It’s generally very hard to treat those problems when someone doesn’t have a stable residence. Some of the reasons for self-medicating also go away with a stable residence. It’s a basic need.
But yeah, large concentrations of people with various problems isn’t good either, nor is bad urbanism.
The better solution is generally good urbanism and dispersed municipal housing, so people who start needing it don’t have to move far, don’t need to have their kids switch schools, etc etc.
No, “not releasing them until they’re treated” just won’t fly. We have a lot of discussions about the loss of freedom in healthcare, and generally we can’t do something like that unless they’re an immediate danger to others or themselves.
Once they’re very sick there are a variety of treatments one can try, but they’re neither a replacement for social housing for people who are just struggling economically, nor something to deny people who need to get a return to normalcy.
It is also socialism, or at the very least social democracy here in the Nordics, and it works well :)
Again, that’s what I’m talking about. If someone is mentally ill or has addiction issues so severe they are homeless then hospitalization is medically necessary.
Get them fit first, get them the tools they need to survive, then get them housed.
Otherwise all you’re doing is sealing them in a room with untreated issues, making it all 1000x worse.
Again, that’s what I’m talking about. If someone is mentally ill or has addiction issues so severe they are homeless then hospitalization is medically necessary.
How the fuck can notary can notarize selling home by an addict? They are supposed to verify mental wellbeing of both parites, especially seller. Not just home, but the only home! Notaries refuse selling the only home even by mentally stable and not addicted people for tiniest reasons.
Giving people housing doesn’t solve the problems that caused them to be homeless in the first place.
Now you have a concentrated block of people with not just issues, but subscriptions. Mental health, drug, and alcohol abuse.
You have to address those issues FIRST, THEN get them housed.
Otherwise you get this:
https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-county/safety-concerns-continue-at-east-countys-largest-affordable-housing-hub/
or this:
https://katu.com/news/local/housing-council-makes-empty-threat-to-withhold-43m-from-low-income-developer
or this:
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/10/16/argyle-gardens-north-portland-housing/
It’s generally very hard to treat those problems when someone doesn’t have a stable residence. Some of the reasons for self-medicating also go away with a stable residence. It’s a basic need.
But yeah, large concentrations of people with various problems isn’t good either, nor is bad urbanism.
The better solution is generally good urbanism and dispersed municipal housing, so people who start needing it don’t have to move far, don’t need to have their kids switch schools, etc etc.
Simple to treat them without a stable residence… You house them in a clinic while you treat them and don’t release them until they are treated.
Then you give them the tools they need to stay healthy.
“Buh, buh… socialism!!!”
No, “not releasing them until they’re treated” just won’t fly. We have a lot of discussions about the loss of freedom in healthcare, and generally we can’t do something like that unless they’re an immediate danger to others or themselves.
Once they’re very sick there are a variety of treatments one can try, but they’re neither a replacement for social housing for people who are just struggling economically, nor something to deny people who need to get a return to normalcy.
It is also socialism, or at the very least social democracy here in the Nordics, and it works well :)
Yes
Yes
No.
You house them and then help then with those issues while in their new homes.
Now the hard and really really important part, you address what caused the issues they were facing.
You create jobs (big incentives for businesses to set up near by), you directly employ people in meaningful government funded projects.
You provide first rate education opertunities (both for adults and children).
You provide good high quality social areas (both indoor and outdoor).
You provide first rate socially funded healthcare both for physical and mental issues.
You legalise drugs so their access can be safe and better controlled. You use the tax money from that to go hard on any non legal drugs.
Or, now follow me on this… OR you hospitalize them while they are being treated.
Not as a default. People should only be hospitalised if they medically need it.
It also doesn’t address the societal issues which lead to their addiction in the first place.
Again, that’s what I’m talking about. If someone is mentally ill or has addiction issues so severe they are homeless then hospitalization is medically necessary.
Get them fit first, get them the tools they need to survive, then get them housed.
Otherwise all you’re doing is sealing them in a room with untreated issues, making it all 1000x worse.
How the fuck can notary can notarize selling home by an addict? They are supposed to verify mental wellbeing of both parites, especially seller. Not just home, but the only home! Notaries refuse selling the only home even by mentally stable and not addicted people for tiniest reasons.
Oh, nobody is talking about SELLING homes to addicts, they’re owned by some non-profit and are just supposed to give them to addicts. :)