"The Unhoused Community"

[Latimer]

"Downtown Los Angeles has been described as 'third world' after shocking footage reveals a homeless encampment with open fires in the street and trash-covered sidewalks. The startling video, posted to X by Fox News reporter Bill Melugin, shows dozens of homeless people sitting and standing on filthy sidewalks on the corner of San Pedro Street and 6th Street in the Skid Row neighborhood of LA. Some are seen standing around an open fire in the street, just moments away from the Midnight Mission, a $17 million center for the homeless."--Daily Mail

US Home | Daily Mail Online

MailOnline - get the latest breaking news, celebrity photos, viral videos, science & tech news, and top stories from MailOnline and the Daily Mail newspaper.

www.dailymail.co.uk

LA's Budget Deficit

Could cut into the city's interim housing beds

laist.com

Los Angeles office skyscraper faces foreclosure sale

The foreclosure comes as the value of office buildings has plunged amid higher vacancies. Elevated interest rates have also weighed on prices and made it difficult for building owners to refinance debt.

finance.yahoo.com

"The sale may complicate plans by the city of Los Angeles to lease more than 300,000 square feet in the building. The city has been negotiating with the receiver in control of the property for months to sign what would be one of the region's largest office leases of the year if it is approved by the City Council."

Why, I wonder, does the city think it needs an additional 300,000 s.f. of office space? Does it plan to further expand the city bureaucracy? And why? The city hardly needs more people sitting in desks in a posh skyscraper. It's particularly absurd because, in the short term, it needs to shed jobs due to a projected $400 million deficit:

"LOS ANGELES — As the City of Los Angeles faces a potential budget shortfall that could go up to $400 million due to overspending and new labor contracts, the City Council is looking at ways to close that gap, including cutting non-critical vacant job positions. However, city departments are still looking to hire for essential jobs, including through the Department of Public Works’ Clean LA Jobs Program." --Spectrum 1 News

 

[LilBit]

What they will discover is that helping the mentally ill only addresses a fraction of the street dwellers. And the same goes for the building of units for non-mentally ill. What will become evident is that only a fraction want to be off the streets. The major cities will then face backlash for spending the money and then having the problem remain, still impacting the homeful population.

A very significant fraction. 20-25% have severe mental illness, and about 45% have some sort of mental illness. https://bbrfoundation.org/blog/homelessness-and-mental-illness-challenge-our-society

 

[NotHardUp1]

Yes, a significant fraction, albeit I don't accept the 45% any more than I do the overapplication of "mental illness" to every miscreant and malefactor in the news. There is a tendency to brand "iillness" on every aberration, which much of society wouldn't define as illness.

The 25% sounds highly likely for those probably unable to function as independent adults successfully in society.

Either way, I'm all for spending the tax dollar on that most needful population. If we're never going to stop overspending on armaments, then at least start taxing more luxuries and the games in the forum.

 

[NotHardUp1]

"Downtown Los Angeles has been described as 'third world' after shocking footage reveals a homeless encampment with open fires in the street and trash-covered sidewalks.

It is difficult to believe that any adult could be shocked at images of people living in squalor

 

[peeonme]

It is difficult to believe that any adult could be shocked at images of people living in squalor

Many people would prefer to believe that the problem of mental illness, homelessness and people living in squalor is much smaller than it is. I believe that a persons surroundings reflect what is happening in their minds. It might start with a unkept house and not having a handle on paying bills and evolve into a house that is uninhabitable where gas, electric and water are turned off because of non payment of bills.

Both my mother and her sister lost touch with what was acceptable when it came to maintaining a household. I saw it first hand. My aunt had her children taken from her, her house was condemned and she ended up in a mental hospital (this was in the 1960's). My mother packed up and we left town before it happened to her as well. Thier dad I found out had been in a veterans mental hospital as he was diagnosed with youthful onset schizophrenia some time around 1917 while in the army.

Perhaps many of the homeless living in filth on the streets are mentally ill but have never been diagnosed (my mother was never diagnosed but her sister was). I would submit that anyone who lives in squalor suffers from some form of mental disease. I don't care if they are on the street of living in a filthy home with rats and cockroaches.

Keeping people off of the streets might be a good way to end homelessness.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Because people do not accept Victorian standards of housekeeping does not make them categorized as mentally ill. Tidiness is not a measure of sanity.

Whatever one surmises, opines, or projects about street people will not change the core issue: most of the people living on the street do not want to conform to society's mores, housing "rules", or be regulated and restricted by government programs.

Because WE would not live a vagabond's life, we presume they would be "rescued" if possible. Those who work every day with street people know the quandry of their lives.

 

[peeonme]

Because people do not accept Victorian standards of housekeeping does not make them categorized as mentally ill. Tidiness is not a measure of sanity.

Whatever one surmises, opines, or projects about street people will not change the core issue: most of the people living on the street do not want to conform to society's mores, housing "rules", or be regulated and restricted by government programs.

Because WE would not live a vagabond's life, we presume they would be "rescued" if possible. Those who work every day with street people know the quandry of their lives.

I see "tidiness" as a measure of "functionality". Of course there are degrees of functionality, a sloppy home isn't that uncommon but living in a house with dog and cat feces, moldy food laying around that stinks, laundry never being done, stacks of books and papers and a narrow path to get from one room to another speak loudly of a symptom of a mental disorder.

Not wanting to conform to any sort of normalcy such as wearing clean cloths, taking an occasional show, using a bathroom to defecate in stead of doing it in an ally or on a side walk does not speak well of one having a sound mind.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I see "tidiness" as a measure of "functionality". Of course there are degrees of functionality, a sloppy home isn't that uncommon but living in a house with dog and cat feces, moldy food laying around that stinks, laundry never being done, stacks of books and papers and a narrow path to get from one room to another speak loudly of a symptom of a mental disorder.

Not wanting to conform to any sort of normalcy such as wearing clean cloths, taking an occasional show, using a bathroom to defecate in stead of doing it in an ally or on a side walk does not speak well of one having a sound mind.

Making bad decisions and being mentally ill are two different things. I've seen hoarding up close. I've also seen a woman raise her children in absolute filth, roaches in the thousands, and dirty clothes everywhere and pets and feces amidst them. That woman wasn't mentally ill. She was an addict. She had made choices to abuse drugs, and then been pulled down by degree by that addiction. But it was still a recreational habit become a lifestyle become squalor, as it is so often.

My own grandmother was a hoarder and she was not mentally ill. Her pattern began when she reacted against her husband's affairs. She chose to do other things than become a domestic servant. Gradually, her avoidance of housekeeping plus her clutter became her lifestyle. She continued to maintain social obligations, attended clubs, church, conventions, and attained a college degree. She was a fully functioning member of society and her family, yet her house was but a series of pig trails.

The difference is, in part, money and opportunity. For some, if they have the money to hire domestic help, the housekeeping never becomes a problem. It's subcontracted out. For others, they live in a rural setting and the habit of having storehouses and barns and accumulating crap in them over decades is not rare. It also matters if someone is married to a tolerant spouse, or lives alone, a further removing of society's standards.

But, because the value is so opposite what the majority has been raised with, it MUST be a sickness. That exact same logic is applied to gay men every single day on the internet, and not just by dense African dictators. There are a great number of straight males who view gay males as somehow mentally ill, and not in any scientific measure as the APA did, merely "defective."

On the flip side, even if it fits some evolved definition of mental illness, that doesn't put the person in question into some category of incapability of perceiving reality correctly. That is the legal standard, and not just for murder trials. The person must be aware of the consequences of their actions, and what is real and what is hallucination.

OCD is a good example. You can have a mild form of it and need to put your shirts in color order in the closet. Or, you can hit a bump on the road and have to keep doubling back over and over and over, because your mind obsessively fears hitting someone and your memory and perception are doubted by your reasoning, so you no longer "know" what reality is/was. The former condition is but a mild annoyance or trait, but the latter approaches what we see as insane.

Whether the outworkings of hoarding or not, homelessness may appear to us to be so alien to normal expectations of well-being that we accept "that person must be crazy to live that way." And, that is sometimes true when the person is catatonic, is delusional, is extremely addicted, or obsessive, but a vast number of people don't fit those descriptions. They simply reject working for a living and paying rent and doing daily chores and answering the phone and putting up with neighbors, etc.

They opted out, often directly, but just as often indirectly. They didn't make decisions and choices that left them any place to go or live but in the streets. And when offered shelters, programs, and aid, they took what they could and walked away, because they won't live in a structured environment with obligations. That's the reality.

 

[peeonme]

Is Addiction a Mental Illness? Absolutely!

Addiction changes your brain in a way that makes stopping more difficult. Learn more about why addiction is a mental illness and why reducing the stigma is important.

psychcentral.com

In the DSM-5, healthcare professionals diagnose a level of SUD ranging from mild to severe based on the number of symptoms present from the following 11-item list:

• hazardous use
• interpersonal or social problems connected to use
• neglect of important roles connected to use
• cravings
• withdrawal
• tolerance
• use of larger amounts for longer
• repeated attempts to quit or control use
• much time spent using
• psychological or physical problems connected to use
• activities given up to use

In the criminal justice system a person can be found capable of standing trail for any offence if they know the difference between right and wrong and are able to defend themselves with or without legal council in a court of law. The bar is set pretty low, you can indeed be mentally ill but competent to stand trail.
This should not be interpreted to infer that such a person can "function" normally (with in a wide range of parameters") of what society sees as acceptable behavior.

Many people have conditions such as OCD, agoraphobia, PTSD and other disorders and can navigate through life. Treatment, medication and counseling are available for those that have not yet fallen through the cracks.

There was a time when someone could walk up behind me at work and start talking, without thinking I would make a fist and draw it back, I came very close to clocking more than one person that "invaded" my space. I thought that I was just a tough guy, ready to stand my ground. This evolved into losing my temper for the slightest reason. I finally talked this out with my doctor and he referred me to a shrink that diagnosed me with PTSD. Had I ever hurt anyone of course I would have been held accountable, if I would have spent any time in jail or prison I would have been released with no where to go but the streets.

I am thankful that some counseling and medication have helped me.
I again would say that when a person "chooses" to live on the street, that in and of itself is a sign of a mental disorder.

 

[Alistair]

This thread is going exactly where I knew it would go. Blame the homeless, it’s all their fault.

 

[peeonme]

When I worked as a machinist we dealt with different materials and types of steel. Most items would be sent out to heat treat to be hardened to as a specific Rockwell such as 58-62. Sometimes these details would come back with cracks and the owner would order more steel and tell me to make another one. I would ask why it cracked and he would respond "who cares?, just make a new one". My reason for asking was to prevent the same thing from reoccurring in the replacement part. Cause and effect, deal with the cause and prevent the effect. Perhaps a larger radius in the corner would prevent the crack.

So, in most areas of life when a problem presents itself if we look for cause rather than assigning blame a problem can be prevented rather then be left to deal with after the fact. There are a myriad of reasons as to why we have so many people on the street in our nation. I have looked at statistics but couldn't find any real scientific data.
There are "groups" that many homeless people might fit into:
Drugs, but then we must ask why they used drugs? That would lead to a subset of groups.
Mental Illness(es), Then we are left to ask why there was no treatment available to keep them functional.
Lack of work opportunity, Yes there are a lot of jobs, but do they pay enough to provide housing of any type along with food and medication?
Lack of affordable housing, this one to me is the main culprit. We at one time built inexpensive entry level homes. Some were "track" houses, some duplexes and of course the infamous "trailer" found surrounded in a park by other trailers.

Most of this took place after WW2, the troops returned, married, had kids and with the GI bill could buy a home. Many lived in these little homes for a period of time and sold them to first time home buyers, made a profit and bought larger homes. Larger homes provide higher profits to builders. This lead to even larger homes, what I call "McMansions" (I didn't coin the phrase). In the mean time none or few starter homes were built. This caused a demand for "cheap" housing and many people bought a few houses to rent out.

This worked for a while, a rental was a bit more expensive than buying, but within reach. Soon large corporations saw a great opportunity to rake in a lot of cash. They bought up most homes in an area such as where I now am buying my home. Most houses on my street and neighborhood are rentals. They rent for around 1250. per month, well above what it would cost to buy the same home with a minimum down payment. A property manager is put in charge and only enough is done to the house to keep the city of of the back of the corporation.

These same corporations have bought up trailer parks, some folks have lived in the parks for 30 years or more, the park is sold and suddenly the lot rent triples over night. The trailers can't be moved and folks are evicted. I should throw into to the mix that family owned funeral homes have been bought up as well.

Capitalism will bring abought it's own end if this trend continues, these greedy bastards are like locusts. You want the cause? Follow the money.

 

[Latimer]

"Mental Illness(es), Then we are left to ask why there was no treatment available to keep them functional."

There is treatment. As has been oft-stated, when court of appeal rulings prohibited the institutionalization of a person for more than 48 hours without consent, and at the same time the psychiatric hierarchy believed it preferable to treat people as out-patients, and also at the same time the federal and state governments sought to save money, the taxpayer supported mental hospitals were closed. The intention was that that with drugs and the ministrations of an expanded bureaucracy of social workers, people who otherwise couldn't take care of themselves would be given the means to do so. As it turned out, people often don't take the drugs they're prescribed, and often don't follow the directions given to them by social workers. And even if housing is provided as it often is, people don't necessarily want to live in it for a whole variety of reasons. I have a couple of good friends who volunteer to work with the homeless who tell me that none of the people they see will agree to be housed, and those who are prescribed drugs to treat their mental condition don't stay on the drugs.

 

[Peloso]

This thread is beginning to read like a Fox News story. So many unkind generalizations.

There used to be a guy who loved on my street (literally) because he could no longer justify leeching off friends and family and "moved" to the city because it was warmer at night and he thought there would be more opportunities for work. He had gone to school for technical stuff (semiconductors or something) and was hired by a company that went belly up in the span of a year and laid him off, despite his good work. His mistake was not crack, not poor mental health hygiene, but believing in what used to be known as The American Dream. He bought a house, thinking that after a few years he would be able to gain enough momentum to achieve financial security. In this economy, things can go south for people very quickly. Homelessness can happen overnight, even for responsible, hard working, toilet-using people.

In far too many cases, in order to find a job, you need a permanent home address, but in order to rent an apartment you need to prove that you are gainfully employed. And around and around it goes.

If AI concocted an image of a homeless person from the data on this thread, you'd get Multiple Miggs from Silence of the Lambs ("Look at the blonde!"). The mental health issues that drive people to homelessness need not be severe. Even something as common as depression, which was lovingly framed above to seem like paranoid psychosis, can cause a person's life to unravel enough for them to lose everything.

Being homeless can be dangerous, especially in urban areas. Psychiatric drugs can cause side effects that are more debilitating than the illness itself. I once was put on Lamotrigine and found I could not talk. Imagine trying to explain to a cop why you're sleeping in a doorway when all you can get out are long vowels. But these are severe examples; in general, these drugs make you feel gauzy and not at all alert. They slow down your reaction time. Many, many people stop taking them not out of irresponsibility, but simply for their own safety.

Homelessness is dehumanizing, and dehumanization leads to the unsavory traits so often attributed to the homeless, not the other way around.

 

[peeonme]

^
People that have conditions such as bi-polar or schizophrenia are at high risk if they miss a dose of their medication. These meds. have side affects that are unpleasant. If they go off of these meds. it is a downward spiral. It is obvious that a better system needs to be in place.

Now, let's look at those who seem to want to stay on the street. All of us have a comfort zone of sorts. A level of "buoyancy" from which we can't sink any further. It might be comparable to being institutionalized, many criminals find ways to be incarcerated time after time. 3 hots and a cot is what they are used to. Stockholm syndrome is an example of victims using survival skills of sorts to cope with a situation.

So it to me is no surprise that some who have spent a good deal of time living on the streets are reluctant to take the risk of falling through the cracks of society all over again. My main thought is to find a path that helps people to stay off of street life in the first place, then reach out to those who have not yet acclimated to a life of homelessness. At the same time making sure to extend help to those that have made (through no choice of their own) street life their comfort zone.

 

[Peloso]

^ The solution for most social problems is to root out and fix the main cause, yes, but this alone will do nothing for those already living on the streets, and too many voters and politicians want a quick fix for everything, so they twist things around and say, "Nope. It won't work. I want to stop seeing homeless people now."

Another problem is that it involves just giving them money. Simple as that. But again, this means giving money to people who aren't Jesus-colored, and you know how republicans feel about that. There would have to be some kind of accountability check if cash is given out being that being homeless over a period of time can affect one's judgement, but I'll bet a large percentage of homeless people would use this money wisely. But it's still a handout. So instead, we get PROGRAMS, which are much more expensive than handouts, and far less effective.

Human Resource programs are, sadly, dehumanizing in themselves. They're disorganized, overcrowded, and staffed by civil servants scraped from the bottom of the barrel. Too many people see them as just another unpleasant facet of being unhoused rather than a first step toward a better life.

Maybe we should just leave it up to the US Military to solve the problem since that's where most of our tax dollars go anyway.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Unfortunately, dealing with street living and the crime that comes with it isn't as simple as "kind" or "unkind". It's effective, helpful, and successful, or not.

The problem has proven pretty intractable.

Assuming people who didn't manage to keep off the streets will suddenly be able to manage cash in hand is contradictory to everything that has been seen in practice. Many street people who panhandle already get cash from "kind" people who can't be bothered to devote time or resources beyond a payoff, often to assuage guilt of being in the haves instead of the have-nots. Counselors, and others, will quickly identify the behavior as enabling for addicts and other bad habits that don't lead to getting off the street.

No one has suggested that all the homeless are beyond help. But suggesting that some, maybe most, cannot be brought off the streets, is supposedly "blaming" them. That's only the case if you think being a vagabond is something to be blamed with. It's a lifestyle, just like recreational drug addiction is, just like subsistence employment is, just like gambling is. Suggesting the majority of the homeless are somehow not directly responsible for the path that led to the streets is denying reality.

And yes, "hobo" and "vagabond" have become taboo in the PC arena, as they imply "bum" to some, but they are about the only mostly neutral terms out there for the poor who choose to live on the move. That's the entire point of the thread. Contriving idiot terms like "unhoused" to avoid describing the population is just playing games. And then there is the small detail that "unhoused" isn't even literally true for many in that category.

One can be fully supportive of helping mental health programs, food banks, housing programs, job training, etc., without swearing allegiance ot some philosophy that everyone is a hapless victim just become some are.

As for fearing the direction of the thread, there is no unknown element here. Everyone posting has already posted on this topic numerous times, with the same lines drawn about what is and what is not.

No one's trying to persuade anyone else here of anything. Everyone's just reposting the same points we've made repeatedly over the years. It's JUB. People don't come here to change. They come here to do the same things, over and over.

Just like every other social media site, sometimes that includes finding reasons to demonize other members. Sometimes not.

 

[peeonme]

Not to beat a dead horse, but this video is worth a look:

 

[Latimer]

"The exact origins of the workhouse however have a much longer history. They can be traced back to the Poor Law Act of 1388. In the aftermath of the Black Death, labour shortages were a major problem. The movement of workers to other parishes in search of higher paid work was restricted. By enacting laws to deal with vagrancy and prevent social disorder, in reality the laws increased the involvement of the state in its responsibility to the poor."

(Let me momentarily digress: In the aftermath of the Black Death in Italy, wages and general prosperity increased due to labor shortages. One manifestation of this is the increased tax revenue from butchers selling more meat.)

The Victorian Workhouse - Historic UK

The workhouse is perhaps the most infamous of all 19th century institutions...

www.historic-uk.com

The Workhouse in Stamford, Lincolnshire

www.workhouses.org.uk

 

[Latimer]

Donate - The House of St Barnabas

Donations help to support more people to break the cycle of homelessness. 70% of people get paid work whilst taking part in our Employment Programme.

hosb.org.uk

 

[NotHardUp1]

One wonders what the profile of the typical street dweller in London, or Berlin, or Rome is versus the analog in Seattle, Dallas, or Cincinnati.