Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
Maybe not the type of Progressives that San Francisco has: Book: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. Much exaggerated as a generalization, but applies well to S.F.
Do you not believe that people locked up in mental wards are force fed drugs?
The solution isn't a harder government hand, its a smart approach. Look I agree with your desire for a safer streets, id just rather achieve it though other methods. first lets try better solutions like the ones proposed in San Fransicko, then lets maybe actually allow people to protect themselves....
I agree things will get worse if nothing is done. I just think its hilarious that people think "This time the government will get taking away people rights and locking them up the RIGHT way".
There are so many other good solutions, you should give San Fransicko a read, lots of other good solutions proposed other than giving the government wild approval to force feed drugs to people.
>You know what does cause homelessness? Cutting welfare programs, making homelessness illegal so that they can't even have the chance of getting on their feet, preventing shelters from being built because of NIMBYism, etc. In short, not actually addressing the causes of homelessness, which is blatant in your post.
Incorrect. homelessness is caused by enabling open air drug markets. go read https://www.amazon.co.uk/San-Fransicko-Progressives-Ruin-Cities/dp/0063093626 that's my source. I can't read it for you.
This is also why the "Why don't we just give homeless people apartments" argument is stupid. You want a drug addict to die, give them a quiet secluded place to do drugs all day. This is a good read if you want to learn about what strategies really work for the homeless.
> Cause your making up arguments.
Nonsense. We hear the narratives every day from soft-on-crime people.
>Free homes has nothing to do with CC theives
There's a lot of evidence that a hard core of the homeless (20% - 25%) are involved in a lot of theft, especially breaking into cars. (link on S.F above). Big constituency both in SF and LA for giving all homeless free housing. Michael Shellenburger, author of "San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, discusses this.
Big overlap between homeless advocates and criminal justice performers who DON'T want sanctions on most property crime offenders. The two groups lobby together all the time.
It's more like the legitimate problem of a lack of affordable housing and the search for solutions being harmed by progressive policies. Author Michael Shellenberger's discussion of what happened in San Francisco is useful: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities.
It is true that most places, especially Connecticut, don't have the homeless problems that S.F. does, but the book discusses the excess of criminal justice reform. That is affecting more and more parts of America. Big Sacred Cow there -- criminal justice reform.
>The steadfast, unapologetic greed is sickening...
It is not greed. Property owners would be far more willing to accept new housing near them if government would fulfill its obligation of controlling vagrants, drug addicts, vandals and other chronic petty offenders -- housed or unhoused.
S.F. is easily one of the worst cities in the nation for tolerating for public disorder. City policies seem to be rooted in the idea that * freedom to act as you please* is the highest community goal. People who think cities should have standards of civility and order are told to shut up, stop insulting the marginalized population. San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities discusses how S.F. wants to set up free housing for 8,000 homeless without imposing any rules on these people.
Author Michael Shellenburger used the term in his book: "San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. Discusses that city's tolerance for drug addicts occupying public spaces.
Yeah, the number I first saw with respect to the cost of running the Weber and Victoria encampment (which now has a cozy new annex kitty corner!) was $25k monthly back in maybe May? The newer figure I saw was $80k monthly, so a cool Mill.
Anyone interested in reading about productive solutions should draw their attention to Michael Schellenberger's work San Fran-sicko.
I don't love the subtitle, lol, but he draws on the Dutch experience in an effort to address the absolute pox of open drug use scenes in LA. There's hope for these folks AND the community. Much love!
Are you aware of what has been going on with San Francisco's 8000 homeless? Guy wrote a book on it. Michael Shellenburger, San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. Left-leaning activist trying to get all those people, many of whom are addicts, housed in free apartments in one of the most expensive cities in the nation
Yea, picking the best terms are a pain, someone always makes a fuss about their use, though it seems most everyone understands the basic positions, and their points of view.
Michael Shellenburger wrote a book on the problems of addiction and mental illness in San Francisco: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. It agrees with almost all of my points. Progressives the best term?
I'm not sure if you've read this OP, but I've heard it's good. The title sounds like it's from a conservative, but it's written by a liberal candidate running to be mayor of San Francisco https://www.amazon.com/San-Fransicko-Progressives-Ruin-Cities/dp/0063093626
Picked this up, but haven't read it yet: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities - might be a good place to start.
My predictions though:
continually bloating civil service more focused on inclusion and lofty social justice goals that actually accomplishing the core things a city needs.
a widening split between very wealthy and just getting by which puts an increasing cost/tax burden on the middle.
more and more migration of non-productive people from all parts of Canada here because we keep advertising that we're going to solve their problems
ridiculously expensive to be an entrepreneur here (which we need to be more liveable): open a cafe, small business, etc.: massive costs from city
we won't see a needed return of facilities like Riverview to house those mentally ill and/or incapable of caring for themselves for some time or ever
if your head is above water now: you'll probably be fine; if you're struggling: its going to get worse unless you're actively and effectively working to get ahead; if you're drowning: you risk becoming another non-productive person that - at some point - the taxpayers here will reach a limit on how many we can support.
Yea, we can be like California with its strict policies. Michael Shellenberger, author of 2021 book San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities:
>“No state has taken more aggressive action to reduce the public’s exposure to chemicals, and to secondhand smoke, than California. California banned the sale of flavored tobacco, because it appeals to children...It prohibited the use of e-cigarettes in government and private workplaces, restaurants, bars, and casinos. San Francisco in late 2020 banned cigarette smoking in apartments. In the fall of 2020, California outlawed companies from using in cosmetics, shampoos, and other personal care products twenty-four chemicals it had deemed dangerous..."
>"(meanwhile) hard drug use resulted in 93,000 overdose and drug poisoning deaths in 2020 nationwide...And yet, the governments of San Francisco, California, and other progressive cities and states downplay the immediate dangers of hard drugs including fentanyl...California doesn't enforce drug laws...San Francisco won't shut down open air drug markets... In 2020, San Francisco even paid for two billboards promoting the safe use of heroin and fentanyl, which had been created by the Harm Reduction Coalition...the biggest reason many people come to San Francisco is for the cheap and abundant drugs and the lax law enforcement...
Yea, that's a big debate. Homeless advocates say most homeless are from the city; critics like Michael Shellenburger, author of San Fransicko, say the figure of originated in San Francisco is only about 20-30%.
> So this is where we vehemently disagree.
Well, it shouldn't be vehement! -- given the DVs I get all the time from homeless advocates. We are mostly on the same page.
>The simple fact is that homeless advocates have done nothing to make the situation better anywhere, neither in the Bay Area nor in places like LA where it is much worse.
They claim they haven't received enough $. But to some extent the problem is intractable with homeless with chronic behavioral issues. Worst place to house them is in a dense. upscale city like San Francisco. They should be housed out in the boonies, with a large number of social workers monitoring them. Maybe a place like Fresno, on the edge of the city. Michael Shellenburger, author of San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, makes this suggestion.
Agree completely. I ordered this book yesterday: "San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0063093626
The fellow was on the Joe Rogan podcast recently (not a fan, not a selling point, haven't listened to this episode either). I'm hoping it might offer some insight into why we're in this mess.
Homeless shelters do not lack for money, believe it or not.
Most areas with serious homeless populations have TONS of funding for shelters and various programs.
They don't work. Most of these people need to be institutionalized.
I recommend the book San Fransicko to learn more about the failures of the Homeless Industry in alleviating ANY of the suffering caused by this intractable problem.
San Fransicko is a superb book about homelessness in the US, and of course, SF.
And you nailed the situation -- 90% of the people in the homeless camps are drug addicts. They choose not to live in shelters because alcohol and drug use are banned. We'd be much better served to call them 'open drug-use camps' than 'homeless camps'.
Not that simple this book covers how it’s not just those with homes and those without. This book was written by a liberal leaning person, but just had to look at reality.
Hasan's perfect society:
I grew up in San Francisco and the city is absolute filthy unlivable crime ridden dogshit now because we have a DA that subscribes to his exact thought philosophy.
Please Biden tell leftists to fuck off forever, they don't even vote.
The USA needs to get their shet together. Addicts on the street have 2 choices. jail or rehab. No more tents on sidewalks. We have the money-.
-we just waste it in garbage like Afghanist for 20 yrs ($2.4 trill).
this guy has it all worked out, but governors fear the ACLU.
> San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities
> reveals that the underlying problem isn’t a lack of housing or money for social programs. The real problem is an ideology that designates some people, by identity or experience, as victims entitled to destructive behaviors. The result is an undermining of the values that make cities, and civilization itself, possible.
I found Michael Shellenberger’s ‘San Fran Sicko’ helpful.
Like any book worth reading, it will challenge pre-existing beliefs.
“San Fransicko reveals that the underlying problem isn’t a lack of housing or money for social programs. The real problem is an ideology that designates some people, by identity or experience, as victims entitled to destructive behaviors. The result is an undermining of the values that make cities, and civilization itself, possible.”
I never said major cities stop trying to misframe my point. I also put community since I knew you would try to find a little hole in my argument so you can dismiss my claims. Also I have done a ton of reading on the subject. Here is a book written by a liberal on the subject btw!
Don’t let them sub title turn you off, this is a great pragmatic read if you’re interested in fresh perspectives on methods to reduce homelessness. Highly credible author.
Limited-time deal: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities https://www.amazon.com/dp/0063093626/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_dl_JYB3ARWSH4THKDERM9ZA
Read this book and everything will begin to make more sense, at least it did for me. First, almost all "homemess" aren't just people without a home, they all have severe mental problems and drug addictions. Rather than forcing them into rehab, people want to give them a free place to live. Well, now you have a drug addict staying in a nice home which won't solve the actual problem. Housing affordability is also an issue, but that's been created by government overregulation. There's no land to build homes on (Due to Oregon's self-imposed Urban Growth Boundaries), there are no incentives for everyday people like you and me to build rentals because Oregon's rental laws are so draconian, why would I want to be a landlord if I can't ever kick out even the worst tenants who trash the place and don't pay rent. Finally, locals shut down new apartments and subdivisions whenever they can. But that book explains a lot about what is going on with West Coast cities very well and what we can do to fix it. It'll require tough love which most people are not comfortable with doing, unfortunately.
And the edgelord appears. Such wit.
Maybe put your caramel soy latte down for the briefest moment, push aside your top knot and have an actual look at proposition 47. You know, the liberal voted legislation that effectively decriminalized such wonderful things as 'commercial burglary', petty theft, grand theft crimes, possession of stolen property, possession of controlled substances etc.
A quote from the SF district attorney. "Join us in rejecting the notion that to be free, we must cage others". T
Result? 2021 vs 2020 theft from vehicle stats? Up 40%. FOURTY. Then up again in 2022 by double digit amounts. Thieves now brazenly steal from shops, in the middle of the day. Residents literally leave their cars unlocked and boots opened, due to the epidemic of vehicle break ins and theft. Residents feel unsafe.
Shops are raided in broad daylight
Meanwhile, homelessness is out of control. I won't even bother linking a source for that claim, so well known it is.
To close, 18 of the 20 most crime ridden, violent cities in the US are Democrat run and have been for a generation or more. People literally write books about how progressives ruin cities.
But please, enlighten me further with your well reasoned wit, as you attempt to excuse the absolute failure of liberal policies to provide a safe environment for citizens of the cities they control.
>your post oozes with gross, smug, offensive condescension and your sense of superiority is evident.
It is not a matter of condescension -- just pointing out contrasting perspectives. Numerous sources support what I say. Who are the primary supporters of this? April 2022 Update from Oregon’s pioneering drug decriminalization of all drugs
>In the first year after the new approach took effect, only 1% of people who received citations...asked for help..
Who are the primary people calling for an "end to the war on drugs?" Which groups in society primarily support continue drug enforcement? Answer: Conservatives and the military. And what accounts for the lack of progress in dealing with public disorder and homelessness in San Francisco? Michael Shellenberger’s 2021 book San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities has validity. The book has some wrong approaches, exaggerates in several areas, but broadly it is accurate.
Discipline -- a primary function of the military is to instill that. There's all sorts of evidence that liberals and progressives have never been big supporters of military thinking and indoctrination. Indoctrination is a strong term; in these junior programs the focus is more education, not indoctrination, but when you enter the military as an adult, there is indeed indoctrination.
>And aren’t today’s conservatives the ones espousing individuality and personal freedoms?
Conservatives are big on economic freedom, the right of business to do as it pleases -- often with significant harm to society, such as disparity of income. Conservatives are much more strict on matters of public order -- an area where liberals/progressives espouse more freedom. Conservative perspective: Public Order Makes City Life Possible -- In a culture that no longer teaches civility or citizenship, police have a greater burden than ever.. This article has a good definition of Civility. Every time I post it I get a ton of downvotes. No surprise there, considering the overall left-leaning (and well known) slant of Reddit.
ETA: The LGBT+topics float off on the side....don't want to get into that minefield.
You can find plenty here
> You are seeing similar backlash over permissive policies for drug use too.
I've been wondering about this. Drug policy reformers increasingly seem to have the upper hand. As a first step to being tighter on drugs, one would think that society would control homeless drug addicts who commandeer important public spaces in central cities. Not only are they NOT being arrested for heroin or meth possession, they're not being held to account for habitual public disorder. Part of what's going on here is this ruling: 2019: Martin v. City of Boise: Homeless people gain ‘de facto right’ to sleep on sidewalks through federal court.
Many activists are not even agreeable to housing these addicts in tiny houses on city outskirts. The activists want the addicts to get free studio apartments in cities. This book discusses this matter: "San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities
> To me, this is an area where you can get both the 'reformers' and those 'law and order' types together for a meaningful conversation. There are crimes where an ankle monitor is a far better solution than incarceration.
Yes, there should be more discussion between the two sides. I think the Big Brother potential is what throws them off. To be honest, for electronic monitoring to really work, you need it to have some sort of mechanism to control offenders' movements. That's the Holy Grail right? You could probably replace almost all use of prisons, then. Inmates would be far better off in a natural environment anyways, trees and plants and animals rather than concrete and steel cages. The Rise of Green Prison Programs, How Exposure to Nature is Reducing Crime
Apparently some people are starting to work on remote control: Dutch prisoners could get remote knee locks. This relates to the 8th amendment -- what constitutes cruel punishment? It is interesting how little discussion there is. Talk about a buried discussion topic.
What a crock of bullshit that is. Other nations don't have homeless problems like America because officials direct homeless, whether they like it or not, to set up camp in certain places on the outskirts of cities. Homeless typically build shanty towns, which are better than nothing. A roof over your head.
And if homeless try to go to central parts of cities and set up camp, and refuse orders to move, they get a big boot or go to jail. Even 5 European cities forcibly relocated homeless and drug addicts trying to commandeer public spaces. Officials there typically refer to homeless encampments as "open drug scenes." 2014: Open drug scenes: responses of five European cities.
> "All of the cities had initially a period with conflict between liberal and restrictive policies...Homelessness is often prevalent...Today all these cities have zero tolerance for public nuisance..."
To clear public drug scenes, the cities used "compulsory interventions...expulsion from city...relocation centres...sanctions imposed...antisocial behaviour orders"-- all methods that left-leaning activists in the U.S. oppose.
America is arguably the most liberal country in the world in giving carte blanche to hardcore drug addicts, mentally ill and an assortment of other behaviorally challenged people occupy public spaces and act as they please. Three words summarize American policy on problem: No Mandatory Interventions.
If anyone is confused, this is brought to us by left-leaning activists. Further explanation in this book: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities
>they have, as a community, tried to keep the place safe and unobtrusive... There has been two fires, both set by known arsonists who have mental health issues which made the entire community upset
Your good comment is appreciated even from a conservative perspective harsh on homeless camps. It shows how irresponsible the policies from progressives are, of non-enforcement and tolerance for disruptive drug addicts, mentally ill, vagrants and petty criminals across the Bay Area. Author Michael Shellenberger,
San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, discusses this.
You have a homeless camp where most residents try to be minimally disruptive, but a few egregious offenders contribute to a tear down of the entire site. We've seen similar situations with other camps time and again. Equally bad, this is the reason that many homeless across the U.S. avoid shelters -- the shelter operators accept the bad apples, the serious behavioral offenders, the behest of progressives who want all homeless treated with lenience. Many of these problem homeless should be in prison or under some other controls, e.g.. Mentally ill need to be appropriately placed.
Homeless populations have long been said to be 1/3 drug users, 1/3 mentally ill (big overlap between those two), and 1/3 "down on luck". With America's crisis of rising rents and cost of living, the down-on-luck category in probably over 50% now. Whatever the case, the really bad apples are probably only 10%, maybe 15%, of the entire homeless population.
Progressive policies opposing controls and mandatory interventions on CHRONIC OFFENDERS now both 1) fuel mainstream NIMBY opposition to the homeless and 2) directly harm most homeless. These irresponsible policies are closely wrapped up with criminal justice reform that seeks to halt most prosecutions of repeat petty theft and Quality of Life offenses.
Safe injection sites only work if there’s mental health help and treatment plans.
Or you just get a mess.
Look at San Fransicko
> So your argument is that because low-level drug incarcerations are not the majority of the prison population then there is no link?
Yes, there is virtually no link between the prison industrial complex and enforcement of cannabis today.
>The Vox article you linked is an explanation of a book, it’s hardly more than a book report.
Bullshit, it is a statistical legal analysis debunking of the crap from Michelle Alexander, in her book claiming a raced based war on drugs is the primary driver of mass incarceration.
>Prisons are underfunded across the nation. What exactly is your stance on incarceration rates? It appears this is your pet topic.
Do you want improved prison conditions in America -- yes I agree. But we are far better off reducing prison by expanding Electronic Monitoring - A Viable Alternative to Incarceration. The technology, 1/6th the cost of prison, has been around for ages (30-plus years). EM could help us reduce prisons by 50%.
But many left leaning criminal justice reformers are blocking expansion of the EM. Opposition to EM from the Left. Many of you people have not met a single sanction or control on offenders that you approve of.
>The Federal Bureau of Prisons reported that 45% of its inmates are incarcerated for drug offenses.
Read the Vox article. The feds only hold 13% of all prison inmates in the US, states hold 87%. Yes the fed prisons are full of drug dealers -- almost all kingpin traffickers of pounds of meth, coke, and heroin. There are virtually no people in fed prison for cannabis -- maybe they have a couple of guys caught with 1000 pounds.
> The US is number one in incarcerations per capita.
Yes and we are one of the most violent countries in the western world, with a huge underclass and some of the highest levels of drug use in the world.
>In fact, at least 70% of your posts and comments seem to be about being critical of drug reform
Right. Here is the newest data on that front. April 3, 2022: Update from Oregon pioneering drug decriminalization
>In the first year after the new approach took effect, only 1% of people who received citations...asked for help via a new hotline...Out of roughly 2,000 citations issued by police, only 92 of the people called the hotline...And only 19 requested resources for services, said William Nunemann of Lines for Life. Almost half of those who got citations failed to show up in court.
1% abusers going to rehab. Do you consider that a good outcome?
My summary view is not incarcerating addicts; it is remove them from occupying important public spaces. We can set up designated drug using safe zones and homeless housing in industrial areas or by airports for these people. Use tiny house villages built on vacant lots on city outskirts, which many leftists are rejecting because they want to house people with chronic behavioral issues from drugs and mental illness in apartments in the central parts of cities.
Michael Shellenburger, who wrote a book on the problems of addiction and mental illness in San Francisco, San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, discusses correctly how allowing drug addicts and homeless to commandeer important public spaces is such a big problem.
But leftists have one largely won in this matter, using this high court ruling: Homeless people gain ‘de facto right’ to sleep on sidewalks through federal court -- Supreme Court declines to re-examine the criminalization of homelessness in Martin v. City of Boise case
Left leaning activists could assist in this matter. It would make a lot of conservatives much less hard ass on drugs. You folks, acting as social workers, could help ease out these people, e.g., (Social worker to Larry the addict)
>"Come on, now Larry... You know you're not supposed to hang out here in the (pick one: tourist district/upscale shopping district/downtown center) and use drugs and panhandle all day. Let's go down to the Safe Zone and hang out down there."
Instead you people obstruct. And you wonder why there is an impasse in housing the homeless and hostility to drug addicts.
I don't get it-- I hate both.
A great read, by the way-- ridiculously sourced and researched.
>I have you tagged as sociopath that hates bums and you always prove its your sole obsession. Do you wonder if you're one-note?
I don't hate anyone, and that's a juvenile response. Here's something I've posted several times and almost all leftists and liberals dodge responding to it. Michael Shellenberger, author
San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities linked the article.
What makes the article so relevant is that for years liberals have gone on and on about how enlightened the Europeans are in dealing with minor crime and public disorder. Shellenberger, who visited some of these cities, reports that officials typically refer to homeless encampments as "open drug scenes." 2014: Open drug scenes: responses of five European cities. Excerpts:
>All of the cities had initially a period with conflict between liberal and restrictive policies...Homelessness is often prevalent...Today all these cities have zero tolerance for public nuisance...
>Amsterdam: -- As the drug scenes became more prominent, the policy emphasized...dispersion of scenes...compulsory interventions aimed at street addicts...
>Frankfurt, Germany -- ...the open drug scene.... could no longer be tolerated...Shelter/clinic opened outside the city centre....massive police intervention...Drug users not resident in Frankfurt were expelled from the city.
>Zürich, Switzerland -- The (heroin addiction) situation...was...catastrophic...users who continued public nuisance behaviour might be brought to “relocation centres”, possibly leading to quasi-compulsory treatment...Zero tolerance for...large gatherings of users...
>Vienna, Austria -- Social services increased the availability of counselling and shelters...Then the drug scene was closed by police interventions....
>Lisbon, Portugal: established a “Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction”...open drug scenes are constantly met with a police presence...The police have the authority to search users on the street...repeated use...might increase levels of sanctions...
Wow. "Compulsory interventions...expulsion from city...relocation centres...sanctions imposed...mandatory appearance before Drug Dissuasion Commission" -- all methods that left-leaning activists in the U.S. have opposed for dealing with homeless and drug addicts occupying public spaces.
And just like you, these activists refuse to fairly discuss the issues surrounding public order and instead accuse people of hating bums. What crap.
Have challenges in understanding what public order is, and why many Europeans see value in it?? Good article: What makes Germans so orderly?
That is a notable study. Michael Shellenberger cited it. Worth looking at some summary data:
To clear public drug scenes, the cities used "compulsory interventions...expulsion from city...relocation centres...sanctions imposed...antisocial behaviour orders"-- all methods strongly opposed by left-leaning criminal justice reformers in the U.S.
What is striking is that these reformers constantly refer to Europe as being so enlightened on crime control -- easy on offenders. They harp that we should emulate Europe. These reformers also misrepresent what Portugal has done with drug decriminalization--they downplay that Portugal's national Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction badgers/harasses people to stop using drugs.
Made me think of Michael Shellenberger’s book.
You need to read San Fransicko
>During the last decade, Houston, the nation’s fourth most populous city, has moved more than 25,000 homeless people directly into apartments and houses.
The article suggests this is all conventional housing -- no housing of this sort: Tiny homes, set on vacant lots on city outskirts, with communal bathrooms. Tiny home villages are popular in several parts of the country. The reasoning is twofold: 1) It is unfair to broadly hand out free-market price apartments to all homeless. (FN) Cost prohibitive and unfair to the working poor, who must pay rent.
Tiny home villages, even include price of land, are a fraction of the cost of standard apartments, even if those are studio or micro-units. 250 sq. ft. micro-units for homeless in Des Moines come in at $179,000 per unit.. Iowa has relatively inexpensive housing costs.
2) Homeless with chronic behavioral issues--probably 40-50% of the total homeless population--are best housed away from the central parts of cities, where their chronic behavioral issues disturb public order.
Honolulu housed some of its homeless in its prime tourist zone, Waikiki. That contributes to closing of park pavilions to general public use after officials could not evict "service-resistant homeless" who commandeered the area for years. It was documented that many of the individuals were former homeless now housed nearby (still unemployed) who continued their 12-hour-a-day pavilion recreation. Topic posted on Urban Planning sub
Michael Shellenburger, author of "San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, discusses similar problems in San Francisco. A powerful group of homeless advocates in the city is pushing for all S.F. homeless, including those with chronic behavioral issues, to get free apts in this compact city. Shellenburger opines that the value of the Housing First-Rehab-Reintegration narrative is much exaggerated for people with hardcore drug and alcohol problems and mental issues: many of these people are not remotely employable and continue their same behaviors after being housed.
Perhaps Houston has managed to skirt these problems in a way that other cities have not been apprised of.
= = =
FN: In loose terms, groups most justified in receiving free conventional housing: Women with children and people over age 50, with women a priority. Least deserving: People of prime working age: 18 to late 30s.
OP article excerpt: "they’ve gone all in on “housing first,” a practice, supported by decades of research, that moves the most vulnerable people straight from the streets into apartments, not into shelters, and without first requiring them to wean themselves off drugs". Source linked: Homelessness research: A guide for economists (and friends)
Manhattan Institute: Housing First and Homelessness: The Rhetoric and the Reality: Housing is not the same as treatment. Housing First’s record at addressing behavioral health disorders, such as untreated serious mental illness and drug addiction, is far weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
Relevant: April 3, 2022: Update from Oregon's drug decriminalization experiment
>In the first year after the new approach took effect, only 1% of people who received citations for possessing controlled substances asked for help via a new hotline...out of roughly 2,000 citations issued by police, only 92 of the people...called the hotline... And only 19 requested resources for services...
Some sources put the homeless in San Francisco, one of the most expensive, upscale cities in the nation, at 8,000. A micro-condo there pencils out about $600 K. Michael Shellenberger, author of the book critical of S.F., made a reasonable point that you can't just show up in some of the worlds most expensive cities, raise your hand, and say: "I'm homeless and I need a free apartment."
Tiny house villages (NPR) are being used to house homeless in many states, permanently. They are built on city outskirts on vacant lots at a fraction of the cost of central city micro-units. Many homeless are turning them down; they demand central city housing. Often these homeless have serious behavioral issues and conflict with neighbors. It appears the Impasse on homelessness will continue.
Radical: "the destructive impact that any contact with the criminal justice system has on young people."
And the "young people" characterization is interesting rhetoric to try to represent innocent offenders. Is she talking only about minors? No, minors are almost never incarcerated. Shortly thereafter: "these individuals, who also typically lose...custody of young children." They are adults, and treated so by the justice system.
> but nothing like the radical you're arguing against in your head.
I do not argue based on what is it my head. I argue positions -- as you do. I agree with the movement to recall Boudin. I agree with Michael Shellenburger, author of "San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. Agree with these 2 conservative criminologists: What Criminologists Don’t Say, and Why -- Monopolized by the Left, academic research on crime gets almost everything wrong..
I don't assert your views are fabricated out of thin air. You are entitled to your views; I to mine. Let the readers judge.
But thanks for at least maintaining basic coherence. Other poster here is denying Peruso is aligned with the platform of criminal justice reform. Bizarre...
> liberals get it wrong because they kowtow too much to the prison industry....
You mean they have not done enough to shut it down? Not sure you could've meant anything else. The Marshall Project, another liberal source along with Vox: Here's Why Abolishing Private Prisons Isn't a Silver Bullet. The article writes that private prisons hold only about 8-9% of inmates. The problem of private prisons is exaggerated all around.
>It's telling that countries across the pond...are generally much more lenient on criminals
Europe. It is fascinating how info to the contrary is emerging. The following source was cited by the author of San Fransicko, discussing the problem of America refusing to contain homeless and drug addicts who try to commandeer public spaces. 2014: Open drug scenes: responses of five European cities. Excerpts:
>All of the cities had initially a period with conflict between liberal and restrictive policies...Homelessness is often prevalent...Today all these cities have zero tolerance for public nuisance..."
To clear public drug scenes, the cities used "compulsory interventions...expulsion from city...relocation centres...sanctions imposed...antisocial behaviour orders." The Europeans are not incarcerating these people; they have developed innovative ways to semi-segregate them into certain areas, something akin to a safe zone for homeless.
Civil libertarians in the U.S. oppose any of this. Our failure to use any of these methods is why officials closed the Waikiki pavilions to general public use rather than remove the homeless. It is striking to get an academic report that proves exactly the opposite what many left-leaning activists claim about Europe being more lenient on crime. More striking is how these reports of misinformation from the Left are adding up.
>Cop shops have been terrorist orginizations for a long time
Go move to Europe. Where numerous cities, contrary to reports from Leftists in America that Europe is a liberal utopia, have rousted hard drug addicts commandeering public spaces. This link was cited by Michael Shellenburger, author of San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities:
2014: Open drug scenes: responses of five European cities. Excerpt:
>To clear public drug scenes, the cities used "compulsory interventions...expulsion from city...relocation centres...sanctions imposed...antisocial behaviour orders"-- all methods strongly opposed by the far-Left and Defund the Police people in the U.S.
From the Left: "But...but...but it can't be true. We know Europe is on the verge of legalizing all drugs and all those nations allows drug addicts to occupy public spaces and do as they please.
More from San Francisco: Dec. 15, 2021: San Francisco Mayor London Breed announced a police intervention in order to end “all the bullshit that has destroyed our city.”
> I agree, there needs to be a mechanism to compel treatment once it becomes an issue. Even if the base problems I described in my original comment are solved, there will still be a subset of people who require treatment or otherwise cannot function in a society.
Then we agree on a lot. And the actual drug treatment, or the mental treatment, is difficult to force. What you're doing is compelling people to be at a site where the treatment is available and and urge them daily to engage. Treatment is not imposed. Legal mechanism for picking them up and putting them at this site: They've broken the law and been convicted -- it can be a minor thing like drugs or public disorder.
You don't want rehab/homeless housing sites fenced. They are not prisons. If someone really wants to abscond, they can. If they abscond, you don't put out an APB and try to immediately get them--they're non-violent offenders--but when they show up somewhere. and try to camp in the streets, they get picked up again and returned. This is similar to what was done with Skid Row alcoholics pre-the 1970s; some were picked up and relocated back to Skid Row hundreds of times. It is a tedious task, but it is preferable to incarceration -- let's try to avoid that. And often there was a time element to the so-called semi-segregation: alcoholics are free to come downtown in the mornings to do their appointments and what not, but they were expected to go back to Skid Row in early afternoon, because their pattern of living every day was getting drunk and disorderly by that time. (Civil libertarians largely overturned this informal "rousting" practice that has been used to good effect for decades.)
>I would argue housing them in the same GENERAL area as they came from is acceptable. They might have some form of support system in that area that access to they benefit
Right this is merit here. In many sprawling American cities that have large low income areas, this doesn't matter that much. But it there are problems in compact upscale San Francisco, or when homeless insist on being housed near city centers. Was a good article, sorry I don't have a link, about a California town that gives housing only to people with a high school record there. So for SF there has to be some sort of vetting process. Certainly some of the homeless there, especially the ones that do not have behavioral issues and have a background in the city, can be housed there. But not everyone who, as Michael Shellenberger, author San Fransicko says, just shows up, raises his hand, and says. "I'm homeless and I want a free apartment*. It seems like most activists oppose any vetting.
> Possibly with a social worker embedded in with these specially trained police officers to act as a consultant and advisor.
Right, this seems to be the norm in Europe: the intervention teams are always cops and social workers.
>This however requires FUNDING the police which people don't understand. Training costs money.
More funding for police? OK. What is really needed as more funding for social workers. When they accompany cops, they can calm cops' behavior. You make a lot of good points in the fourth paragraph.
>I really don't think we are as far apart on this issue as we both assumed at first.
Right, we agree on a lot. I appreciate the conversation.
>they are dealing with adults capable of making their own decisions.
Sure they do. What a list of wants and demands from the homeless. What a sense of entitlement -- that homeless and drug addicts can camp or hang out in any place they want. And in most of California they can, because state governments kowtows to civil libertarians. Michael Shellenberger, author of 2021 book San Fransicko, linked a an important source, obscure to many Americans: 2014 article: Open drug scenes: responses of five European cities
Long story short: The Europeans, instead of being more lenient on public disorder and addiction--as claimed by so many people on the Left in America, are tougher. Social workers and police working in tandem remove homeless addicts trying to occupy important public spaces in cities. Excerpts:
>Amsterdam: As the drug scenes became more prominent, the policy emphasis increasingly focused on dispersion of scenes....and compulsory interventions aimed at street addicts...Any public gathering of more than four to five addicts was to be interrupted by the police...(Europeans often call homeless camps "open drug scenes.")
>Frankfurt, Germany -- ...the open drug scene.... could no longer be tolerated...A large shelter with clinic opened outside the city centre. Then a massive police intervention was implemented. Drug users not resident in Frankfurt were expelled from the city.
>Zürich, Switzerland -- The (heroin addiction) situation in the early 1990’s was experienced as catastrophic...users who continued public nuisance behaviour might be brought to “relocation centres”, possibly leading to quasi-compulsory treatment...Zero tolerance for...large gatherings of users...
And last but not least, Portugal, whose drug control policies are famously misrepresented by drug policy reformers hoping to legalize all drugs.
>Lisbon, Portugal: established a Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction... open drug scenes are constantly met with a police presence...
What a list of controls placed in the homeless: Compulsory interventions, expulsion from city, relocation centres, sanctions imposed, mandatory appearance before Drug Dissuasion Commission -- all methods that civil libertarians and criminal justice reformers in the U.S. have obstructed.
>your writing seems to suggest that you view it the same as criminal behavior and that it's immoral or wrong.
Not at all, I use drugs. It is a public order topic. People who can't handle drugs shouldn't be allowed to commandeer public spaces. Like the problems in San Francisco. Michael Shellenburger, author of "San Fransicko, cited this study in his book: 2014: Open drug scenes: responses of five European cities. Excerpts:
To clear public drug scenes, the cities used "compulsory interventions...expulsion from city...relocation centres...sanctions imposed...antisocial behaviour orders"-- all methods strongly opposed by criminal justice reformers in the U.S.
> How much do you know about addiction?
My interest in controlling people with addictions. Check this fascinating passage from the longer version of the OP article at the end of OP:
>Portugal’s approach is more vigorous than Oregon’s..... “dissuasion commissions” pressure anyone caught using drugs — even marijuana — to seek treatment. Those pressure points include fines, prohibiting drug users from visiting certain venues or from traveling abroad, seizure of personal property, community work and having to periodically report to health services or other places.
This approach is verified by this 2021 drug policy journal article: 20 years of Portuguese drug policy - developments, challenges and the quest for human rights:
>The debate about the right to use drugs is nearly absent in the Portuguese political, social and academic panorama....
Questions for liberals: 1) how could drug policy reformers have been so mistaken about Portugal drug policy? 2) Does everyone now understand why Europe uses incarceration less? (Partial answer: they developed other methods to sanction drug offenders) 3) Think I know the answer to the following but I'll ask: Do liberals have any interest in using a Portugal style national "Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction" Or is the long-term objective to let everyone in America use all the drugs they want?
>Police, Prison guards and Lawyers are the other 9%
And conservative law and order types. Annoyed at hard drug users occupying public spaces in cities across Amerida. Does cannabis having anything to do with this? Hardly. But of the 91% who want legal weed, a core of about 30%--notably the people who have been lobbying for legal cannabis the longest--are the people who want hard drugs decriminalized/legalized. And, worse, this 30% obstructs public order policing. Like Europe has conducted with open drug scenes for years. (FN).
Conservative want a quid pro quo -- they'll legalize the soft drug marijuana when they get agreement on controls on hard drug addicts occupying public spaces. Controls now being blocked by civil libertarians and drug policy reformers. Is it fair that cannabis is being pulled into this? Arguably not. But stuff happens. People don't always get what they want.
FN: Michael Shellenburger, author of "San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, cited this study in his book: 2014: Open drug scenes: responses of five European cities. Excerpts:
To clear public drug scenes, the cities used "bans...compulsory interventions...expulsion from city...relocation centres...sanctions imposed..." Each of these methods is strongly opposed to by leftist activists in the U.S. -- who are significant responsible for this mess:
San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless -- Failure to enforce basic standards of public behavior has made one of America’s great cities increasingly unlivable. and Dec. 2021: San Francisco Mayor London Breed announced a police intervention in order to end “all the bullshit that has destroyed our city”.
>Because they don’t represent us. They represent money.
Conservative opposition to weed has little to do with money. GOP lawmakers, conservatives, are annoyed with drug policy reformers and their various civil libertarian allies. Conservative want a quid pro quo -- they'll legalize the popular soft drug marijuana when they get agreement on more controls on hard drug addicts.
Like those in San Francisco, enabled by the Left: Hostage to the Homeless -- Failure to enforce basic standards of public behavior has made one of America’s great cities increasingly unlivable.. Dec. 2021: San Francisco Mayor London Breed announced a police intervention in order to end “all the bullshit that has destroyed our city”.
Look at all these initiatives: 2020: NPR: From Marijuana To Mushrooms, Voters Want Drug Laws Eased and 2021: New California bill would legalize psychedelics and Want to Legalize Medical MDMA? (aka ecstasy, popular party drug) and 2020: Oregon first state to decriminalize small amounts of heroin and other street drugs.
Widespread appeals and demands to legalize a variety of drugs, yet continued opposition to placing controls of drug addicts, like those homeless who are demanding free studio apartments in San Francisco. And their defenders, civil libertarians, who want them to have the legal right to occupy public spaces and use hard drugs. (FN)
It this unfair to the marijuana legalization movement, since cannabis is only peripherally related to these problems? Sure it's unfair. It’s also unfair that people in numerous cities have their public spaces commandeered by perpetually idle hard drug users.
It's no secret that some of the advocates pushing hardest for legal cannabis are also heavily involved in the broad hard drug decriminalization/legalization movement. So conservatives annoyed at the entire tolerance for drug use and abuse movement are balking at legalizing weed. Call them assholes, if you wish, but the narrative this thing is primarily about profits is nonsense. It is about public order, about too many people getting too high and acting stupid, and mostly recently, a lot of people "opting-out" of holding a job. Many would rather get high, and, yes, that includes cannabis.
By the way, if cannabis and alcohol were the only intoxicants, we would have legalized cannabis a long time ago. Like it or not, cannabis is involved in the broader topic of illegal drugs.
FN: See: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities
You make a lot of good points, but some issues are unresolved.
> it excluded most of the population by demanding they be sober before moving in
Yes we found out you can't insist on sobriety. Some shelters and housing will have to be "wet." I guess it is even an open question as to whether you want to provide heroin or its substitutes to the hard-core addicted. Several posters made the excellent point that access to drug sellers is a major reason that many homeless prefer being sited in the central city.
>it didn't offer supportive services, and because of the lack of services..homelessness is a complex problem, it demands complex solutions and support structures to help people transition into a radically different lifestyle.
Right and that support can be expensive. Ideally, social workers live on site. I don't know what the ideal ratio is a social worker to resident. If there is money saved by the actual housing being cheaper, then there's extra money to fund social services. A $400 K unit at the outset is a big expenditure.
>and it's unclear if the tiny homes serve any purpose beyond warehousing homeless people in a slightly less visible location with slightly better accommodations.
Should we accept that in some cases it will basically be warehousing? That would be individuals with serious behavioral issues who will never reintegrate back into the workforce because of age -- your 48 year-old alcoholic with 25 years of hard drinking. Maybe a core of 25% of the homeless population, those with a long record of occupying public spaces in the central part of the city getting intoxicated? It might sound unfair, but younger people with a reasonable possibility of re-integrating arguably deserve better siting for housing. Is this unreasonable?
>If you invest more up front in supportive housing projects that seek to actually address the root causes of homelessness, it costs more from the start, but the cost per actual success story ends up being lower.
For some individuals they might benefit from a higher level of social worker attention and treatment, rather than the housing necessarily being in a better location. A certain portion of homeless are long-time quality of life offenders, they might have have many scores of arrests and convictions. There might even be case for them to be put on Electronic Monitoring to keep them from roaming about, outside of a prescribe zone near the shelter. Some authorities might be seeking to put them in prison. The lure of us city's downtown or Central Park, now off-limits to them, will be strong. There's argument they should be located further away from the central city.
You might be interested in reading this academic report. The author of San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, cited it:
2014: Open drug scenes: Responses of five European cities. This academic report discusses how these 5 cities now have "zero tolerance for public nuisance." It writes: "All of the cities had initially a period with conflict between liberal and restrictive policies...Homelessness is often prevalent..." Some further excerpts:
>Amsterdam: policy emphasis increasingly focused on dispersion of scenes....and compulsory interventions aimed at street addicts...
>Frankfurt, Germany -- ...the open drug scene.... could no longer be tolerated...Drug users not resident in Frankfurt were expelled from the city.
>Zürich, Switzerland -- users who continued public nuisance behaviour might be brought to “relocation centres”, possibly leading to quasi-compulsory treatment...Zero tolerance for...large gatherings of users...
>Vienna, Austria -- the drug scene was closed by police interventions.
> None off the articles or things you cited or said actually say this. Where are you getting the idea that this is happening from?
From the debate that's going on in San Francisco and other West Coast cities like Seattle and L. A., where homeless advocates are pushing for housing in the central parts of the cities. The only option in an area with all 6 plus story buildings is the micro condo option -- or tents on sidewalks or in parks.
So the default is a $300-400 K condo, free rent. And for many it will be for life. Probably 30% of all homeless are men over 40 with years of hard-core alcohol and drug addiction. They are unemployable in any conventional way. For these individuals, it is a fiction to talk about re-integration into the workforce (yet we constantly hear the reintegration narrative).
So where is it reasonable to provide this lifetime free housing? This 2021 book--I know this posting won't be popular--discusses some of that: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities
>For example, being far from where they need/want to go each day.
Yes, this response has appeared here an amazing number of times. I knew that opinion was strongly held, but I didn't know the depth of it. Thanks for including the word "want" with "need;" that is honest of you.
IMO this is all valuable because it helps us inform the depth of the impasse. Homeless advocates by a large degree are outraged that society would try to spell out where homeless can and can't live. Strong opposition to anything that smacks of a ban on illegal camping. Most advocates also oppose homeless--or anyone else--being evicted from public spaces when they are hanging out doing hard drugs every day. Often called an open drug scene.
Fascinating source that Sicko author Michael Shellenburger cited: 2014: Open drug scenes: Responses of five European cities. This academic report discusses how these 5 cities now have "zero tolerance for public nuisance." It writes: All of the cities had initially a period with conflict between liberal and restrictive policies...Homelessness is often prevalent..." Some excerpts:
None of these measures are allowed in San Francisco and other West Coast cities. What's further striking: All the assertions we've had from civil libertarians over the years of the Europeans being more lenient on drugs, homelessness and public disorder. Shellenburger writes that he went to Europe to see how they deal with homelessness and addiction. It appears to be the case that America, at least the large west coast cities, are the most tolerant to the homeless.
>Conservatives will read that and say it’s the posters fault for wanting internet and a cat.
We need much money money directed to people like her, and less to the homeless in upscale cities like San Francisco, who seek micro-units in the central city. They can cost $400 K per. Housing in tiny home villages can be built for $10-$15 K. Built on vacant lots on the outskirts of cities, sometimes in industrial areas. Communal bath with showers. Good to have a social worker on site.
Far better way to spread out money to needy people. As Michael Shellenburger, author of San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities said on Joe Rogan, March 30, 2022:
>You shouldn't be able to show up in L.A., raise your hand and say: "I'm homeless. I want my own free studio apartment."
The unfortunate nationwide Impasse on housing the homeless and helping the poor will be resolved far sooner when activists with an entitlement attitude are shut down.
L.A.'s homeless...one project...expected to hit as much as $837,000 for each housing unit, a city audit disclosed.
>You shouldn't be able to show up in L.A., raise your hand and say: "I'm homeless. I want a free studio apartment."
...program for L.A.'s...homeless...one project...expected to hit as much as $837,000 for each housing unit, a city audit disclosed.
That's because of poor urban planning:
And because progressive activists pretended that the enlightened European model for treating drug epidemics and homelessness was to just decriminalize everything and throw around charitable programs like confetti.
When in reality that European model ALSO includes requiring addicts to make real positive steps in order to get their housing. And if you shoot-up on a public street corner in Portugal, you do get arrested. They setup basically a state-run intervention for you with lawyers, case workers, and your entire family.
>nonsensical ideas in theory (we should criminalize the homeless, punish them, and then place EM on them as punishment, and then move them out of town so that...
Yea, yea, we see what your thinking results in:
Dec. 15, 2021: San Francisco Mayor London Breed announced a police intervention in order to end “all the bullshit that has destroyed our city.”
Fuller explanation: San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless -- Failure to enforce basic standards of public behavior has made one of America’s great cities increasingly unlivable Relevant 2021 book: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities
Next time you post, try to cobble together at least one link to support your viewpoint.
It’s not that hot of a take, and starting to become much more popular of an opinion these days. It’s discussed as part of the solution in San Fransicko, which is a current bestseller and getting pushed at the local level:
San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities https://www.amazon.com/dp/0063093626/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_i_YJBEYVD5G6AY7FWZ36BW
Recent nyt opinion a good example of how activist are the main cause of homelessness in the US: “Treating addiction as a crime doesn’t work”.
>"Portugal, which is a model for Oregon’s changes, decriminalized drug possession in 2001 and expanded treatment"
Her “science” is that stigma reduces the chances of some people seeking treatment. Which is true. While willfully ignoring the fact that destigmatizing leads to a net increase of drug use, even after subtracting the ones who seek treatment.
>"We do not normalize," said the head of Portugal's drug program, debunking the misinformation spread about his nation's approach to addiction. "At present, open drugs scenes [in Lisbon] are constantly met with a police presence, and the police can refer users to the [Commission for the Dissuasion of Addiction]. The police have the authority to search users on the street."
>The Portuguese coerce addicts to quit, and don't allow public drug use, as the architect of the Portuguese approach explaines
From the book San Fransicko, court mandated rehab shown 70% more effective than doing nothing and as effective as intrinsically motivated rehab. This vehemently and successfully opposed by activists. They regularly distort the science and facts in this manner, and in some cases have created methodologically bunk studies to push through legislation.
& this is the theme throughout, activists overwhelmed by feelings, meaning well, end up causing the problem they’re trying to solve.
They argue against money going to shelters because it should go to permanent homes which have a cost of 130k ballooning to 550k (homeless industrial complex: unions, builders, lobbyists etc—they all have a financial interest in perpetuating homelessness), making them cost prohibitive. Against mental health experts advice, “harm reduction” activists ensure $500+/mo going to mentally ill addicts & drug paraphernalia at single use hotels, under the assumption that self destructive tendencies will naturally abate. Meanwhile, overdoses up 5x.
Studies showing social pressure important in choosing rehab ignored, activists put most of their effort into removing social pressure (stigma), monetarily and socially incentivizing homelessness and scapegoat the ubiquitous and omnipotent “systemic racism” and other prog canards. In Cali alone, 11+ billion pored directly into mental health and homeless despite results far worse than states with much smaller budgets.
A strain of activism going back to the God Father of bullshit, noted pro-pedophile Foucault, holds that mental illness isn’t real, but a society artificially labeling so called deviants. Psychiatry is quackery and mental health help is oppression. Which is why much of the money Californians are approving for mental health help for the homeless (30+ billion) is going to mild cases and non-empirical therapies rather than to those who need it. The key here is involuntary commitment, which, despite the evidence suggesting it’s the best approach by miles, they’ve successfully blocked by stopping police from enforcing mental illness related crimes (public education, open air drug use etc). Studies show the activist reviled contingency management did 2.4x better than control, with long term benefits. ACLU counters that involuntary commitment violates civil liberties and is less effective than voluntary commitment, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how control groups work.
Activists claim the entirety of the cause of homelessness is trauma, systemic racism, and poverty. And yet, in the time that all three of those metrics have declined, homelessness has exploded. What’s ignored is the optically conservative but empirical fact that decisions matter and character is a thing that exists. They argue that the alternative to policing is an out reach worker who establishes a relationship with a homeless man or drug attic, until the person wants to be committed. What they’re using here is the attachment theory model, of acting as a parent and showing unconditional love until the person has the self-esteem to be non self-destructive. The problem is, therapy models have a solution rate little higher than the placebo, and that’s for people who are voluntarily seeking out a therapist and already believe that they have a problem and they need help. This model’s woefully misapplied for someone who doesn’t have those criteria met.
Attachment theory goes back before Bowlby to Harry Harlow’s monkey experiments, where baby monkeys were deprived of their mother or abused until they started displaying disturbingly maladaptive traits including self-harm. Such psychological destruction leads to an inversion of many survival instincts, and in extreme cases makes forming attachment or mental rehabilitation extremely difficult if not impossible in a voluntary manner. Others adapt to abuse by becoming Cartman like self-identified “hustlers”. Users, abusers, cruel and emotionally stunted, making attachment based approach’s even more futile.
You need to be willing to push for better behavior, with involuntary options, often times incarceration or funding compulsory mental health facilities. The evidence suggests that the Homeless need to not be treated like emotionally mature adults who will act in their best interest if they’re shown a bit of kindness, but like emotionally traumatized (and therefore stunted) and spoiled children.
It was taken over by "progressive" democrats check this book out https://www.amazon.com/San-Fransicko-Progressives-Ruin-Cities/dp/0063093626
Not only SF, but the entire state of California has become a complete shithole.
Don't forget the other source that I provided:
By Michael Shellenberger
Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment," Green Book Award winner, and the founder and president of Environmental Progress. He is the best-selling author of "Apocalypse Never" and "San Fransicko" (HarperCollins, October 2021).
"Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” says historian Richard Rhodes, who won the Pulitzer Prize for The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “Within its lively pages, Michael Shellenberger rescues with science and lived experience a subject drowning in misunderstanding and partisanship. His message is invigorating: if you have feared for the planet’s future, take heart.”
He has been called an “environmental guru,” “climate guru,” “North America’s leading public intellectual on clean energy,” and “high priest” of the environmental humanist movement for his writings and TED talks, which have been viewed over five million times.
Shellenberger advises policymakers around the world including in the U.S., Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Belgium. In January 2020, Shellenberger testified before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives.
He has been a climate and environmental activist for over 30 years. He has helped save nuclear reactors around the world, from Illinois and New York to South Korea and Taiwan, thereby preventing an increase in air pollution equivalent to adding over 24 million cars to the road.
Shellenberger was invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2019 to serve as an independent Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, to be published in 2022 his most recent Congressional testimony on the state of climate science, mitigation, and adaptation.
Shellenberger is a leading environmental journalist who has broken major stories on Amazon deforestation; rising climate resilience; growing eco-anxiety; the U.S. government’s role in the fracking revolution; and climate change and California’s fires.
He also writes on housing and homelessness and has called for California to declare a state of emergency with regards to its addiction, mental health, and housing crises. He has authored widely-read articles and reports on the topic including “Why California Keeps Making Homelessness Worse,” “California in Danger.”
But sure, who the heck is this guy? Why would you read his book? I am sure he is not up to your standard. LOL.
San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities
Boudin doesn't believe in prosecuting people who do this.
This de-carceration effort is the same bullshit that San Francisco has been doing and it's not going well for them.
Is it a homeless encampment or really just an open-air drug market? Also, I quite liked the ideas in this book by Michael Shellenberger: https://www.amazon.com/San-Fransicko-Progressives-Ruin-Cities/dp/0063093626
If you are interested in the subject and being a part of the solution, this is an exceptional read: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities https://www.amazon.com/dp/0063093626/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_58GWHMX9YR27QYKSV475
For those wanting to learn more about how we farm homeless people in coastal states instead of helping them get help for their drug and mental problems... https://www.amazon.com/dp/0063093626/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_A2GTDDKSTCCWQRXRG8C3