the unhoused

[Dave Wright]

I first heard "houseless" and "unhoused" in Hawaii at least ten years ago. It was used by local (native) activists who wanted to stress that Hawaii was their home. The beaches, the forests, the mountains were now, and always had been their home. They were simply houseless. They weren't "homeless.". They had every right, in fact more right to be there than new arrivals from the outside world.

The word made sense politically; I liked their approach.

[David G]

I first heard "houseless" and "unhoused" in Hawaii at least ten years ago. It was used by local (native) activists who wanted to stress that Hawaii was their home. The beaches, the forests, the mountains were now, and always had been their home. They were simply houseless. They had every right, in fact more right to be there than new arrivals from the outside world.

The word made sense politically; I liked their approach.

Yes, I can see the logic behind that distinction.

[Boatbum]

I first heard "houseless" and "unhoused" in Hawaii at least ten years ago. It was used by local (native) activists who wanted to stress that Hawaii was their home. The beaches, the forests, the mountains were now, and always had been their home. They were simply houseless. They weren't "homeless.". They had every right, in fact more right to be there than new arrivals from the outside world.

The word made sense politically; I liked their approach.

And it is all the Haoles that have undoubtedly made houses and apartments so expensive

[JimD]

I remember several years ago there was some crazy politician on Oahu, I think, going around with a big hammer busting up all the shopping carts of the unhoused, his way of encouraging them to take up the state's offer of a one way flight to the mainland.

[L.W. Baxter]

I remember several years ago there was some crazy politician on Oahu, I think, going around with a big hammer busting up all the shopping carts of the unhoused, his way of encouraging them to take up the state's offer of a one way flight to the mainland.

mmm-hmmm.

and the homeless in san fran, portland, seattle...arriving daily on bus tickets purchased by the sheriff's departments of red america.

tell me you think that's unlikely.

i had an offer myself in 1994, "riding my thumb to mexico", in wheatland, wyoming. all i did was walk to the town park to find a place to pee. "how can we help you get out of here, son."

[Paul Pless]

dang, how did you keep from going off all rambo on that mo fo?

i had an offer myself in 1994, "riding my thumb to mexico", in wheatland, wyoming. all i did was walk to the town park to find a place to pee. "how can we help you get out of here, son."

[L.W. Baxter]

i am a gentle soul. "a lonesome song always makes me cry."



so i'll ride my thumb until i see her again...

[Paul Pless]

One of the doors blew clear off my garden shed, so I have a project over Christmas

look to ledger for inspiration

[JimD]

I remember several years ago there was some crazy politician on Oahu, I think, going around with a big hammer busting up all the shopping carts of the unhoused, his way of encouraging them to take up the state's offer of a one way flight to the mainland.

Looks like he was served up a plate of unhoused justice (from 2015) [QUOTE] Hawaii Lawmaker Who Smashed Homeless People's Shopping Carts Beaten Up By Group Of Homeless: Report

[/QUOTEhttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/tom-brower-beaten-hawaii_n_7698086

[Breakaway]

look to ledger for inspiration

Ooops!

Wrong thread!

[David G]

Oddly, the research shows that the most effective thing to help such folks get on their feet ... is to house and feed them. While homelessness is a lagging indicator, housing security is a primary human need. Nothing else gets fixed, or nearly nothing, so long as that's fragile.

Want someone to find the personal will to break addictions, or get out of crime, or get an education, or be a good rather than abusive parent? House them. Feed them. Don't make it contingent or conditional.

Some proportion will absolutely just grift, and fail. But a far larger proportion will actually get their feet under them than with any other policy options we've seen tried. The success rate is much better.

But it depends on us being willing to provide a service to people who we think are "undeserving." And that's the really hard sell, in terms of getting policy approved and implemented.

That seems to be what the folks in Salt Lake City are finding...

And the people in Finland --

Finland’s success is not a matter of luck or the outcome of “quick fixes.” Rather, it is the result of a sustained, well-resourced national strategy, driven by a “Housing First” approach, which provides people experiencing homelessness with immediate, independent, permanent housing, rather than temporary accommodation (OECD, 2020). A key pillar of this effort has been to combine emergency assistance with the supply of rentals to host previously homeless people, either by converting some existing shelters into residential buildings with independent apartments (Kaakinen, 2019) or by building new flats by a government agency (ARA, 2021). Building flats is key: otherwise, especially if housing supply is particularly rigid, the funding of rentals can risk driving up rents (OECD, 2021a), thus reducing the “bang for the buck” of public spending.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-ho...-against-trump

[Jim Bow]

Most liberals spend more time worrying about themselves while stepping over the houseless.

- Ted Hoppe

Meanwhile, most conservatives are ...?

[Canoeyawl]

Ronald Reagan...

"By the end of Reagan’s term in office federal assistance to local governments was cut 60 percent. Reagan eliminated general revenue sharing to cities, slashed funding for public service jobs and job training, almost dismantled federally funded legal services for the poor, cut the anti-poverty Community Development Block Grant program and reduced funds for public transit. The only “urban” program that survived the cuts was federal aid for highways—which primarily benefited suburbs, not cities.
Another of Reagan’s enduring legacies is the steep increase in the number of homeless people, which by the late 1980s had swollen to 600,000 on any given night – and 1.2 million over the course of a year. Many were Vietnam veterans, children and laid-off workers."
In early 1984 on Good Morning America, Reagan defended himself against charges of callousness toward the poor in a classic blaming-the-victim statement saying that “people who are sleeping on the grates…the homeless…are homeless, you might say, by choice.”

https://shelterforce.org/2004/05/01/...ss-in-america/

[wizbang 13]

did we really need a new word for 'homeless'?

did we need a new word for “bums”?

[WI-Tom]

They do not have to be houseless or without a home. Many of you could host them inside your residences or have the skills to build in-law units on your property and get them on their feet.

I did that. I lived a few blocks from the local library, and went there for Internet access instead of having it at home. (Good move, by the way). I ran into two former students and started chatting. When I asked what they were up to these days, they said they were living on the street. And that the girl (they were a couple in their late teens/early twenties) was pregnant. The boy was a diagnosed schizophrenic with no family connections, on full Social Security disability. The girl's family was abusive and had just gotten evicted from their home (and left an unbelievably huge pile of trash and trashy things inside and on the lawn when they moved out, landlord's nightmare). It was mid-January, in a -20s F cold streak.

At the time, the downstairs apartment in the duplex my wife and I own was vacant and undergoing slow repairs/upgrades. No hot water. No furniture. But had a working kitchen. I invited them to stay. They had no car. The girl had a part-time minimum-wage job at Good Will about 3 miles out of town, maybe 6-10 hours per week. The boy was unemployable. Worse, had managed to get into complications where the court-designated money manager for his disability payment wasn't allowed to give him the payments unless he had an address.

I was not working at the time, so took lots of my own time to try and support them: driving to appointments, providing rides to work, inviting them to dinner at our apartment, hooking them up with local aid organizations, going with them to meetings with their social worker, etc. The smallest bit of red tape was an unscalable hurdle for them.

After a couple of weeks, when the cold spell ended, they vanished without letting me know they were leaving. They abandoned some of their stuff in our apartment, left it pretty much a mess but no big damage or anything. Just, gone. No contact info shared.

My point, I guess, is:

It's beyond any individual's ability to "get them on their feet" when they have no feet, no support system in their lives, no help, no hope. I was never going to be able to fix their problems or help them deal with them in any meaningful sustained way.

The deck is stacked so far against people like this that it will take systems thinking and institutional-level support to improve things. Housing First is a huge success financially and as far as outcomes go. Had this couple had secure housing, they might have made some headway on their other issues.

Also:

Nothing destroys the credibility of the "individual choice" narrative that conservatives love than spending time with people who don't have access to the choices you've had, and never will.

Poverty is not an individual choice. It's a cultural/societal choice. And that choice is costing us MORE, not less, than we would spend on a humane approach.

But, you know, the smug moral satisfaction of "Look at those people who made such bad choices, not like me!" is worth a lot to some people, I guess.

Tom

[Ted Hoppe]

^ Much respect to you Tom. Reading this made me tear up. There is so much truth and reality to your story. And to theirs.

[Ted Hoppe]

I am reminded of the most Christian chapters of the Bible. It is my favorite in fact. It comes from ancient times when we used to take care of the stranger, the wanderers, the injured, the sick. They knew and we know and hoped others would do for us and ours if needed.

Luke 10:25-37
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him.
35 The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

[WI-Tom]

Thanks for the comment, Ted. It was very sad to see how impossible it was to solve their problems. Ironic that the right-wing cries "Christian!" and remains willfully ignorant of what Jesus's teachings involve, and what demands they place on people to treat others with compassion.

I am reminded of the most Christian chapters of the Bible. It is my favorite in fact. It comes from ancient times when we used to take care of the stranger, the wanderers, the injured, the sick.

I've always read that parable as Jesus' indictment of hypocrisy--i.e. he was pointing out that conventional society did NOT take care of the stranger, even though their own religious tradition demanded it. Read that bit again about: "But he wanted to justify himself..."

In other words, he was looking for an excuse so as NOT to have to help strangers.

As a society today, the "personal choice and personal responsibility" narrative is one tool we use to justify our cruel apathy toward the homeless and disadvantaged.

Tom

[Ted Hoppe]

I came to recognize Jesus came from a place that did in fact value traditional compassion of the misplaced, destitute and the injured. The parable is an extension of being ones brother and keeper which goes much earlier than Christianity. The story of the Odyssey reminds us of about several places near and far that found a broken man Odysseus nearly dead and gave him help.

Tom in your telling story - you pointed that the young man was receiving social security for his illness and may have had the means to exist. His worth could not be extended to his new partner and soon to be family. Our society values people on their ability to make or earn money. Once people are found economically useless - their assistance is equal to their total worth and remaining income. Same can be said for low income seniors and others in poverty in many parts of this country and world. The choices we make to help others are choices - some we can make because we can knowing it helps and others we make to hid them from us to see the heartache and hardship of life.

It still begs the real question - do people with nothing, with little means driven with low interest or inability demand a right to make a life in some of the most expensive places to live? I can not answer that but know - If I can't given my wealth live in an expensive place, should the houseless be given a home and money in the same area?

[WI-Tom]

I came to recognize Jesus came from a place that did in fact value traditional compassion of the misplaced, destitute and the injured. The parable is an extension of being ones brother and keeper which goes much earlier than Christianity. The story of the Odyssey reminds us of about several places near and far that found a broken man Odysseus nearly dead and gave him help.

Tom in your telling story - you pointed that the young man was receiving social security for his illness and may have had the means to exist. His worth could not be extended to his new partner and soon to be family. Our society values people on their ability to make or earn money. Once people are found economically useless - their assistance is equal to their total worth and remaining income. Same can be said for low income seniors and others in poverty in many parts of this country and world. The choices we make to help others are choices - some we can make because we can knowing it helps and others we make to hid them from us to see the heartache and hardship of life.

It still begs the real question - do people with nothing, with little means driven with low interest or inability demand a right to make a life in some of the most expensive places to live? I can not answer that but know - If I can't given my wealth live in an expensive place, should the houseless be given a home and money in the same area?

Well, the young man in question was actually NOT able to receive his disability payments because he was homeless, and needed an official address before the court would release his money. It was a big mess, but essentially being homeless cut him off even from the aid he was supposed to get.

Your last question is interesting. You ask, "I can't afford to live in the Bay area, why should THEY expect to live there?"

I think that's the kind of zero-sum thinking that conservatives seem to fall for. Rather than saying, "Yes, neither of us can't afford to live there, and that ain't right, because the city's economy depends on our labor! Let's fix that!" you seem to be saying "If I can't live there, they shouldn't expect to, either."

It's the same thing with union-busting in my experience in Wisconsin. Non-union workers, instead of recognizing that they could have joined union workers in solidarity to demand better working conditions for everyone, took the "Well, I don't get that in MY job, so they shouldn't get that in THEIR jobs, either!" route of outrage.

There's common ground. But conservatives so often ignore it, and turn to the faux moral outrage of "If I can't have it, THEY can't have it either!" kind of thinking. Maybe that's not how you meant it, but think about it--isn't that, kind of, what you are saying? When you could be saying "Cities should be affordable for EVERYONE if the city needs their labor!"

Tom

[David G]

Tom - We've had similar experiences with trying to help people on a retail level. At the shop, my shopmate (a G.C. and actual 'working at it' Christian) and I have hired local homeless folks to do day labor on construction projects. We've made a couple spare spaces inside the fence available to some we've thought just needed somewhere to park their gear while they stabilized a bit.

The results have been... mixed. One of our guys is now off the streets and working steady and off drugs. One has settled into a stable life on a shanty on a nearby slough and uses one of my kayaks to ferry supplies out. He still does occasional work for us, and sits on a neighborhood council (representing the homeless population). But he wants to keep his life as simple as possible, and has no interest in giving up his drugs. He simply has found a routine and path that allows him to direct most of his cash that way. One guy who was living on the property got so addled by meth that he almost burned the place down. And so on and so on.

The point is... retail efforts are kind, but the solution does not lie in that direction. Did you read the Finnish experience? Have you looked into what Salt Lake City does?

[WI-Tom]

The point is... retail efforts are kind, but the solution does not lie in that direction. Did you read the Finnish experience? Have you looked into what Salt Lake City does?

Thanks for the comments, David. Yep, I've been paying attention to this issue, and the successes of a no-strings housing-first policy in places like SLC, Finland, Houston, etc.

We know what works. As you say, it isn't individual charity. It's a systems-based response that is needed. Not only would that be more effective in helping homeless people, it would be demonstrably cheaper. But it seems the U.S. as a society would rather pay more, as long as it's the right people (those who make "bad choices" like being victims of trauma, or addicts, or or or) who do the suffering.

The idea, I guess, is a deep moral conviction that some people deserve to suffer, even if it costs us money to see that they do.

Tom

[Canoeyawl]

Much/most of this is related to varying degrees of "mental illness".
Humans have a finely tuned coping mechanism including self medicating in order to forget/distract from their troubles.
As a country we used to care for these unfortunates, yet today so many people are hand to mouth existence it takes very little to descend into despair.

I'm not in favor of blaming the individuals. Depression and other states of mind can be very difficult to treat on your own.

My father came of age during the depression and was able to spend time in conversation with the "bums" (small New England town with rr tracks nearby) they would come to the kitchen offering work for a meal. Being too young for a summer job he chatted them up while his mother fed them oatmeal or whatever she could spare. He commented much later in life that many of those men were well educated with very interesting backgrounds yet victims of circumstance.
He taught me that you should never judge another person from your own perspective. Corporate capitalism is a brutal taskmaster.
I suggest reading a bit of Upton Sinclair...

[David W Pratt]

To quote from “Nomadland”, “I’m not homeless, I’m houseless.”
The word “home” denotes a sense of comfort, maybe family, community. “House” is a physical structure.
Those folks in the groups of blue tarp covered tents and lean-to structures do have a familial sense of community.

“Don’t be judgmental, be curious.”

You may be a candidate for a Nobel in Economics, finding something more expensive than boats and their upkeep.

[Landrith]

True. Very true.

But it doesn't address the issue of bootlessly mucking with the language.

I think it is a good new word for accomplishing the Cultural Marxism strategy of implying that government has a duty to provide houses not just shelter, but housing to all citizens. Once the Socialism phase is well established, the role of government to intervene in every phase of life is important to achieve their goals.

[Landrith]

I just skimmed this. Doesn’t seem like many of you have been homeless, or houseless.

…

My past life choices are going to catch up with me. I have been looking at being intentionally homeless. I thought escaping on a bicycle and trying to pass as a yuppie tourist would work, but already here in the Midwest, they are passing anti camping laws to avoid the West Coast Hoovervilles popping up. Of course, since I enjoy this forum, I am looking at boating more and the federal jurisdiction of navigable waterways...

[David G]

I think it is a good new word for accomplishing the Cultural Marxism strategy of implying that government has a duty to provide houses not just shelter, but housing to all citizens. Once the Socialism phase is well established, the role of government to intervene in every phase of life is important to achieve their goals.

I'm sorry.

I hope you overcome this affliction soon.

[WI-Tom]

I think it is a good new word for accomplishing the Cultural Marxism strategy of implying that government has a duty to provide houses not just shelter, but housing to all citizens. Once the Socialism phase is well established, the role of government to intervene in every phase of life is important to achieve their goals.

Nope. You've mischaracterized it, or misunderstood it. "Unhoused" is useful not because it implies a duty for government to provide housing, but because it points out that the vast majority of homeless people in our current state of things are homeless not by accident, but by design. They have been "unhoused" on purpose.

The term draws attention, maybe, to a system in which the privileged have all the laws and zoning ordinances and health care and employment conditions in their favor, while the "unimportant" have all the decks stacked against them. That to create situations in which people become homeless because of health or mental health issues is a DELIBERATE choice. Not a mistake. Not "poor choices" on an individual level. But a choice to create a system that works well for the wealthy and privileged while keeping lots and lots of people just a paycheck or two away from complete destitution.

In other words, government ALREADY intervenes in every phase of life. Right now, it does so to the advantage of the rich and privileged, every time. And that's not how a functional social contract works. Isn't it odd that the political right only has objections to government intervention when that intervention attempts to make things a bit fairer for the rest of the people?

Tom

[David G]

Nope. You've mischaracterized it, or misunderstood it. "Unhoused" is useful not because it implies a duty for government to provide housing, but because it points out that the vast majority of homeless people in our current state of things are homeless not by accident, but by design. They have been "unhoused" on purpose.

The term draws attention, maybe, to a system in which the privileged have all the laws and zoning ordinances and health care and employment conditions in their favor, while the "unimportant" have all the decks stacked against them. That to create situations in which people become homeless because of health or mental health issues is a DELIBERATE choice. Not a mistake. Not "poor choices" on an individual level. But a choice to create a system that works well for the wealthy and privileged while keeping lots and lots of people just a paycheck or two away from complete destitution.

In other words, government ALREADY intervenes in every phase of life. Right now, it does so to the advantage of the rich and privileged, every time. And that's not how a functional social contract works. Isn't it odd that the political right only has objections to government intervention when that intervention attempts to make things a bit fairer for the rest of the people?

Tom

Not sure about the utility of the term... but otherwise spot on.

[WI-Tom]

Not sure about the utility of the term... but otherwise spot on.

Oh, I have no great faith in the utility of the term, or in prioritizing language over actionable policy.

Unlike Rob, I've never experienced homelessness or even real poverty. But my experiences working with others who HAVE lived that life--the example I gave above, and also my work in a residential treatment center for teens with mental health, trauma, and substance abuse issues, has given me a fair amount of certainty about how horrible, and horribly needless it is, to do things the way we are mostly doing them. And how microscopically small the chances really are of someone breaking free of that multi-generational cycle without systematic intervention and support.

Tom

[Landrith]

Not sure about the utility of the term... but otherwise spot on.

Speaking of which, the policy being "implemented" right now is to pass off the remaining unsold housing at the tail end of the boom cycle (that creative destruction of Capitalism thing) to those that can least afford it through government guaranteed loans and subsidized incentives. Many say this will be a bigger tsunami of defaults and foreclosures than that which started in 2008. More elimination of the middle class.

[Canoeyawl]

Many say your argument is uneducated horse poop, dictated by the only media outlet that can reach deep into the heart of Kansas

[SaltyD from BC]

There's committees. There's university study. There's a lot of people sitting around tables, paid and otherwise, throwing 5 dollar words around at each other looking for nods of approval. The words have a short shelf life they need to be changed a lot, as it seems to happen around these tables.

When I was a kid we used to refer to aboriginal people as Indians. That one didn't last, I kind of get it Columbus came up with that one as he first thought he was in India. OK fine, then native came around. That one seemed descriptive enough to me, but who am I? Then native was out, the people around the tables says it was offensive. So we moved on to first nations. That seemed to stick, for most anyway. I find its best to get to know the aboriginal peeps nearby and see what they call themselves and go with that. It varies.

[Landrith]

Hey it isn't on the Kansas radio, its mainstream: "How The Left’s War On Words Manipulates Your Mind" https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/01...ipulates-mind/

[CK 17]

did we really need a new word for 'homeless'?

sometimes changing the words helps us see them differently.