posted by parentologist View Post
There are other options than the black and white of commitment to mental hospitals that are like the worst ones of the past, and simply abandoning the mentally ill to pace the streets, ranting and raving, living worse than an abandoned dog, and occasionally pushing a commuter into the path of an oncoming train.

The mentally ill homeless need treatment. Some of them, with proper treatment, could be maintained in an assisted living facility for the mentally ill, or in a group home for the mentally ill, as long as they could be compelled to take their medication. Some of them would never be able to live outside a mental hospital. Some of them, with treatment, could live in their own small apartment with VNA services, and monitored medication. But saying that there is no role for commitment to public mental health hospitals, and instead abandoning them to live short, brutal lives of hunger and cold and misery on the streets, and allowing them to endanger the public with occasional deranged attacks, is far more cruel than the alternatives. Of course, it does save taxpayer dollars to just abandon them to the streets.
Maybe I wasn't clear, let me try this again. Unless a person are in immediate danger of harming themself or others you can't confine them against their will. They can be detained for evaluation but that's it. If you disagree I would suggest you read

O'Connor v Donaldson 1975 U.S. Supreme Court declared that a person had to be a danger to him- or herself or to others for confinement to be constitutional

Olmstead v. L.C 1999 stated that mental illness was a disability and covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. All governmental agencies, not just the state hospitals, were be required thereafter to make “reasonable accommodations” to move people with mental illness into community-based treatment to end unnecessary institutionalization

Sell v US 2003 the opinion stated that permissible instances of involuntary medication for the purpose of restoring competency “may be rare.” This was in stark contrast to the common practice at the time of forcibly medicating criminal defendants for the purpose of restoring them to competence.

Bailey v. Kennedy, 2003 notes “the general right to be free from seizure unless probable cause exists is clearly established in the mental health seizure context…. An officer must have probable cause to believe that the individual posed a danger to himself or others before involuntarily detaining the individual
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2019, 10:42 AM
 
19,264 posts, read 15,884,557 times
Reputation: 36247
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Maybe I wasn't clear, let me try this again. Unless a person are in immediate danger of harming themself or others you can't confine them against their will. They can be detained for evaluation but that's it. If you disagree I would suggest you read

O'Connor v Donaldson 1975 U.S. Supreme Court declared that a person had to be a danger to him- or herself or to others for confinement to be constitutional

Olmstead v. L.C 1999 stated that mental illness was a disability and covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. All governmental agencies, not just the state hospitals, were be required thereafter to make “reasonable accommodations” to move people with mental illness into community-based treatment to end unnecessary institutionalization

Sell v US 2003 the opinion stated that permissible instances of involuntary medication for the purpose of restoring competency “may be rare.” This was in stark contrast to the common practice at the time of forcibly medicating criminal defendants for the purpose of restoring them to competence.

Bailey v. Kennedy, 2003 notes “the general right to be free from seizure unless probable cause exists is clearly established in the mental health seizure context…. An officer must have probable cause to believe that the individual posed a danger to himself or others before involuntarily detaining the individual
It doesn't matter in any case as it would add billions to the budget and no one would agree to pay for it. Assisted living, like nursing homes, cost up to $10,000 a month per person. That is why Reagan closed all the mental hospitals and residential facilities in favor of 'care in the community'.


The same people saying "they should keep them all confined for life" would be one of the pack screaming when their taxes get raised, Medicare and SS get cut to pay for it.


I think we COULD pay for it with different priorities and a much higher tax rate on the very wealthy, but that's the opposite of where we are now.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2019, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
29,923 posts, read 12,728,265 times
Reputation: 21198
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
It doesn't matter in any case as it would add billions to the budget and no one would agree to pay for it. Assisted living, like nursing homes, cost up to $10,000 a month per person. That is why Reagan closed all the mental hospitals and residential facilities in favor of 'care in the community'.

The same people saying "they should keep them all confined for life" would be one of the pack screaming when their taxes get raised, Medicare and SS get cut to pay for it.

I think we COULD pay for it with different priorities and a much higher tax rate on the very wealthy, but that's the opposite of where we are now.
Bingo!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2019, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
29,923 posts, read 12,728,265 times
Reputation: 21198
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
Nonsense. If they paid $100/hr, there would be millions of people willing to do it.
I never said they were paying $100 an hour, I was responding to this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Yes, it's so simple.
But no one's going to pay $15/hour with benefits to pick fruit - because they'd go broke with costs far higher than the product value. And no one hires pickers and processors year-round. It's not a matter of hiring cheap; it's a matter of hiring who will take the job at all... and they tend to come cheap.
Immigrants are not one of the US's job problems. Never have been. Sitting around a bar sobbing in your beer because the local Ford plant closed and blaming it on fruit pickers taking all the jobs is just absurd.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2019, 08:10 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,735 posts, read 4,452,355 times
Reputation: 20401
Maybe more cities should adopt "rent control" laws? I know here in SW Florida our rent increases are some of the highest in the country. The same 1 bedroom apartment that rented for $550 ten years ago is now $1000 a month which means a single person must make about $3000-$4000 a month to be approved. Not many people in this area are making that kind of money unless they are a professional. I was fortunate that I was able to buy my own small 2 bedroom house recently because I am paying less for a mortgage than anyplace I could even rent in my area.

Like was mentioned salaries have not been keeping up with the cost of rentals. I know several people whose kids had to move back home in their 30's. My mother has neighbors renting a 2 bedroom house and there are 4 people living there, two married couples sharing the house. Something needs to be done but I don't know what.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2019, 09:21 AM
 
4,123 posts, read 2,396,149 times
Reputation: 3695
If only the world was that simple. Rent control increases rents in the long-term.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top