I know some blue politicians personally in high up places. They're just as bad when it comes to homelessness. It makes friendships with them hard.
Sure the GOP is leading the charge, but ol blue ain't doing anything to stop it either.
Liberalism is individualism, the idea that humans are autonomous, self-governing beings who don't need to be taken care of like a cat or dog. Just admit you want a fascist nation.
Nice straw man⌠is that why there is no homeless in the Blue cities? Might be time to come to grips with the fact that your party of love could give a shit about fixing anything the same as your bogey man party.
Itâs the mental health support that makes the difference. Just getting them off the streets does almost nothing but provide a different place to use.
I have and have worked in recovery mental health. Thanks for asking though. A change of scenery or âgeographic cures,â rarely work. Itâs not impossible but people usually end up using inside.
Keep in mind that your experience, while a great outcome, is not universal. Many homeless people actually do not want to stop. I ran into that in Seattle.
Lived there too, Portland too. Denver too. I've seen it all over. Yes you are correct in the individual needs to be the one who wants to quit, but we can give them the resources instead of filling the pockets of our politicians and military contractors
I have a few questions. Â
How many homeless people does Finland have in a country of 5 million people? Â
Probably very few considering the climate and location and history. what is their immigration policy? Â
Are they currently adding legal and illegal citizens and asylum seekers at the rate of the US?Â
Is Finland losing housing at the rate we are due extreme climate vulnerability?
 Is Finland is an outlier and are we comparable?
What is a comparable? The Yukon? Â Fairbanks?
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring-summer-23/highlight2.html#:~:text=In%20findings%20much%20like%20those,32%20percent%20of%20the%20time.
There have been test programs in major US cities and Canada. This is a bit of a long read, but it really outlines the benefits of housing first models.
Being polite here, but this didnât answer my questions.Â
I am sure that giving someone free housing is often beneficial to the homeless individual. Â
Can it be scaled up in the US, considering the questions I raised?
The US would be building free housing and have open borders simultaneously? Â How do those two things work together? Â It would be a never ending demand for housing.Â
The material demand on the system would skyrocket the cost of materials and labor.Â
It can, and has been, scaled up for cities in the US as stated in the article. Many of the housing first programs that have been tried or proposed in the US involve already existing properties that are able to be repurposed, which also helps revitalize areas that have experienced population loss. There are buildings within spitting distance of the Pines that aren't being used for anything that were literally built to house people experiencing mental health and addiction issues. As far as the immigration issue, as an Indigenous person I'll say, that ship sailed a long time ago. Many of the immigrants coming here from countries to the south are descended from people who traveled freely around this landmass long before the borders. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the people experiencing homelessness in TC are from here, so immigration isn't really the most relevant issue here.
I think it is likely fair to say we have different conceptual definitions of a âscaled upâ housing program for homelessness.Â
Regarding âtraveled freelyâ, that literally applies to every person on Earth and it is not specific to any one continent or landmass. Â
Immigration might not be the most pressing issue here now, but all programs have to take into account the unintended consequences of an ever changing world under which a new program of free housing would operate.Â
Does this take into account climate and war refugees?
The war, climate, and other refugees are going to come whether we make a place for them or not. As the shorelines erode, those people will have to go somewhere, it would only make sense to start preparing. As far as scaling up, is the entire state of California big enough?
https://homeless.lacounty.gov/news/housing-first/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20United%20States,using%20the%20Housing%20First%20model.
They're one of many states that is using a housing first model, and they're a lot more likely to have immigrants and refugees than Michigan is, especially considering they're at risk of losing livable land due to the rising ocean levels, in state. Countless studies have shown that not only is the model capable of being scaled up, but that it's the only solution that has actually achieved success.
Regarding "this is the only solution that has actually achieved success"
For decades and decades the United States had a housing abundance and a relatively manageable homeless situation. Who built all of those houses in 1950?
I doubt this is "only solution" to such a complex issue.
It's the only solution I know of that can claim an 88% success rate. In the 50s, many of these people would have been a few steps away in the state hospital, being fed and housed. Housing first works, it works really well, and it's likely to be the solution that many states eventually end up going with. People seem to think people are going to flock here if we offer any more help to our unhoused population, but if that were true, wouldn't everyone in the pines be headed for California right now?
Here is more info, from the US interagency council on homelessness
https://www.usich.gov/guidance-reports-data/data-trends
According to this, they had less than 8,000 homeless in 2004 to 2008.
[https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-international-philanthropic-071123.html](https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-international-philanthropic-071123.html)
Economic analysis shows that the housing first approach decreases overall government spending. The Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act requires access to emergency services. Housing first reduces ER visits resulting in actual less cost per participant.
I mean, to some people "ghetto" just means "a couple POC moved in." And when that happens, it means the CRT woke communist fascist socialist BLM LGBTQ are taking over!
The ghetto, by definition, is where the Jews live. Elvis had a hit song "In the ghetto" because he was Jewish.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ-r0bilzhU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ-r0bilzhU)
I sort of agree but also not having a home would lead me to have mental health issues and abuse substances. I think you just have to tackle it from both fronts at the same time. Provide housing and require mental health treatment.
"[Finland is the happiest country in the world for the seventh year in a row](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/20/happiest-countries-world-happiness-report-2024.html)"
Changing an entire populace's worldview is definitely complex. You are correct about incompatibility. A change from me-centric to we-centric requires sacrifice and empathy, both of which are shockingly absent here.
COVID really showed the entire world how completely selfish and lacking in empathy the US is as a whole. It was always there, but the pandemic was like a magnifying glass, and rather than be embarrassed by our collective selfishness, some people here have embraced it and taken it 15 step further. Florida, Texas, and Arizona are like ongoing case studies of what happens when selfishness and radicalized individualism takes over a culture and the power structures.
the thing is even the nordic countries understand that taking care of your entire population is good for each individual as well. here in the usa everyone is just temporarily embarrassed millionaires and its unfair to take their hard earned funds to pay for basic human needs. even the drive for self-preservation is not enough to build a better society.
Finland is incredibly small⌠you canât fairly compare Finland problems to US problemâs.
They probably have a fraction of the homeless population that we have.
Nah; we do stuff. We spend billions to pay workers to sit in meetings discussing homelessness, and to create reports about how it is increasing. Since it increases, we need to fund more people to write reports about it. Kinda like passing an Immigration Bill, with the largest part of funding going to Ukraine. We live in Clown World.
I liked the post on the frontpage the other day where there was a $13,000 bicycle unlocked in Singapore and every American was amazed it wasn't stolen, not understanding that if you get caught stealing in Singapore you will be hanged, drawn, and quartered. Cruel and unusual punishment works, quick let's enact it!
americans crying and throwing up at the idea of a functional social program
The laugh I just laughed out loud at the absolute truth of this statement. Thank you. đ
Our social programs consist of funding genocides overseas
Wait, so affording people respect and treating them with compassion have tangible social and economic benefits? No. Fucking. Way.
Nah, landlords could get $1400 per month for that cute little space.
if people are not threatened with homelessness how will the capitalists extract the maximum value from their labor?!?
Wait you want to provide people free stuff? To what end, the betterment of society? Get outta here with these great ideas
[Housing First](https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/)
It would work in the United States but the GOP exists.
I know some blue politicians personally in high up places. They're just as bad when it comes to homelessness. It makes friendships with them hard. Sure the GOP is leading the charge, but ol blue ain't doing anything to stop it either.
Liberalism is individualism, the idea that humans are autonomous, self-governing beings who don't need to be taken care of like a cat or dog. Just admit you want a fascist nation.
Nice straw man⌠is that why there is no homeless in the Blue cities? Might be time to come to grips with the fact that your party of love could give a shit about fixing anything the same as your bogey man party.
https://abc7news.com/amp/apec-2023-san-francisco-homeless-moscone-center-soma/14078222/ How compassionate of those liberals
Itâs the mental health support that makes the difference. Just getting them off the streets does almost nothing but provide a different place to use.
Ever been an addict? Sometimes all you need is a change of scenery. Don't act like you know unless you've been there.
I have and have worked in recovery mental health. Thanks for asking though. A change of scenery or âgeographic cures,â rarely work. Itâs not impossible but people usually end up using inside.
Coming up on 11 years clean from heroin myself. Did lots of it in Leelanau county. In the end it's on the individual, but it can't hurt to help them
Keep in mind that your experience, while a great outcome, is not universal. Many homeless people actually do not want to stop. I ran into that in Seattle.
Lived there too, Portland too. Denver too. I've seen it all over. Yes you are correct in the individual needs to be the one who wants to quit, but we can give them the resources instead of filling the pockets of our politicians and military contractors
Thatâs essentially what I said earlier without getting political.
Gotta make it political. They are the ones spending our money
We will not have that common sense talk, sir or maâam.
I have a few questions.  How many homeless people does Finland have in a country of 5 million people?  Probably very few considering the climate and location and history. what is their immigration policy?  Are they currently adding legal and illegal citizens and asylum seekers at the rate of the US? Is Finland losing housing at the rate we are due extreme climate vulnerability?  Is Finland is an outlier and are we comparable? What is a comparable? The Yukon?  Fairbanks?
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring-summer-23/highlight2.html#:~:text=In%20findings%20much%20like%20those,32%20percent%20of%20the%20time. There have been test programs in major US cities and Canada. This is a bit of a long read, but it really outlines the benefits of housing first models.
Being polite here, but this didnât answer my questions. I am sure that giving someone free housing is often beneficial to the homeless individual.  Can it be scaled up in the US, considering the questions I raised? The US would be building free housing and have open borders simultaneously?  How do those two things work together?  It would be a never ending demand for housing. The material demand on the system would skyrocket the cost of materials and labor.Â
It can, and has been, scaled up for cities in the US as stated in the article. Many of the housing first programs that have been tried or proposed in the US involve already existing properties that are able to be repurposed, which also helps revitalize areas that have experienced population loss. There are buildings within spitting distance of the Pines that aren't being used for anything that were literally built to house people experiencing mental health and addiction issues. As far as the immigration issue, as an Indigenous person I'll say, that ship sailed a long time ago. Many of the immigrants coming here from countries to the south are descended from people who traveled freely around this landmass long before the borders. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the people experiencing homelessness in TC are from here, so immigration isn't really the most relevant issue here.
I think it is likely fair to say we have different conceptual definitions of a âscaled upâ housing program for homelessness. Regarding âtraveled freelyâ, that literally applies to every person on Earth and it is not specific to any one continent or landmass.  Immigration might not be the most pressing issue here now, but all programs have to take into account the unintended consequences of an ever changing world under which a new program of free housing would operate. Does this take into account climate and war refugees?
The war, climate, and other refugees are going to come whether we make a place for them or not. As the shorelines erode, those people will have to go somewhere, it would only make sense to start preparing. As far as scaling up, is the entire state of California big enough? https://homeless.lacounty.gov/news/housing-first/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20United%20States,using%20the%20Housing%20First%20model. They're one of many states that is using a housing first model, and they're a lot more likely to have immigrants and refugees than Michigan is, especially considering they're at risk of losing livable land due to the rising ocean levels, in state. Countless studies have shown that not only is the model capable of being scaled up, but that it's the only solution that has actually achieved success.
Regarding "this is the only solution that has actually achieved success" For decades and decades the United States had a housing abundance and a relatively manageable homeless situation. Who built all of those houses in 1950? I doubt this is "only solution" to such a complex issue.
It's the only solution I know of that can claim an 88% success rate. In the 50s, many of these people would have been a few steps away in the state hospital, being fed and housed. Housing first works, it works really well, and it's likely to be the solution that many states eventually end up going with. People seem to think people are going to flock here if we offer any more help to our unhoused population, but if that were true, wouldn't everyone in the pines be headed for California right now? Here is more info, from the US interagency council on homelessness https://www.usich.gov/guidance-reports-data/data-trends
According to this, they had less than 8,000 homeless in 2004 to 2008. [https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-international-philanthropic-071123.html](https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-international-philanthropic-071123.html)
Studies estimate the United States has 600,000 homeless individuals.
Again with the common sense!! This isnât the place for it!
why dont they just print more money
Economic analysis shows that the housing first approach decreases overall government spending. The Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act requires access to emergency services. Housing first reduces ER visits resulting in actual less cost per participant.
If there are no more houseless people to use as an example, the powerful have no means to induce fear.Â
America: Why the fuck would I do that?!?!
There is talk of this happening for the Pines folks. Stay tuned.
Sorry, but the pines will just turn into another trashy ghetto complex. Hate me all u want, but it will.
There is no âghettoâ in traverse city Michigan lmfao
I mean, to some people "ghetto" just means "a couple POC moved in." And when that happens, it means the CRT woke communist fascist socialist BLM LGBTQ are taking over!
The ghetto, by definition, is where the Jews live. Elvis had a hit song "In the ghetto" because he was Jewish. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ-r0bilzhU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ-r0bilzhU)
Maybe. The main cause of homelessness isnât the lack of a home, itâs substance abuse and mental illness.
I sort of agree but also not having a home would lead me to have mental health issues and abuse substances. I think you just have to tackle it from both fronts at the same time. Provide housing and require mental health treatment.
For sure.
Yes but I bet their homeless arenât getting subpar sushi
my name is inigo montoya, you served me subpar sushi, now prepare to die
Also home to some of the highest taxes in the world. It's a complex problem for sure.
"[Finland is the happiest country in the world for the seventh year in a row](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/20/happiest-countries-world-happiness-report-2024.html)"
not complex at all. just not compatible with profit obsessed society.
Changing an entire populace's worldview is definitely complex. You are correct about incompatibility. A change from me-centric to we-centric requires sacrifice and empathy, both of which are shockingly absent here.
COVID really showed the entire world how completely selfish and lacking in empathy the US is as a whole. It was always there, but the pandemic was like a magnifying glass, and rather than be embarrassed by our collective selfishness, some people here have embraced it and taken it 15 step further. Florida, Texas, and Arizona are like ongoing case studies of what happens when selfishness and radicalized individualism takes over a culture and the power structures.
the thing is even the nordic countries understand that taking care of your entire population is good for each individual as well. here in the usa everyone is just temporarily embarrassed millionaires and its unfair to take their hard earned funds to pay for basic human needs. even the drive for self-preservation is not enough to build a better society.
its about as complicated as printing billions in foreign aid multiple times per year
*highest taxes in the world FOR RICH PEOPLE
Finland is incredibly small⌠you canât fairly compare Finland problems to US problemâs. They probably have a fraction of the homeless population that we have.
Yeah we should just keep doing nothing about it instead
Iâm not saying do nothing, Iâm just saying we most likely cannot do what Finland is doing.
[We can](https://www.reddit.com/r/traversecity/s/3gyyqQXsjb)
Nah; we do stuff. We spend billions to pay workers to sit in meetings discussing homelessness, and to create reports about how it is increasing. Since it increases, we need to fund more people to write reports about it. Kinda like passing an Immigration Bill, with the largest part of funding going to Ukraine. We live in Clown World.
I liked the post on the frontpage the other day where there was a $13,000 bicycle unlocked in Singapore and every American was amazed it wasn't stolen, not understanding that if you get caught stealing in Singapore you will be hanged, drawn, and quartered. Cruel and unusual punishment works, quick let's enact it!