Irrelevant
Well-known member
I didn't mean to call you out specifically for thinking it's black and white, I know you don't actually think that way, but without reading SandFransicko and based on a few summaries I read, and commenting on several of the other commenters in this thread, drugs keep being called out as THE problem. I think there is far more evidence that drugs are just the symptom. You can crazy, and unfortunate/unlucky/desperate as the leading causes.I don’t think it is black and white at all and don't mean to come off that way. A portion of Schellenberger’s book(s), and certainly the titles, are meant to be inflammatory – read bait. That said, my take on the tenor of that book was a bit different than what I sense the critiques make it out to be. Part of that is Schellenberger’s blind spots, and part of it is a predictable reaction to his prodding.
If I read those charts correctly, he’s not wrong that the two leading causes of chronic homelessness are mental health issues and substance abuse issues. Critics of his claim would say that unaffordable housing just exacerbates that issue, and I think there is truth to that. Also, categorizing people like that doesn't capture the overlap or I'm sure, tell the whole tale. Both he, and sometimes his critics, seem to be engaged in the highlighting of a lot of correlations. I don’t see specifically though, how both things are incompatible insofar as being contributors. I won’t strongly argue in any way which is the chief driver. It's confusing to me.
There are a large pile of substantive critiques out there of this book. Something I appreciated about his book though, whether his thesis is focused on the wrong thing, is he says what many, including myself, say: “We cannot permit people to behave in certain ways in public and we must prohibit them from doing so (public camping, drug use, free roaming excrement, etc). I agree with this strongly. But as his critics point out, so many just leave it at that. He takes it a step further and proposes a solution. One that, he argues, has components far more achievable than affordable housing, a problem which, as his detractors fairly point out, has a lot of systemic and political inertia aligned against it.
On a side note, I do think that when it comes to homeless folks, our anecdotal experiences and perception of the issue probably does over-focus on the mentally ill and drug addled. They are the ones who cause more friction in our lives – approaching you downtown, trying to break into your buildings, filling your local swimming hole with needles. And so overestimating their signal becomes easy, and we forget about all the others – the youth, parents who can’t afford a home, those fleeing domestic violence, etc.
Ultimately, when I think loftily, this country is sick, and that’s a much larger subject than homelessness, which is only a symptom.
Thanks for the links.
I also have a really hard time with this overarching homelessness label, and the problems, societal costs, and potential solutions that come with it, and how they don't actually fit that group of people worth a shit. If you're a bit crazy and live in Stevens Co WA, you live in a wall tent up some creek with 40 shot up no trespassing signs and random piles of garbage on a couple acres of crappy timber land (literally drove by two of them on Saturday). But if you're that same crazy and live in King Co well you're homeless. Because you can't find somewhere to live, to continue to be crazy, for the level of cheap you can in Stevens Co. Hell maybe you're parents just gave you the land and you're just squatting making ends meet, wearing you foil hat and blaming the Big Brother for all ills, while drinking cheap grain alcohol and living off the fire wood you poach then sell to your parents friends. I know you know these people, all rural people know these people, but those people would the same homeless "trash" everyone laments if they were born somewhere else (ie Seattle, Portland, SanFran, etc). Housing prices is absolutely part of it. Also the idea that homeless congregate where they have the most services makes sense, but that doesn't mean that services should be offered, you're not making new homeless even if you are attracting them.
I get that we shouldn't allow rampant lawbreaking out in the open. But nothing that I've ever heard, actually provides a workable solution that doesn't involve involuntary medicating or generally treating people like animals. I can't support either, no matter how inconvenient it is.