Michelle Wu is proving you can walk and chew gum at the same time. So many people seemed to float one idea that would solve all problems. What I see here is someone looking at a problem and is just wrapping around it completely.
I'm glad to see this; count me as a former skeptic. What did she do that got this going rather than before - or was it that the weather necessitated action that wouldn't be feasible otherwise?
The globe had an article about the roundhouse being used as housing. The doctor at BMC who runs the program says there will be no tolerance for drug use. I'll assume that means they will get the boot
So what happens then?
They just return to the streets. Continuing to use in a treatment center.. any treatment.. is grounds for removal.So its likely this will happen.
So they go back to the streets & back to Sacklerville. And once again living in tents.
So what do we do then? Push someone who doesn't want treatment back into treatment or do we just leave them alone?
We need to get out of the paradigm that "drug users must want help if they are on the streets". This will be the biggest fallacy of this attempt to clean up this area.The article states that 168 beds are available for 68 people. So why aren't they going?
because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
We need to drill this into our heads so we get it. Its clear we don't because I see no plan for those who do not want drug treatment.
So what do we do? Give them free housing anyways? Not sure that is a good idea either. A handout doesn't help in the long run, getting them to help themselves does.I'm all for people wanting to help themselves. but I have razar's thin compassion for people who do not. Many do not.
of *any* sort, then I'm OK with the city saying "well, you still can't pitch your tent here, find another spot". If they're actually want to be an addict and live on the streets, then they can take on both the upsides and the downsides of that without any of the accommodations that are made for people who really want to leave that scene. Maybe they'll change their minds. Maybe not.
There's a different sort, though, who don't want *specific kinds* of help, and I'm obviously more sympathetic to that. Shelters do impose some unreasonable hardship of various sorts, and some assistance programs are overly paternalistic. I understand why some people want to leave the street but don't make use of those programs as they're currently run.
I suspect this second group is larger, and is the one I'd want to work to help...
So we have gotten to a place where not freezing to death is a handout?
Huh.
You do realize that the new ways of looking at housing the homeless are moving away from the "handout" mentality and the "have to earn stability" mentality because those concepts 1) don't work and 2) exacerbate the problems of homelessness?
Housing stability doesn't solve all problems for all people, but it solves many or even most of the problems for most people - and provides a stable platform for solving their other problems.
When you have a place to live, you can focus on treatment options. It is hard to do that if you are on the street. How are you supposed to take a shower if you live on the street? And if you get a job, it is hard to get ready for it, on the street.
Comments
Hopefully sooner
With the temps heading into the single digits before sunrise, I really hope they get everyone settled today.
Michelle Wu is proving you
Michelle Wu is proving you can walk and chew gum at the same time. So many people seemed to float one idea that would solve all problems. What I see here is someone looking at a problem and is just wrapping around it completely.
Good for her
I'm glad to see this; count me as a former skeptic. What did she do that got this going rather than before - or was it that the weather necessitated action that wouldn't be feasible otherwise?
The Globe
The globe had an article about the roundhouse being used as housing. The doctor at BMC who runs the program says there will be no tolerance for drug use. I'll assume that means they will get the boot
So what happens then?
They just return to the streets. Continuing to use in a treatment center.. any treatment.. is grounds for removal.So its likely this will happen.
So they go back to the streets & back to Sacklerville. And once again living in tents.
So what do we do then? Push someone who doesn't want treatment back into treatment or do we just leave them alone?
We need to get out of the paradigm that "drug users must want help if they are on the streets". This will be the biggest fallacy of this attempt to clean up this area.The article states that 168 beds are available for 68 people. So why aren't they going?
because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
We need to drill this into our heads so we get it. Its clear we don't because I see no plan for those who do not want drug treatment.
So what do we do? Give them free housing anyways? Not sure that is a good idea either. A handout doesn't help in the long run, getting them to help themselves does.I'm all for people wanting to help themselves. but I have razar's thin compassion for people who do not. Many do not.
i’m curious though
as it pertains to the people who – as you say – don’t want to help themselves, what does a proactive plan look like?
If someone doesn't want assistance
of *any* sort, then I'm OK with the city saying "well, you still can't pitch your tent here, find another spot". If they're actually want to be an addict and live on the streets, then they can take on both the upsides and the downsides of that without any of the accommodations that are made for people who really want to leave that scene. Maybe they'll change their minds. Maybe not.
There's a different sort, though, who don't want *specific kinds* of help, and I'm obviously more sympathetic to that. Shelters do impose some unreasonable hardship of various sorts, and some assistance programs are overly paternalistic. I understand why some people want to leave the street but don't make use of those programs as they're currently run.
I suspect this second group is larger, and is the one I'd want to work to help...
[edited to clarify]
Everyone deserves shelter.
Even if you don’t personally like how they choose to live their lives.
and everyone deserves
and everyone deserves passable sidewalks and parks not covered in needles.
and everyone deserves
Sounds like housing people would solve a whole host of problems!!
How do you house people that
How do you house people that refuse housing?
Jail?
They deserve the right to and the availability of shelter
They don't necessarily deserve it in that particular location.
And remember: There, I'm *specifically* talking about the few people who really do want to live on the street.
Handout?
So we have gotten to a place where not freezing to death is a handout?
Huh.
You do realize that the new ways of looking at housing the homeless are moving away from the "handout" mentality and the "have to earn stability" mentality because those concepts 1) don't work and 2) exacerbate the problems of homelessness?
Housing stability doesn't solve all problems for all people, but it solves many or even most of the problems for most people - and provides a stable platform for solving their other problems.
When you have a place to live
When you have a place to live, you can focus on treatment options. It is hard to do that if you are on the street. How are you supposed to take a shower if you live on the street? And if you get a job, it is hard to get ready for it, on the street.