Technically correct, but kinda besides the point… We don’t want people to no longer be technically homeless, we want to help them.
For the vast majority of homeless people simply giving them a home, or even some cash is all they need and they take it from there.
For the entrenched? Many will refuse or be unable to use whatever housing you provide (unless it’s built like a prison cell but who the hell wants to live in that?). Sure, they’ll technically not be homeless anymore because they “have” a home now, but they’ll still be sleeping outside/living the exact same if that’s what they choose.
So yes, for the vast majority of homeless people the only thing that makes them homeless is that they don’t have a home, but it’s disingenuous to ignore the rest who that doesn’t apply to.
Even for those few that it would not help, simply reducing the scale of the problem would make it easier for those few that remain to access other social supports if they need them.
The bottom line is that there should be no strings attached to social housing. If someone needs a home, we give them a home. After that solves the problem of homelessness, we can start addressing other issues like addictions, mental illness, etc. because those other problems are pretty much unsolvable if someone doesn’t have a roof over their head.
You’re missing the point that giving everyone a home doesn’t solve the problem of homelessness… It gets you close probably (so we could totally do it and some sort of financial support too), but it’s naive to think that gets you all the way.
Unfortunately there also need to be at least some strings attached to social housing too… There are people who are too violent or destructive to live that way.
The best results are housing first/financial aid first, but with a pre filter to weed out those few who are the more entrenched/troubled that this approach doesn’t work for. Of course, those few are also many of the people that are the most “visibly” homeless and what the public pictures when they imagine the problem which becomes a funding issue as a successful program won’t have the visible results people expect.
Technically correct, but kinda besides the point… We don’t want people to no longer be technically homeless, we want to help them.
For the vast majority of homeless people simply giving them a home, or even some cash is all they need and they take it from there.
For the entrenched? Many will refuse or be unable to use whatever housing you provide (unless it’s built like a prison cell but who the hell wants to live in that?). Sure, they’ll technically not be homeless anymore because they “have” a home now, but they’ll still be sleeping outside/living the exact same if that’s what they choose.
So yes, for the vast majority of homeless people the only thing that makes them homeless is that they don’t have a home, but it’s disingenuous to ignore the rest who that doesn’t apply to.
Even for those few that it would not help, simply reducing the scale of the problem would make it easier for those few that remain to access other social supports if they need them.
The bottom line is that there should be no strings attached to social housing. If someone needs a home, we give them a home. After that solves the problem of homelessness, we can start addressing other issues like addictions, mental illness, etc. because those other problems are pretty much unsolvable if someone doesn’t have a roof over their head.
You’re missing the point that giving everyone a home doesn’t solve the problem of homelessness… It gets you close probably (so we could totally do it and some sort of financial support too), but it’s naive to think that gets you all the way.
Unfortunately there also need to be at least some strings attached to social housing too… There are people who are too violent or destructive to live that way.
The best results are housing first/financial aid first, but with a pre filter to weed out those few who are the more entrenched/troubled that this approach doesn’t work for. Of course, those few are also many of the people that are the most “visibly” homeless and what the public pictures when they imagine the problem which becomes a funding issue as a successful program won’t have the visible results people expect.