Advocates Hail Council's Plan to End Homelessness -WP

[Rose Siding]

Most cities try to manage chronic homelessness by shifting people from emergency shelter to shelter. The Alexandria City Council has adopted a utopian-sounding plan to end homelessness -- and to do it in 10 years.
...
And while some people have said to Becker that they don't see many homeless people in Alexandria, she counters that you only need to know where to look -- along the river, where many live on mattresses and in lean-tos; under bridges in Arlandria; and in stairwells.

The roots of such chronic homelessness are complex.

Although there have been periods of homelessness throughout the years, particularly during the Depression, the problem began to explode in the 1970s, when the closing of state and federal psychiatric institutions forced thousands of people into the streets. Churches and early shelters began taking everyone in.....MORE.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59683-2005Mar23.html

[faithnotgreed]

1. this is wonderful - i initially hoped this was the dc council but at least

its happening somewhere

just to acknowledge it is more than most

[Terran]

2. Just to clarify...

since I work in this field, the plan the city adopted is not to "end homelessness" but to end "chronic homelessness." In my opinion and in the opinion of many, the federal move to end chronic homelessness is another Bush administration shell game. HUD defines chronic homelessness is such a way that it automatically excludes children and anyone with a family, and the vast majority of people who experience homelessness are in families and are children.

In addition, the justification cited for targeting the chronic population--that they use 50% of the homelessness resources even though they are only 10% of the homeless population--is very much open to debate. Those figures were arrived at by doing a huge study in New York and Philadelphia, and it's very much open to question as to whether the results can be applied across the nation, in rural and smaller urban centers. Many of us who do this do not believe this is a valid basis on which to create this program.

As the article correctly points out, the real problem, the real *cause* of homelessness is a lack of affordable housing and a lack of living wages. And yet while the Bush administration spouts off about ending chronic homelessness, it is also gutting most of the programs designed to *prevent* homelessness. Ending chronic homelessness is primarily about getting scary mentally ill people off our pretty downtown streets; it has not very much to do with actually solving the problem of homelessness.

Don't get me wrong, I hope the feds DO end chronic homelessness, because it's tragic and dehumanizing and a scandal upon our nation. But do you think they'll follow up and come up with better programs to end homelessness for the other 90% of those who experience it?

[MountainLaurel]

14. Thanks for that info

One thing that such a focus on "chronic homelessness" misses is that the vast majority of the homeless in this specific area aren't what we think of as homeless: the bum on the streetcorner, the vet under the bridge. They are people who move from one relative's couch to another, or who stay at the flophouse motel until the money runs out, and then they go to a friend's place. And in Alexandria, most of the homeless are families with children, who simply can't afford a place:

In Alexandria, a salary of about $36,500 would be needed to be able to rent an efficiency apartment -- about 70 percent more than what two workers making minimum wage could afford.

[Terran]

17. Well, you point out something very ironic, and you are right.

...the vast majority of the homeless in this specific area aren't what we think of as homeless: the bum on the streetcorner, the vet under the bridge. They are people who move from one relative's couch to another, or who stay at the flophouse motel until the money runs out, and then they go to a friend's place.

In my job I am continually having to decide whether people are homeless or not under HUD's definition, so I can say whether or not they qualify for assistance. And the folks you describe are NOT considered homeless by HUD, so they don't get any help. Basically, you have be on the streets (or some other place not meant for human habitation) or in an emergency shelter before you can get help. In other words, you have to go through hell and personal degradation first.

In fact the definition of homelessness will get even more narrow next year; the funding competition (the "Super NOFA") was just announced a couple of days ago, and HUD has removed one of their long-standing definitions of homelessness: if you're about to be evicted and have no means to obtain other housing, you no longer qualify as homeless.

[MountainLaurel]

18. Christ on a cracker!

How can these people even claim to be pro-life, when they're passing laws like this?! It's not bad enough that they're cutting funding for these programs, but now they're killing anyone's chances of finding help with a new "definition."

Kind of like the way they fudge unemployment numbers by not counting the underemployed or those who have been out of work for so long that their benefits have timed out. Of course, these are the people most in need of assistance, but no.

Once again, I am ashamed of this country.

[bettyellen]

19. HUD's excluding children from the program... that's horrible.

[EFerrari]

20. Also, convenient. It makes their numbers look better. n/t

[Terran]

22. That's the effect, yes

They define a chronically homeless person as someone who is unaccompanied (so no family, just an individual), disabled, and who has been homeless (on the streets or in emergency shelter) for a year continuously or had four such episodes in the last three years.

Now granted there are a lot of people who fit that description, and they urgently need help. But families get no help from all this effort, and children under 18 are the largest single cohort of homeless people in America today.

Yes, it is horrible.

[redqueen]

3. In the 1970s?

I thought the mentally-ill were pushed out onto the streets in the 80s, under reagan.

[oscar111]

4. 80's began it, NOT 7O's. RR cut two thirds of Vouchers

error by the journalist.

4 billion would reinstate vouchers and end all homelsessness overnight, not in ten years.

12 billion would end all hunger

3oo billion would end all usa poverty.

rollback bush taxcuts for the rich, ..which were 35O billion roughtly, and you end all three.

The causes of hmlessness are not "complex". RR ended two thirds of housing vouchers. Simple.

True, there have been many inputs to the problem, but the cure is one: money for housing.

4 billion. Just roll back bush's taxcuts for the rich.

[oscar111]

5. hmlessness is a program to execute the old, weak and sick OWS

old, weak and sick.. O. W. S. ... those who have reason to say OW.

the homeless die at three times the normal rate. from heat, cold, rat bites, hunger. {12 million hungry in the US}

1OO OOO die per year fm homelessness.

in ancient times, they used "death by exposure to the elements".

looks to me like Reagan's policy of hmlessness is a revival of the ancient style of execution, and applied to 3 million americans in the downtown noon of every american city.

[oscar111]

6. rose, what is the town's plan, for those of us short on time

too busy to go read long articles.

summary, pls

which state is it in, also?

[Megahurtz]

15. Wow, that's an interesting point,

and probably not far from the truth.:(
After all, Bush IS a Reaganite.

[redqueen]

9. "Error"... you are too kind.

I think this crap is done intentionally, to keep blame away from saint ronnie, that heartless bastard deserves no protection...

:nuke:

[oscar111]

11. Reagan, father of homelessness. You are righ.

He deserves to be credited with it all. Twenty five years of his policy.

Future historians will see this as a dark age.

[Terran]

16. No. When Prop 13 passed in Cali

that was in '78 or '79, that's what began California's homelessness problems. Can't speak for other states.

[oscar111]

10. mentally ill were emptied from state hosps by new tranquilizers in

seventies, but apparently LBJ's programs guaranted them housing vouchers. Till RR came along and cut two thirds of vouchers.

the writer in the WP must have been confused by that first wave of hospital emptyings. Another wave came in the nineties, as the GOP at state levels cut funds for state hosps for the insane, even the criminally insane. Cut by a half.

When you see a heinous crime.. school shooting, serial killer and the like,.. blame the republicans.

we used to lock up and treat the criminally insane. Now, appears that half are no longer locked up or even treated. These crimes are directly the result of republican pennypinching. Republicans live in gated communities. What do they care?

BTW, i need to point out that most of the homeless are not dangerous. Another article found that something like only seven percent are mentally ill, and of those, i wager most are harmless types. Most are just plain poor, some physically sick, and a low percentage are the old-time alcoholics.

[redqueen]

12. And many are veterans...

republicans have a sick way of supporting the troops.

[DemoTex]

7. Over $300-billion for Bu$h-wars, but ..

And although the plan commits the city to house the homeless first, and then to try to resolve the roots of their homelessness -- be it mental illness, physical disability or substance addiction -- the authors readily admit that there is no land, property or money available to do so in the already densely populated 15 1/2-square-mile city.

Still, it is good to see that the idea is getting some ink. I wish them the best of luck in succeeding. I used to do volunteer work at the Carpenter's Shelter in Alexandria (and then at The Stewpot in Dallas). The homeless/hunger problem is so acute and painful to contemplate that it would be easy to just turn away. Many do. Thank goodness for those who dedicate their lives to making these people's lives somewhat better.

[oscar111]

8. Nominate for greatest page:button bott of orig post

[oscar111]

13. Job Shortage a "deep cause" of hmlessness

since there are 14 million fewer jobs than jobless, {see my sig}, it is inescapable that some will not have money for rent. And become homeless.

The blame for homelessness can be placed on thosse who fail to create enough jobs. WPA, co-ops, and french-style share the work , ... could end all joblessness.

Rush is fond of calling the jobless "lazy". To refute that, see my sig for a link to the BLS of our gov.

Only 3 million jobs available. 17 mill, jobless plus discouraged seekers. The titans of industry fail to create enough jobs. The GOP fails to use WPA or share the work, to create jobs.

see my sig for a Galbraith-advised site aimed at Jobs for All. Clinton's sec. of labor also advises it.

Share the work. Where the work week is trimmed by say, five hours, and wages frozen at prior level. That five hours is pooled with seven other trimmed jobs, to give a new job of thirty five hours. Adjust the trimmed hours and presto!

Overnight, joblessness is gone. Totally, and overnight.

Co ops. McPherson, Kansas, is where a farmer co op runs a giant petrol refinery. Co ops can run anything at all. In spain, they run auto parts factory. In sweden, toothbrushes and light bulb factories. Here, credit unions are in reality, co op banks.
Gov should set up co ops to create jobs.

There is never any need for one person to go jobless. Joblessness is artificial. A lack of will to end it, by the GOP, is the real cause.

[DebJ]

24. wow can I get that on a bumper sticker, honor the warrior not the

war? Can I get quite a few bumper stickers? Please!

[SnowGoose]

21. Question regarding causes of homelessness.

I've learned from this thread and I appreciate that.

I've heard something else that perhaps y'all could comment on. Wasn't there a supreme court decision regarding involuntary treatment of mentally ill people who weren't deemed to be "dangerous." (whatever that means in practice)? IIRC, it used to be possible to commit mentally ill people without their consent, but the SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional.

Can anyone confirm/rebut this or in some other way enlighten us?

'Goose

[Terran]

23. You may be right

I do know that it's not possible to force a mentally ill homeless person to accept an offer of shelter or other assistance. Not unless they do something criminal. Which is one reason there has been a quiet movement in many cities to criminalize the behaviors associated with homelessness, e.g., panhandling, "loitering", etc. It's seen as the only way to get them out of sight.

There was a big controversey in St. Louis last year about this. The city basically had a court devoted to processing cases involving homeless people, and they weren't giving them anything resembling due process of law. People were just been swept up and assigned to street cleaning duties and punishment for just being on the street.

[oscar111]

27. Snow, i heard of that ruling, but no article on hmlss causes i have seen,

has ever noted it as a cause.

Perhaps it affected too few cases.

I think it was in effect about '80, for a year, then a new ruling came about and the authorities COULD lock up loonies who were no danger to anyone. IIRC, not an authority on this.

In my city, hmless appeared about early eighties. The cafeteria lounge , open to anyone before entering the eat line, became a refuge for the hmless. Got crowded, and i could no longer lounge there before eating. Then management removed the lounge. Reagan's fault, really.

Same for the catholic church which was open all hours for anyone. Hmless found in that , a refuge, and after a while, the church closed except for mass. I used to rest there at five pm for an empty hour. Lost that when they closed the churce. Again, Reagan's policy the ultimate blame. Not the hmless. Who can blame them for finding any refuge they can?
GOP degrades our lives in many ways that many do not see the link to the GOP for original cause.

eg commercials on tv. Many hate them, but few realize co ops could run all production, and there would be no ads at all.

[DebJ]

25. Hubby and I just drove to Alexandria Virginia last weekend to

visit my daughter, and my husband saw a homeless camp under a bridge as we were coming home.
My daughter just moved to a very tiny one bedroom apt in Alexandria:
$894 a month for rent plus utilities.

Add in a car payment and a $450 month college loan payment, and you can figure out what kind of money she is making to just get by.

[MountainLaurel]

26. Been there, done that

I moved to the DC area 10 years ago, even before housing prices went crazy. But then, you still needed at least $500 for a 1BR, compared to $300-400 in the city I came from. I had to live in group houses with roommates for the first 6 years before I could afford my own apartment. And that was living check to check. If a big expense was required, like a major car repair or a deposit on a rental, it had to go on the credit card. (My family is in worse financial shape than me.) Once I sell my condo next month, I'll be able to pay off that neverending bill, leaving myself almost debtfree for the first time in my adult life.

And that must be a very tiny 1BR apartment for that much -- most of them are over $1000 these days, except in the worst of the worst neighborhoods. Best of luck to your daughter!

[oscar111]

28. Could we just nationalize all housing, then give title to residents,

who are in them now, like the daughter mentioned above.

Also
give title to vacant housing to the homeless, and so

end hi rents like you noted above,and

end hmlessness.

Of course, when u nationalize, you would compensate mom and pop setups who rent a bedroom to get retirement income. Only fair. Perhaps compensate apt complex owners too.

There is lots of vacant housing in my city... whole hotels sitting waiting for a buyer, empty. Run down old houses too, that a resident owner would fix up, but now are empty.

Jobs for all policy would provide the new owners.. that is, the homeless... with eno income to fix up these houses after they move in. see my sig for Galbraith-advised site on jobs for all.

[oscar111]

29. Gentle Reader{you}, Recommend this thread for Greatese Pg. Button bott of

orig post

[oscar111]

30. "Home, job, and a friend" Henry George Society had those as what they

tried to provide everyone.

I think the HG society was old movement group that wanted to reform all by taxing only landowners, or somesuch. Still has a group in NYC, IIRC.

THINK he ran and won for mayor of Ny, But election stolen. Fancy that.

Turn of the century, roughly. Vaguely.

"Every man needs a home, a job, and a friend" was the full motto.

Great one. Let's revive the motto.

{see my sig for Jobs for All site, advised by Galbraith of Hvd}

When i saw NYC, a friend told me of his temp job.. "they had OLD men tossing really heavy sacks. Those guys were too old to be doing that."

Looks like NYC hasnt gotten very far from the scene when Henry George was active reforming it.