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.
Homelessness is usually one of two things: Mental Illness or Addiction. Show me someone who is homeless who is not suffering from one or both of these two diseases. This is why it isn't a good idea to throw them a few bucks. We need to develop more effective treatment for this population. Yes, it will cost. But what is the cost without?
I was in Houston last summer and was amazed at how many homeless were at each freeway exit. They tend to stake out their territory. I thought to myself, "glad we don't see this much in Seattle". But here we are in 2016, and indeed Seattle has the same.
I am so torn on this. I would like to help, but paying these folks while driving by seems counter-productive. Who knows what they will do with the money, as some, not all, are drug addicts or alcoholics. And I am not going to pay for that. I prefer to offer my donations to legitimate shelters and food donation centers. If these folks can't make it to those, then I don't feel it is my problem. I have, and will continue to offer my donations to these type of places. Call me what you want, but that is how I feel. Oh, and BTW, if we don't make eye contact, it isn't because we don't care. Most of us do.
This is a very good post, IMO, about this growing problem in many major cities in the U.S. I agree with you in supporting food banks, maybe even soup kitchens and other legitimate agencies who work with these groups. Your caring comes through with your messages, pnwguy2. Those who truly don't care probably won't post in this thread.
I'll call you wise, experienced and probably someone who has helped these folks in other ways. I agree many are addicted to different things and the incidence of mentail illness is very high . The majority need treatment and not a crisis model....... Real treatment. The high cost of psychiatric or dual diagnosis (serious mental health issues and addiction) treatment probably contributes significantly to the increase in homelessness. A few are there for other reasons, but they are usually encountered elsewhere.
I was driving to a different state when I stopped as I needed to walk and stretch. As I was getting ready to leave, from seemingly nowhere, a homeless man was at my door with his grocery cart and belongings. He asked for money for food. Fortunately, this happened in a small city about 50 miles south of me so I knew where some ďrive thrus were. I said I would buy him lunch, but I was going inside with him to make sure he got enough food. He was gone before I could open my door. I looked for a couple of minutes but decided quickly he wasn't interested in food. Too bad, I really would have bought him enough food to ensure he wasn't hungry.
This made me think of the homeless guy that's outside of the bus tunnel entrance every afternoon with a sign "just moved here from Houston - anything helps." He's been there more than two years.
John Stossel did a documentary about this year's ago, for several cities. He encountered a disheveled looking woman at an off--ramp who had a sign saying she had moved and had no money for food. With hidden cameras, his team followed that woman to her home where she changed into different clothes. He confronted her and learned she had made > $60 K the previous year. She considered that off ramp her job.
If you're living in a tent under a freeway (for whatever reason), you're homeless.
How do you know?
If you go to a bar to drink beer are you homeless? No, because you don't live there. Same with the dudes that hang out under the freeway shooting heroin. What they lack is a home where they can use IV drugs.
They two people killed in the Jungle weren't homeless because they had a place of residence other than a tent: AKA "a home".
If you've known people with serious substance abuse problems it's not unusual for them to disappear for a few days or weeks at a time. That doesn't make them homeless, it makes them addicts.
Seattle for whatever reason has been reluctant to differentiate between people that are in fact homeless, and those that are addicts living a lifestyle characterized by theft and chronic substance abuse.
If you go to a bar to drink beer are you homeless? No, because you don't live there. Same with the dudes that hang out under the freeway shooting heroin. What they lack is a home where they can use IV drugs.
Way to change your argument.... You stated that these people are living in tents under a freeway (not just 'going' there, like in your bar comparison).... If that's the case, they're homeless. If you're living inside a bar (and the bar owner doesn't mind) then yes, I guess you would be considered homeless because that's not a place designed for sleeping or living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch
They two people killed in the Jungle weren't homeless because they had a place of residence other than a tent: AKA "a home".
You never stated that they had another home. And again, how do you know they had another place to stay other than a homeless shelter (which still makes them homeless)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch
If you've known people with serious substance abuse problems it's not unusual for them to disappear for a few days or weeks at a time. That doesn't make them homeless, it makes them addicts.
Seattle for whatever reason has been reluctant to differentiate between people that are in fact homeless, and those that are addicts living a lifestyle characterized by theft and chronic substance abuse.
I agree that Seattle does a TERRIBLE job of policing people who have drug problems. You don't have to walk very far down SODO to find people who are obviously on something.
And to your point on going on drug binges and sleeping in tents under freeways to do so.... We disagree on that not being, by definition, homeless. If a person is sleeping in, or under, places not designed for lodging, sleeping, living, camping etc... and they justify that by saying, "I'm not homeless because I'm living this way by choice because I'm on drugs and I'm just on a binge." I'm sorry, but that person is fooling themselves and they're in denial. They're homeless, by choice or otherwise.
Way to change your argument.... You stated that these people are living in tents under a freeway (not just 'going' there, like in your bar comparison).... If that's the case, they're homeless. If you're living inside a bar (and the bar owner doesn't mind) then yes, I guess you would be considered homeless because that's not a place designed for sleeping or living.
You never stated that they had another home. And again, how do you know they had another place to stay other than a homeless shelter (which still makes them homeless)?
I agree that Seattle does a TERRIBLE job of policing people who have drug problems. You don't have to walk very far down SODO to find people who are obviously on something.
And to your point on going on drug binges and sleeping in tents under freeways to do so.... We disagree on that not being, by definition, homeless. If a person is sleeping in, or under, places not designed for lodging, sleeping, living, camping etc... and they justify that by saying, "I'm not homeless because I'm living this way by choice because I'm on drugs and I'm just on a binge." I'm sorry, but that person is fooling themselves and they're in denial. They're homeless, by choice or otherwise.
Yes, I agree with most of this. The solution is elusive. Homeless camps are not the answer. Perhaps we need to spend some money to offer treatment to those who need it. I know, not a very "Republican" thing to do, but if most of us are human, we need to solve this problem. Not with handouts, but with treatment.
Way to change your argument.... You stated that these people are living in tents under a freeway (not just 'going' there, like in your bar comparison).... If that's the case, they're homeless. If you're living inside a bar (and the bar owner doesn't mind) then yes, I guess you would be considered homeless because that's not a place designed for sleeping or living.
You never stated that they had another home. And again, how do you know they had another place to stay other than a homeless shelter (which still makes them homeless)?
I agree that Seattle does a TERRIBLE job of policing people who have drug problems. You don't have to walk very far down SODO to find people who are obviously on something.
And to your point on going on drug binges and sleeping in tents under freeways to do so.... We disagree on that not being, by definition, homeless. If a person is sleeping in, or under, places not designed for lodging, sleeping, living, camping etc... and they justify that by saying, "I'm not homeless because I'm living this way by choice because I'm on drugs and I'm just on a binge." I'm sorry, but that person is fooling themselves and they're in denial. They're homeless, by choice or otherwise.
K... same as when a person of greater means lives on a cruise ship or in a hotel, they have a place to come home to. Just because they're taking an a vacation to shoot heroin doesn't mean they don't have a home.
If you read about who was murdered in the Jungle, they were not homeless. They were addicts with homes. If you want to call that 'homeless', you're mincing words. They had a place to live, they were in the jungle for drugs.
Just because someone leaves home to shoot heroin under the freeway for a few weeks doesn't mean they're homeless. It means they have a serious drug problem.
K... same as a person of means lives on a cruise ship or in a hotel, they have a place to come home to. Just because they're taking an a vacation to shoot heroin doesn't mean they don't have a home.
Horrible analogy. Cruise ships are designed to be inhabited, lived on, and slept on unlike living under a freeway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch
If you read about who was murdered in the Jungle, they were not homeless. They were addicts with homes. If you want to call that 'homeless', you're mincing words. They had a place to live, they were in the jungle for drugs.
Just because someone leaves home to shoot heroin under the freeway doesn't mean they're homeless.
I'm not sure if I believe anything that's stated in mainstream media. But even so, living under a freeway because you don't have your drug addiction under control makes you homeless for that time period. Even if you do have somewhere else to go (like your in-laws couch). Trying to claim anything else is playing semantics.
It's overpriced and there aren't enough services to help people get back on their feet. I've volunteered for various homeless organizations across the U.S. and the homeless in Seattle are given just enough to keep them alive but in a perpetual state of need. It's a business and these homeless "service" organizations have no real incentive for helping people to get out of homelessness as they are funded based on how many homeless they feed and shelter overnight.
Just.No,
When you state "there aren't enough services to help people get back on their feet," then you mention volunteering for homeless organizations, it is slightly confusing.
Your statement about, " It's a business and these homes 'service' organizations have no real incentive for helping people to get out of homelessness as they are funded based on how many homeless they feed and shelter overnight."
I'm confused by a couple of things. First, kudos for volunteering to make someone's life better. What confuses me, and probably others, is it seems like you are referencing various social service type organizations that contract with a state, city or other municipality. Something similar to DD/MR ICF facilities where various companies submit bids to be awarded contracts for a vulnerable population. Did I understand you correctly?
If so, for those who care for the homeless as a business, where do they shelter/house these people? I'm not certain of your point about all the homeless easily seen, if they are under the supervision of a contract agency. What did I miss?
Just to be clear when I've written about donations, I meant 503 (c) (3) true non profits that don't compete for and receive contracts. Are clients of contracted agencies depleting the resources of true non-profits as well? And what are the contract agencies responsible for providing for each client they enroll in their contract agency?
Thanks for the clarifications
MSR
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.
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.
