Chronically homeless will live in apartments

[ccharles000]

The Urban Ministry Center will unveil a $10 million project Monday that could forever change the way Charlotte deals with the chronically homeless.

Called Moore Place, it will get up to 85 of the city's most troubled homeless people off the streets, giving them an apartment and the training necessary to build a life.

Not only is the effort a fundamental shift in the way Charlotte works with the homeless, but advocates say it brings the added twist of possibly saving millions in tax dollars.

Moore Place will be based on similar programs in a half dozen cities that long ago proved it's cheaper to house the chronically homeless than to continue paying for their frequent trips to jail or the emergency room.

From that perspective alone, the 85-unit apartment complex could save the city an estimated $2 million in its first year.

Proponents say it represents a significant turnabout: It puts the chronically homeless into housing first and provides them with services. Charlotte traditionally has sent the homeless to shelters first, with the hope that they could get help and eventually find housing.The Urban Ministry already has raised more than $7 million of the projected cost. The final portion is expected to come from a campaign being launched Monday.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/local/story/1006845.html

[EFerrari]

1. Excellent. A little sanity on a Sunday morning.

Thanks, ccharles000.

[joeycola]

2. PBS did a show a this not to long ago. Providing

apartments to the additcted so they can put their lives back together. Usually, apartments are not provided until the person can stay OFF drugs for a given amount of time. It is indeed an upside down approach but it words and makes sense.

[EFerrari]

3. Housing with on site supportive services saves municipalities a bunch of money

in addition to being just plain old humane. :)

We were talking about this model around the 2004 mayoral election in San Francisco but Newsom opted to keeping doing it the old, failing way.

[bobbolink]

25. Not everybody needs "support services". Not everyone is alcoholic, druggie, etc.

This is patronizing and intrusive.

[EFerrari]

33. Nope. You are inserting your own reading on the word "supportive". n/t

[bobbolink]

35. No, you are inserting it, and staying in denial of what it means.

Some of us have been there and KNOW the reality.

[EFerrari]

39. There is nothing demeaning in making community resources available

to the community. And in fact, that is the most successful model we have to date in helping chronically homeless people off of the street and helping them stay off.

That individual jurisdictions screw it up or that some perpetually contentious people can't interact with it is another matter.

[bobbolink]

47. That's because YOU haven't been on the receiving end. And it's MANDATORY.

Housing is conditional upon servitude to those in power.

If you would read what I wrote, you would understand that ALL people needing low-income housing are "chronically homeless" because the waiting lists by definition make people homeless for long enough to be labeled as "chronically homeless".

Calling homeless people names doesn't change that.

[EFerrari]

Yes, I have had to deal with homelessness

in my family. I have been on the receiving end of stupid bureaucracy and attitude.

And no, all homeless people by definition are not chronically homeless.

I read just fine, thanks.

And calling homeless people names is wrong just as demonizing people who disagree with you with wrong. It's destructive and it moves away from the task at hand.

[Alameda]

72. I agree 100%....

and actually it encourages people to do things to get help.

[Jkid]

14. I actually remember this story before.

It was featured on NOW on PBS.

[robinlynne]

89. Yes. That program is in Santa Barbara, California. excellent results for all.

[XemaSab]

83. I read about a group in Seattle doing this for alcoholics

It's way cheaper to pay for an apartment than for a bed in the ICU, or even for a cot in a shelter.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Excellent news. K&R

[stray cat]

5. I wonder what the neighbors think?

Putting everyone together makes it easier to provide services if it is done well but it is also how ghettos are created.

[AngryAmish]

10. People of different income levels need different services

Wealthy people need Lexus dealerships and Whole Foods.

Less well off people need Aldi's and Dollar Stores.

When people live closer to what they need it makes them happy and uses less gas - a smaller carbon footprint.

[bobbolink]

28. And some people need NO Services! Much of this is intrusive and harmful!

[SoCalNative]

48. I would venture to guess that if one is chronically homeless

they are in need of SOME types of support services (job skills training, etc) in order to no longer be CHRONICALLY HOMELESS.

It's not rocket science.

[bobbolink]

51. I would wish that you would actually read what I have written.

Low-income housing is practically non-existant.

OK?

If you have low income, your chances of finding housing right away is zilch.

So, if you are lucky, you are on a waiting list for 2 or more years (in many locations, there aren't even waiting lists anymore, because there is too much demand!)

So, you are on a waiting list for two years... that AUTOMATICALLY labels you CHRONICALLY HOMELESS.

Your need?

Housing.

Yet, you are now assigned an intrusive "counselor" to judge you and force their "solutions" on you.

Would you like that?

[JanMichael]

69. SoCal Dem, like us, has been on DU as long as you have.

On this particular thread, you are guilty of only seeing the story through *your* experiences.

[bobbolink]

125. That is where YOU are wrong. Unlike YOU, I have listened to many manyt

poor and homeless people, and I can tell you that the anger and bitterness against this kind of paternalism is HUGE.

If all of you don't start doing some real listening, that anger is going to erupt BIG TIME, just like other movements in the past where people have been ignored and treated badly.

[robinlynne]

90. Yes.

[bobbolink]

138. Then, please, sign up. Suffer it first-hand.

[Alameda]

73. and what if they can't work? Did you read the story of the 97 year old

woman and her two sons?
It was posted here, I don't have the DU link, but here it is in another format.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bessie-vid,0,6819231.htmlstory

[TCJ70]

99. Job training is not the only assistance available to people...

...you don't think she needs some kind of help? Having worked for a social service org, each case is different, so is each solution.

[Alameda]

111. Of course she needs help...and her sons do too.....but many here

have advocated for a nursing home....No way! I have a friend who just died after being attacked by another resident in a nursing.home.....

[AngryOldDem]

101. And may I add...

Most people who are in these programs are extremely mentally ill, chronic drug abusers, and chronic alcoholics. In my experience such homes (called in my area "Home Star" and "Safe Haven") are the very last resort for those who do not, cannot, or will not respond to traditional case management with the goal of self-sufficiency. These apartments offer an alternative to a shelter system, which keeps this difficult population safe while still undergoing case-management and other therapies.

In a lot of cases, these homes are the only things that are keeping some homeless alive. Otherwise, they would be dead on the streets. Guaranteed.

[Chemisse]

80. That is what I was thinking

The support would be in helping the person remedy whatever was keeping them from being able to support themselves adequately to keep a roof over their heads.

[JanMichael]

68. I hear ya. Alot of folks on DU do.

however, the situation has become so bad (I don't need to tell you that, right- I know) that this development is going to serve 85 people.

Remember, your situation is as unique as the next persons-- some people DO need services, and it's NOT an intrusion.

Just like we can't judge others through our filter, please quit judging other's through yours

[izquierdista]

6. How to save even more

Don't "build" the project, renovate an existing building for it. In my travels across the country, every town, small or large, has old hotels and motels that development has passed by. Maybe the interstate changed the traffic pattern, maybe the wealthy people moved to the suburbs, whatever it was, all the new Hampton and Holiday and Quality Inns have followed them, leaving the older ones mostly vacant. You wouldn't have to spend $117,000 per unit to build it from scratch, and the $10 million might serve to house 400 people instead of 85.

[Wickerman]

9. Sounds good on surface

but in reality doesn't work out that way. I've been on a board that has done such a project and we started off with that assumption. We soon found out that you can't take an existing structure such as you describe and renovate it to the code required for such housing.

First, you have asbestos abatement ($$), then you need to take into account fire safety considerations; that usually requires non-flammable building materials (read concrete walls for each unit) ($$$).

Layout and staffing become concerns. By building with staffing in mind you have higher hard costs up front (construction) but lower soft costs (labor) on the back end.

I'd love to see some of the beautiful old brick hotels and office buildings of the 1900's revitalized. These projects just aren't the ticket.

[izquierdista]

11. Ah yes, code

That magical font of wisdom that requires us to live apart from where we shop, which is apart from where we work, which is apart from where we go to school, which is apart from recreation. Code protects us from all sorts of evils, such as having an insufficient number of electrical outlets, while people with no electrical appliances live in tents next to dumpsters. Better for the homeless to live in a cardboard box next to a dumpster than to have to suffer in a building which isn't up to the latest code.

[Wickerman]

74. Ah, yes

let them inhale asbestos, let a fire sweep through the complex some night and kill half of them because it wasn't safe.

I'd guess that in all the properties you've renovated and allowed homeless to occupy you're willing to take on the liability. Frankly, I'm not that daring. I know that if one of my properties would have such a disaster then I can kiss goodbye the chance of ever helping out another person again as I'll be personally bankrupt, if not in jail. I know the foundation I work with will be left with no assets and the folks we are currently serving will wind up with no housing or service.

If you don't do it right each time then you jeopardize your future ability to serve.

edit: forgot a word :eyes:

[BR_Parkway]

24. That was my thougth as well, especially with the stories of hotels mailing keys to banks

in lieu of foreclosure lately (I'm in the lodging industry and get all the trade publications)

Given the current disaster about to hit the banks in the CRE market, they should have plenty of properties available. Wachovia could probably donate 2 or 3 properties cheaper than writing a $1M check - at an average of 85 rooms each along with space for the support services in each building.

[bobbolink]

53. Would you PLEASE read #15 to understand what these "support services" are?

This is nothing more than intrusive Big Brother.

YOU wouldn't stand for that... why should someone else just because s/he is poor?

This is rampant ignorance.

[imdjh]

94. Does charity usually come without a comment, a judgement, a bit of advice?

[BR_Parkway]

97. Not sure why you're yelling at me when I was suggesting ways to provide

shelter to more people - but this isn't about just poverty - from the article they're talking about services to those 10% of the homeless who are also addicts, mentally ill or have other needs that have prevented them from being helped out of their situation through shelters and other current programs offered.

It sounds like they're trying to actually help people by using models that have been successful in other areas, not denigrate people simply for being poor.

[bobbolink]

105. What you're not getting is that it's MANDATORY.

You know, I politely explained it in #15, but was ignored.

When people are ignored over an important issue, they can either chose to remain ignored, or they can yell.

IF WE WERE HEARD FIRST, MAYBE THERE WOULD BE LESS YELLING?????

But, then, "progressives" are quite adept at ignoring poor folk, aren't they?

[BR_Parkway]

115. Your "polite" explanation are what makes me want to ignore you

I personally don't have a problem with someone who is drug addicted and trying to clean up their life being told 'you have to see X and do Y to remain in this program'. I'm pretty certain that if a rich person went into rehab, they'd probably have similar rules. Mandatory = so it's not a poverty issue

And while they may label homeless of 2 years or more "chronic" in CO, this NC program is targeted to those who have been homeless for decades and have been falling through the cracks in the other, currently available programs.

And while you're up there looking down from your sanctimonious high horse - I have been homeless before for several months (not like what the targeted population is experiencing) and one of the things that I've done since getting back on my feet was to help form a not-for-profit working to develop affordable housing from shipping containers here in my area.

[bobbolink]

118. Ignore me, then, There's alittle red "x" by my name. What I said in WAS polite.

It was very sensitively and properly expressed, which is why it was ignored on DU.

The only way to get attention on DU is to yell and scream. If you want that to be different, then reply to the simple and polite requests and explanations.

As for the housing.... just what we need... to live the rest of our lives in shipping containers in the richest country in the world.

If we can't do any better than that with all our riches, then I hope ALL americans are reduced to that.

[BR_Parkway]

134. Wow, you just don't give up on anything that doesn't fit your world-view

have you seen any of the projects made out of shipping containers? Depending on the finishes you want to apply, you wouldn't know that it wasn't a site built home - there are plenty of examples of very high end homes using these as building materials. They're being recycled, they are stronger structurally, waterproof and much more fire resistant. But most of all, they can cut building costs by up to 30% using a cast off material - and finished 35-40% faster - both of which would help provide housing more affordably and in greater numbers than conventional methods do.

I take that as a positive, but apparently you don't - you'd rather dump your bitterness all over an idea because it doesn't live up to your pre-conceived notions somehow. Everyone else out there (but you of course) is just so ready to crap all over the poor in your head, you can't seem to even imagine that other people, with different ideas than yours of how to offer help with dignity could possibly have valid concepts as well. Good luck with that.

[bobbolink]

137. Did MLK "settle"? Did Mandella "settle"? Did Harvey Milk "settle"?

You can call me all the names you want... it really doesn't matter to me anymore. I KNOW what is right, because I'm homeless, I've seen these disastrous "programs" and I've done a lot more than YOU have... I've LISTENED to many poor and hurting people. That Used to be a progressive and liberal value.. we used to LISTEN.

So, have fun spraying your ego all over me. I really don't care.

And that little red "x" is still there.

[izquierdista]

77. But the hand-wringers beat you to it.

Before you could agree, the hand-wringing faction had to come and wail about how if an asbestos coated meteor fell on the place, it would bankrupt them.

[Wickerman]

85. Handwringer here

how many properties have you done just what you suggested to? What precisely are you doing to help the problem? How much money, how much time have contributed? Bitching on a message board about society and how it has unfair rules doesn't count. What do YOU do to work around those problems?

[BR_Parkway]

98. Actually, there are plenty of very new buildings that would meet the codes

there's very little difference in codes for Hotel/Motel, Apartments and Dorms. With a nationwide drop of RevPAR averaging almost 25% - owners of properties built or redone in the past 5 years have had all of their equity wiped out in hospitality properties. With further declining revenue and occupancy, more and more are mailing the keys to the lenders and walking away.

http://hotellaw.jmbm.com/2009/06/hospitality_lawyers_hotel_fore.html
Here are some highlights from the Atlas report (download the full text below):

* The number of hotel defaults or foreclosures in California has jumped 125% in the last 60 days. California now has 31 hotels foreclosed on and 175 hotels in default.

* Approximately 2,500 California hotels were either financed or refinanced between 2005 and 2007.

* California hotel values today are estimated to be 50-80% lower than at market peak in 2006-2007 because of the 2009 year-to-date date drop in room revenues of more than 21.5%, combined with the jump in cap rates.

* Alan Reay says that this means that there is no equity left in virtually any of the 2,500 hotels financed in 2005-2007. Increasingly, these hotel properties are challenged to generate revenues sufficient cash to meet operating expenses like payroll and utilities, much less providing enough money to pay the mortgage.

* The wave of distress in California hotels started with smaller, non-flagged hotels in secondary and tertiary markets, but now it affects all property types from economy to luxury. Look at economy chains like Extended Stay and Red Roof Inn, and then look at the St. Regis Monarch Beach and W San Diego.

And it's not just California - I know of six 80+ room hotels in the Charlotte/Mecklenberg area that can be purchased right now for under $2M

[Wickerman]

103. Then I hope that someone snaps them up and turns them into

homeless shelters. Speculator's losses could be the gain of many.

Our experience locally was that there wasn't suitable property - we haven't lost a hotel that was built in the last couple of decades. In the Midwest we don't see the kind of rapid expansion that you've seen in NC and other areas south so I would imagine that the building stock is significantly different.

thanks,

Wickerman

[Sinti]

7. Finally! :) This is the only common sense thing to do.

I'm happy the obvious is finally sinking in.

Problem: Homeless, my life has crumbled, and I can't get a job.
Solution: "an apartment and the training necessary to build a life."

It's also infinitely more fiscally conservative. Hopefully other places will recognize this valid strategy for dealing with homeless and then test the training aspect on crime-ridden areas of their respective cities.

[bobbolink]

23. No, it isn't. "I can't get a job"=, so you are considered alcoholic, etc.

please read #15, and help correct this!

[Sinti]

41. I see, so it's not just job training - which may be needed in many cases

They will certainly find a way to mess up any good idea. Services for addicts are a good thing to have, but not to take the place of help for those who get crushed by the system.

I've been homeless, personally, and was technically homeless (living in a very cheap motel) for a couple of years. I was fairly young (early 20s) at the time and got to watch my mother work herself literally to death. I had two jobs, personally, (and later one that was 6 days of 12 hours shifts a week) and my sister was also working. It's very, very hard for people. Being poor is expensive as hell. Many, if not most homeless people are families, children and old people.

[bobbolink]

55. So, you're not an addict, but you would welcome MANDATORY drug counseling?

Yes, I understand homelessness.... I don't need it explained.

What is irritating the hell out of me is the rampant ignorance here that all homeless people need intrusive "services".

[Sinti]

79. Yea - I totally failed to get the details

Not only do they not all need "services" - many of them don't need training, or education. My mom was one-oral dissertation short of a Ph. D. from the Sorbonne and had a really good job before the company went bankrupt and completely screwed over their employees. Really bad luck just happens sometimes. Forgive me for not paying enough attention.

[bobbolink]

119. Thank you, Sinti, for hearing. I'm sorry that you and your mom learned the hard way

that these one-size-fits-all demands can be harmful, but unfortunately, that seems to be what it takes for people to "get it". Imagine if you mom had fallen further through the cracks, ended up homeless (it's not that impossible) and had to have mandatory drug tests and counseling, and job "training", and been treated as a con. That could have done her in.

I'm shocked and completely dismayed that so-called "progressives" are so ignorant when it comes to poverty issues, and get as bound up in their control issues as RWers!

I appreciate your hearing me!

[Gwendolyn]

63. It's a program to help those who are in the most trouble, with the least chance to help themselves.

The addicted don't stand a chance trying to clean up while they live on the streets. You can see from the article, the spaces available are tight, so these opportunities aren't for everyone.

These programs don't do a thing for most families or people in need, but by getting the most vulnerable and troubled off the streets, they believe tax dollars will be saved and like the story says, so far test programs bear that out. If those savings were applied to help fund affordable housing for others, that would be great, but won't hold my breath.

[AlienGirl]

40. No amount of training will get someone a job when there are no jobs to be had. nt

[bobbolink]

56. Absolutely... finally, someone who gets it! AND, mandatory drug counseling

will do no good for someone who is not a druggie to begin with.

All of this is meant to hire more "counselors".... it's one more "privatizing" and hiring companies to fulfill a need that often isn't there.

[Carni]

92. Yep that pretty much covers it!

In this climate -- to the people suggesting counseling is in order-- I say WTF?

[yodermon]

8. +1 Saw this this morning in print.

Figured it would go over well in these here parts :D

[Liberal_in_LA]

13. +2

[bobbolink]

29. It doesn't "go over well" with those who read between the lines, and understand

the paternalism!

[varelse]

12. Good news

It's hard to understand why more city government officials aren't being confronted with the math here:

The pilot cost about $10,000 per person annually. The trade-off is a savings of nearly three times that amount, based on Urban Ministry research that showed the chronically homeless cost the city an average of $37,500 a year for such things as hospital admissions and nights spent in jail for nonviolent offenses like trespassing and public urination.

Are they thinking it's even cheaper to drive these people out of the city entirely than to defend spending 10k per person on the humane and cost-effective solution?

[bobbolink]

16. No, it isn't really..... please see my post below yours.

There is a lot of ignorance in this.

[varelse]

42. Of course it's not

it's just maddening that this is so clearly the logic that is applied in local politics. Naturally, it's rarely actually stated that clearly by any politician - but nonetheless that is the underlying rationale.

The obvious solution (provide zero-rent housing to the destitute and affordable housing to the working poor) is the cheapest and best, but it's not implemented on the necessary scale, no matter how many decades of failure and generations of inherited poverty and misery prove that the "politically acceptable" alternatives (do nothing, drive the poor out of your location, pass ordinances designed to hide them, etc.) fail miserably in comparison.

[bobbolink]

15. Only a few problems with this.... the definition of "chronically homeless" means

they are labeled as "problems"..... alcoholic, druggies, cons, etc.

People who are labeled chronically homeless have been homeless for more than a year.

NOW, when waiting lists for low-income housing are typically more than 2 years, if there is a waiting list at all, then ALL homeless people who are needing low-income housing are labeled "chronically homeless".

So, ALL are assigned an overseer, and labeled as "problems".

Would YOU like to be in this situation?

All of you are are NOT alcoholics, druggies, etc... would YOU like this applied to YOU?

Do YOU need "guidance"?

[Gormy Cuss]

19. Yes, you are correct. This solution is only for the small subset of homeless people.

It's also not new. The Feds have funded pilots of similar programs since at least the mid-1990s.

While Housing First and other programs like it serve a niche need they don't address the broader problem of an enormous shortfall in availability of affordable housing. There are other programs geared to the broader issue but without a national initiative to fund and build/rehab hundreds of thousands of units those programs aren't ever going to be enough.

[bobbolink]

22. Thank you for understanding. I hope you will help me pass the word.

This is very patronizing and intrusive for many of us!

[G_j]

20. I didn't see them being referred to as "problems" in the article, but "troublesome"

which is similar.

I agree there are very destructive stereotypes put on homeless people.

I at least hope they are sincere in wanting to help the individuals, not just clean up a problem.

[bobbolink]

26. I hope that you will understand that "Help" these days is nothing more than intrusive

Big Brother.

"Help" also refers to locking people up. It's time to recognize that it is no longer the caring 70s.

Unless you yourself get caught up in this, it may be hard to recognize how harmful it is!

[G_j]

31. I know

I'm just hoping for a better situation.

[bobbolink]

34. It takes more than "hope"--- we will have to work and scream for it!

Yet, when I even ask DUers to write or call, I get...

............

...............

silence.

"HOPE" ain't gonna do it....

so we keep suffering and dying....

[maryf]

155. Hey Bobbie

I have mentioned lack of housing and homelessness when calling my rep, but maybe you have better contacts that all here could use?...if you can do it easily, please and thank you so much! The fact that you advocate so hard for others is so admirable... and I think many are much more aware due to you! :yourock:

[ohheckyeah]

38. You keep talking about how this is a problem

but you aren't offering any kind of solution. Do you think homeless people would rather live in a cardboard box than have what you call an overseer?

[bobbolink]

45. HOUSING.

I'm sure it was rather obvious.

But, you just came here to hassle a homeless person, right?

[ohheckyeah]

52. No, I'm trying to figure out what it is you

want.

I get what you are saying but there are chronically homeless people who do have problems. It seems to me there was a study done and a large number of homeless people were found to be schizophrenic. It seems to me they would benefit from some help. Dealing with the why someone is homeless is important.

[bobbolink]

57. HOUSING.

That is what *I* want, and what is needed.

Your "figures" are erroneous, and it's time for you to learn the reality.

Prescribing MANDATORY "treatment" for those who only need housing is only for the benefit of the people making $$$$ from that "treatment".

If YOU were forced into "treatment" you would scream bloody murder and receive lots of sympathy here. Yet, you can't understand that what you want in your ignorance is doing that to others.

[ohheckyeah]

61. No, I'm not wrong about the

figures:

Homelessness and Schizophrenia

* Approximately 200,000 individuals with schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness are homeless, constituting one-third of the approximately 600,000 homeless population (total homeless population statistic based on data from Department of Health and Human Services). These 200,000 individuals comprise more than the entire population of many U.S. cities, such as Hartford, Connecticut; Charleston, South Carolina; Reno, Nevada; Boise, Idaho; Scottsdale, Arizona; Orlando, Florida; Winston Salem, North Carolina; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Abilene, Texas or Topeka, Kansas.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/szfacts.htm

I saw nothing in the article about mandatory "treatment". I see where there are services to help with different problems being made available.

I'm sorry you are homeless but you have a huge chip on your shoulder and seem to think that you should be handed the key to an apartment with no questions asked. Nothing works that way. Even unemployment compensation requires a person to show where they have applied for jobs each week and sometimes requires classes.

[bobbolink]

65. Try the National Coalition For The Homeless...

obviously your citation has their own agenda.... not surprising, they are in the business of selling drugs.

"Services" are MANDATORY.

You are welcome to walk in my shoes and deal with the tremendous ignorance and then we'll see who has a "chip on their shoulder". Thank you so very much for your "progressive" compassion. It's right up with there with the compassionate RW.

[ohheckyeah]

78. Oh, please.

Could you possibly be any more ridiculous? It's not that I have no compassion, I just don't know why you think there would be no questions asked and where you get that "treatment" is mandatory. As I said, it certainly isn't unusual to have certain strings attached....my husband had to go to a class to get unemployment. Of course it was a waste of time and it was insulting. They acted like he didn't know how to write a letter or a resume, but it's the cost of getting government help.

The flip side of the coin is that the government is responsible to the taxpayers for how tax money is spent and to give a person monetary assistance without addressing the why it is needed is irresponsible. Obviously you aren't a drunk or mentally ill, but how are they to know that?

More information about schizophrenia and homelessness:

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3ATQaL7OaykC0J%3Awww.combinedresidency.org%2Ffolsom%2FHomeless%2520review.pdf+homeless+and+schizophrenia&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNGIbR-rVDBb-srFYHIsQHQDuQ1DJA&pli=1

http://www.health.am/psy/more/homelessness-schizophrenia/

http://books.google.com/books?id=TKMTxMoiJTgC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=homeless+and+schizophrenia&source=bl&ots=LQmvfJc2YV&sig=oHh8eyVX0BpI7ggZgjkHU-Co29E&hl=en&ei=_KXbSsD5NdLX8Aag1tW3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=homeless%20and%20schizophrenia&f=false

So, please don't act like I made this up.

[Chemisse]

81. "it's the cost of getting government help"

Good point. I was on welfare for a few years after my divorce, when I was alone with 2 small children. It was demeaning and they were intrusive. I didn't like it, but it was the price I had to pay for being dependent on others.

Once I finished my schooling, I got off public assistance and have never asked for anything since. I have my privacy and dignity back.

So I would say, anybody who is so furious at the intrusions should not ask for the help.

[ohheckyeah]

84. It's unfortunate

that we have to pay that cost. I can't imagine how hard it was for you to deal with welfare while raising 2 small children and it's very cool you finished your schooling. My husband lost his job over a year ago when the company "reorganized" after changing ownership. They reorganized anyone making a decent salary right out the door.

[Chemisse]

87. That is horrible - it's so much harder to cope with that kind of loss

later in life. When you are young and just starting out, it's easier to ride the bumps and have hope that everything will get better. If I lost my job now, I would be hard pressed to muster up the energy and ambition to start over.

I wish you and your husband the best of luck.

[ohheckyeah]

93. Thank you.

I've been unemployed for 3 years but it's mostly my own fault. I resigned my position just before the economy tanked. Bad timing.

[Ysabel]

116. um no...the "cost" of govt. "help" is taxes / nt...

[bobbolink]

121. Thank you for repeating the RW mantra. You have made it very clear that

"progressives" are no different from the RW when it comes to poverty.

So, if it's a choice between death or your own dignity....

When you start hearing of all the suicides, like there was after Katrina, look in the mirror.

[Ysabel]

129. you misunderstand me / i agree with you...

i was telling the other poster that they are wrong to think that govt. programs which cause people to lose their dignity and or other such crap should be defined as the "cost" of govt. "help"...

taxes are paid for govt. services (not for a "help" / not for a "handout") the govt ought to fully fund homes for the homeless without all sorts of bullshit strings attached and people unable to pay taxes for whatever reasons ought not be denied services either / NOT EVER / nor EVER put thru ridiculous loops...

- have i made myself clear now...???

[bobbolink]

131. Thank you for your clarification.

I apparently responded to the wrong one... sorry.

The one I read clearly stated that people shouldn't go for "help" if they couldn't take a little abuse.

It's truly amazing.... it used to be that community organizers did NOTHING until they fully LISTENED to the people involved. They were sure they understood the problems and needs BEFORE they began any programs...and those programs always involved the community people themselves.

How very far we have fallen..... :cry:

no... I just reread the one I was responding to... it very clearly said people shouldn't go for "help" if they couldn't take the bullshit. It wasn't your post....You mistook my reply as being to you, and it wasn't.

Whew.... good thing we're on the same side! :hi:

[Ysabel]

132. yes / on the same side...

definitely...

:)

[bobbolink]

107. So, you were totally unwilling to even look at the information I gave you.

Somehow, that strikes me as akin to the sort of response one would get from the RW that is so hated here.

Oh, please, yourself. You treat me like that and expect I won't respond in kind. THIS is exactly what I'm talking about... this kind of dismissal. It's ever so "progressive".

OH PLEASE.

The facts are there.

[bobbolink]

130. You are mistaken. What I want is simple... it's what all human beings want... to be HEARD.

LISTEN to people, first, before designing "programs" that are demeaning and don't meet their needs.

Simple.

[Lorien]

88. ALL housing comes with strings attached

for me it's 12 hour workdays six days a week to pay for the mortgage and utilities, for you it might be someone to help you train for a job (though you obviously have no interest in that). We all pay a price for a roof over our heads. Would I take a psychologist or job training over living on the streets? HELL YES. I have to deal with unreasonable clients all the time. How could someone who is trying to HELP ME instead of trying to get me to work virtually for free be any worse?

[bobbolink]

128. You are making so many ugly assumptions. Your denigration makes it very hard to

even try to reply to you.

And that is exactly the assumptions and ugliness indemic in these "programs".

The RW will love them.

"Do I have to give up *me* in order to be helped by you?" quote from a homeless person.

But you'd have to have a heart to understand it.

[Lorien]

86. Yes, in fact

I'd like help finding a job in that situation and help with the depression that would come from having lost everything. Caring is preferable to not caring, or do you think that everyone should just "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps"?

[G_j]

17. excellent example for other cities to follow

hopefully this type of approach evolves to a revolutionary paradigm shift for the better,

[bobbolink]

18. please see my post #15 for the problems in this.

I know you are a reasonable DUer, so please look at these problems.

This presents a HUGE Catch-22.

[SoCalNative]

49. You're preaching the same sh*t to the choir

do something about it instead of posting on a message board

[bobbolink]

58. thanks ever so much for your ignorant hatefulness.

What the hell do you expect a homeless person to do?

Rob a bank and build housing, because DUers are unwilling to campaign for this need?

Why aren't YOU doing something?

Why are YOU posting ignorant messages on a forum?

At least you could educate yourself... that's what I'm trying to do.

[SoCalDem]

21. As long as they don't follow the example of "apartment-living" experiment that was tried in the '60s

That led to a high concentration of extremely poor people all jammed into high rises, with little or no ability to "escape".. Most of those "projects" have been bulldozed, so I hope they are not just starting "phase 2".

People tend to do better when they are not crowed into confined spaced, and then abandoned.

Surely there are plenty of foreclosed properties just about everywhere these days. Why not buy up these properties, and start "swapping them out".. People whose homes are too small for them, could move "up", and the underprivileged could move into the houses vacated by the movers, as they get a start.

[bobbolink]

27. That's not the only "problem". Considering homeless people as all being "troublesome" IS.

please see #15.

If you were caught in this, you would find it very demeaning.

[TicketyBoo]

76. You are intent

on finding offense when none is here, it would seem.

It's not the homeless people who are "troublesome," but it is the fact that anyone is homeless which is "troublesome."

It's not that homeless people are "problems," but the fact that anyone is homeless is a "problem."

Attempted solutions to the problems of homelessness are to be commended, not denigrated. If a person chooses to remain on the streets when shelter is available, they are (mostly) free to do so.

[EFerrari]

36. Since homelessness is so isolating, it historically hasn't worked

very well to simply offer living situations for some people. Iirc it was Philly that came up with a model that operates a community services office right in the building. Now, how well that office runs will have a big impact on how well the building does but that's the idea.

[bobbolink]

46. Yes, more Big Brother. More intrusion. More hassling and making

people feel worse.

Great solution.

[EFerrari]

75. You are being disruptive. I was speaking to another poster.

[bobbolink]

127. this "program" is disruptive.

On DU, any post can be responded to.

All of us have our posts responded to by many others.

That's the name of the DU game.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

136. She's stuck to her cross and you were standing in her eyeline.

[Cleita]

37. Back in the seventies before Proposition 13 gutted every social program

that worked in California, I lived in apartment buildings with welfare mothers and other recipients, mostly who were elderly and handicapped. One of the neighborhoods l lived in for fifteen years was also racially mixed. Their rent was paid according to their needs and they lived in the average apartment that the rest of us lived in, so there were no project type buildings crammed with poor in that neighborhood although there were in other ones across town. Instead the poor were distributed among the working class, which at that time, we were fairly middle class because we made living wages. The apartment buildings were owned privately. There was crime but not a whole lot, mainly just burglaries and car thefts that were perpetrated by gang members who didn't live in the neighborhood. I lived on the West Side too.

Then proposition 13 ended that. I started seeing dysfunctional homeless on the streets. Speculators started moving into the neighborhood buying up property and trying to convert them into condos. Rents started to go up and those who couldn't pay had to move or became homeless. We, in Santa Monica, voted in rent control to stop this. It was very controversial of course. It had ramifications of its own. Apartment owners stopped renting and boarded up vacant apartments and started selling. My building got bought and sold four times in the course of five years. Then it became suicide to move. So you stayed. We, my DH and I, left the neighborhood in 1992. It had become mostly Persian. Those immigrants had bought up a lot of the property and businesses and they rented to other Persians, mostly members of their family. In a sense they saved the neighborhood from the greedy real estate speculators but they also turned it essentially into a ghetto. I doubt if I would be considered as a tenant today if I tried to go back and rent my old apartment back.

[bobbolink]

50. You admit it's a lack of low-income housing. THAT's the problem.

BUT, those people caught up in that are then labeled "chronically homeless" and called "troublesome" and assigned caseworkers to straighten them out.

The problem was created by greed, and entrenched by ignorance.

[SoCalNative]

54. No, the problem is

most people equate low income housing with "the projects."

Nobody wants to live next to "the projects" so there is a NIMBY mentality.

Additionally most businesses do not want to locate in low income neighborhoods, so there is a lack of affordable services such as access to healthy and affordable foods.

What if the services being located within these apartments being provided also included a food co-op with real healthy fresh alternatives instead of processed and pre-packaged or only fast food being available, along with cooking and nutrition classes?

[bobbolink]

60. What I am trying to get you to understand is that the "services"

have nothing whatsoever to do with real needs.

Many of us, including Sapphire Blue, have written over and over and over about the need for low-income housing on DU.

If you and others are still equating that with "projects", then you are the ones who need to look at your own assumptions.

Do you even remember reading that there ARE no new "projects" of ANY type being built?

Do you remember reading right here on DU that what HUD is doing is only DESTROYING what housing Does exist?

And for god's sake, stop assuming that we homeless people need "nutrition classes". Many of us are just as educated as we are.

We are NOT a class apart... we are YOU.

[petronius]

96. There is clearly a need for housing, and the project in the OP is housing

It seems that you are building this case against the project as intrusive, demeaning, etc entirely on the statement that "caseworkers will be assigned" (and perhaps the 'code of conduct' requirement) but I'm really not seeing anything in the article to suggest that drug treatment, counseling, or classes will be mandatory, even in the cases where they would be useful.

Also, the article seems to clarify what is meant by "chronically homeless", and it's not just a year or two on a waiting list.

This development appears to me to be a positive step - 85 people without homes will have homes, and as those 85 are apparently being selected based on a need for substantial help, a variety of service will be available on site. Kudos to Charlotte and Urban Ministry...

[bobbolink]

124. It's too bad you can't hear what I'm saying... and that is exactly my point.

NONE of these "programs" have had any input whatsoever from the people they are supposed to "Serve".

I'm old enough to remember the real community organizers... they LISTENED and only AFTER they heard the people and listened to their needs did they work to overcome the problems.... and that planning was done in concert with the people of the community.

It's very sad that the paternalism is seen by you as acceptable.

Just think how YOU would feel.

Or maybe the problem is that we are seen by you as such outsiders of humanity that you can't even imagine that.

[petronius]

135. In the general sense I agree with you - most services providers can do a better

job with input from users/customers. However, I don't agree that a provider can't provide an excellent service without specific consultation.

You seem to be making a huge amount of assumptions here (about this project and about other DUers) - all of them willfully negative. The Charlotte program had a pilot program; what makes you think they didn't consult with the participants in the pilot? There's nothing in the article about mandatory counselling or training - why do you think people will be forced into uneccessary drug treatment or cooking classes or whatever?

There is a behavior on DU sometimes where a poster decides that, if something isn't perfect according to the poster's personal standards, then it's evil. You seem to be doing that to the nth degree here...

[bobbolink]

140. YOU are the ones with assumptions. Because it's supposed to "help", you assume

the intrusions are benign.

You will insist on that, because you won't LISTEN to those on the receiving end.

You have no idea of the pain caused, yet you want to assign all sorts of motivations to me. I'm homeless... I've seen this shit firsthand, I've listened to many who also have and been hurt, and I've been talking with a man who is helping homeless people out of a church and sees all this shit firsthand.

A lot more than you can claim, from just having read a glowing report with no faces behind it.

[petronius]

141. The article includes a very positive comment from someone who was directly

on the receiving end - the only assumption I'm making (a reasonable one) is that that guy was telling the truth. You're the one "reading between the lines" to find all kinds of objections.

If you really think this project is such a travesty, how would you do it differently? Would you prefer they just not build the 85 units?

[bobbolink]

142. You have one quote you're going by. And who knows the motivation behind it.

I'm telling you that I have seen it first hand, and talked with many others.

Clearly, you don't want to hear of the real-life experiences of homeless people, and that is exactly WHY stuff like this is so harmful. You have the opportunity here to LISTEN to someone who has experienced it, and you're rejecting it. Don't you suppose that goes on all the time, and is symptomatic of this whole "program"??????

Think about that.

[petronius]

143. OK, then I'll ask you again: given the project as described in the OP,

would you rather it not be built?

If you agree that it should be built, what specifically (without assumptions or 'reading between the lines') are they doing wrong?

And if you don't like those questions, what in your opinion would be the perfect way to create this missing low-cost housing?

:shrug:

[bobbolink]

144. You really enjoy the power of dumping on those of us who have no power to affect anything, don't you

One more way to avoid LISTENING.

Some "progressivism".

Some of us have written at length about this, but .....strangely.... I haven't ever noticed your user name coming up on those threads.

[petronius]

146. Nobody has dumped on anyone. However, in the absence of any specific criticism,

I'm going to stick with my conclusion that the project in the OP is a good idea...

[bobbolink]

147. Your power plays are quite entertaining. Never mind that it stomps on poor folk.

There has been MUCH SPECIFIC CRITICISM written, but you aren't w3illing to read it.

POWER.

Worthy of the RW.

[bobbolink]

148. Here is a repeat reply for others to see, since you will ignore it, also.

ALL "programs" for poor and homeless people need to include poor and homeless people in full voice in the planning and implementation of said "programs".

It's really a simply concept.... include people with respect and concern, and the programs will be much more successful, and people will be happier and healthier.

I fully realize that this is much too liberal for most citizens to grasp, but it used to be done, and done well.

It really is that simple.

Treat us as human beings fully as worthy of respect as you are, and you will find a much more receptive response.

[petronius]

150. I haven't ignored anything, and if you remember I agreed with that general premise

several posts ago. However, this thread is about a specific project, and I've seen no specific critique of that project (beyond assumptions and 'reading between the lines'). I asked you twice for specific criticisms, and you declined to answer.

And frankly, I think your request for respect is a bit funny, considering you've spent this entire thread implying that other DUers are freepers and hatemongers...

[bobbolink]

151. Offer respect, and you get respect in return. Belittle and demean people, and

it will come back to you.

When I first posted, I put it out there very simply and understandably with no rancor. I got nasty replies, so I replied with anger. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH POOR FOLK ALL THE TIME. People like you who ignore us are raising the anger level, and it will eventually explode, just as have injustices in the past. So, keep building that anger in others, and you can then sit back and enjoy the results.

I knew you would find a way to ignore the very important fact that poor and homeless people need to be included in the planning and implementation.

This was NOT done with these "programs", so it's all very simple, but people like you won't accept that, because you are bound and determinded to see us as beneath you. THAT is just like the RW, and that needs to be said.

Carry on... your attitude is quite obvious. Demeaning, which is why you think these programs are so wonderful... you like the idea of people beneath you being treated badly.

[petronius]

152. My initial response to you was perfectly polite - you've been calling me names

ever since.

I've agreed (twice now) with that fact you accuse me of ignoring.

I've expressed interest in hearing specific critique of this specific project, and you've declined.

At this point, it seems clear to me that your purpose in this thread is just to yell and vent anger - which is perfectly fine with me, pitching a rage can be cathartic and fun - so I'm going to wander off...

:shrug:

[bobbolink]

153. You GOT specific... and you rejected it.

Typical of the muddleclass elite.

[bobbolink]

154. I gave you specific.... you ignored and rejected it.

Typical of the muddleclass elite.

And exactly what these programs are doing.

Congrats on living up to your superiority trip.

[Cleita]

59. You are exactly right but no one is doing anything about the

rights of renters and the right to affordable housing like happened after WWII when there was a housing shortage and steps were taken by the government to address it.

[bobbolink]

62. Thank you for understanding the issue. It was just demanded that *I* be the one

to "do something" because I'm pointing out the problem.

There are many causes for that lack of housing, but no demand to rectify it.

And as long as "progressives" see the issue as only affecting people who are defective in some way, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

[zalinda]

67. Troublesome also means something

that doesn't seem to get fixed or that you know how to fix. And in this case, the fix is finding them a home. Getting support also means dealing with the red tape of getting disability, ssi, food stamps, medicaid or any other government service that the person might need. For some, it may be that they need to decompress after being on the streets for so long. What ever the reason that the person is homeless can be dealt with, if the problem is known.

Many problems have been created by greed, and entrenched by ignorance, not just homelessness.

zalinda

[bobbolink]

108. You are assuming these "services" are benign. You are assuming there is

caring at the other end.

I can understand that one would think that, but if you would listen to enough homeless people, you would get a different picture.

Most of us aren't ignorant... we KNOW what is available. Treating us as such is at least demeaning, if not worse.

[Gwendolyn]

30. Wonderful news! Hope the idea catches on. n/t

[bobbolink]

66. Yes, more greed is wonderful news. WTF?

[robinlynne]

91. You may have had a bad experience. For most people these support services are spectacular.

Your anger, right now aimed at DU members is probably about something else.

[bobbolink]

106. And you've had personal experience???? How many people have you spoken with personally?

I've heard, from MANY homeless people, over and over and over, just how harmful these things can be.

When I reported an incident, and someone investigated, they found that I was speaking the truth, and that many others had been harmed.

That was ONCE that I was actually HEARD.

Usually we are IGNORED.

I find it very interesting that the same phenomena is going on right here.

A homeless person who has gone through this shit and spoken with many others is being IGNORED and DENIGRATED.

Doesn't that say something to you about this sort of process?

Can you now hear what I'm saying or do you want to continue to deny and get defensive?

[robinlynne]

112. denigrated? no. disagreed with. sorry you had such a bad experience.

[bobbolink]

117. There are SO MANY who have had these bad experiences, but there is no where

to report them so that it is HEARD.

It's time for poor and homeless people to be heard and listened to.

Planning these "programs" without our input is harming us.

[bobbolink]

120. If you were actually willing to LISTEN to homeless people, you would hear LOTS

of anger. That's the problem-- there is NO input in these "programs" for recipients of these "programs" to have their wishes and needs HEARD. If that was done to other groups.... women, people of color, gays---there would be a huge outcry.

But "progressives" don't even seeem to think that poor and homeless people need to be heard at all.

Then you start assuming and reading minds about our anger.

Try LISTENING.

It's the progressive thing to do.

[Gwendolyn]

133. I'm not seeing greed. There are several people I have encountered on the streets for years.

I would like to see them get housing. And help with restructuring their lives. They won't get this with a set of keys and a "see ya."

Instead of running up and down the thread insulting everyone, why don't you list a concrete example of how this kind of program has ruined the life of a homeless person.

[Desertrose]

32. Great idea!!

[OneGrassRoot]

43. Thanks, ccharles....K&R :) n/t

[diane in sf]

44. Good idea, I've watched a lot of homeless people with mental problems die slowly

from living in the streets over the years. What they needed was to be able to live indoors and get help.

One guy I knew used to pitch a crazy bitch (like taking a crowbar to every parked car head light while screaming his head off) at the start of rainy season (winter here) so he could get locked up (heat and 3 squares a day) until the weather was better. Normally he was quite lucid and friendly, though a little cracked from being a tiny gay Philipino who had to serve in Viet Nam. He eventually died of AIDS, but not before having all his teeth knocked out by being bashed and getting pneumonia and other diseases from malnutrition.

[bobbolink]

64. So, are you "getting help"???? Yes, the issue is that it is MANDATORY FOR ALL.

Are you in that category?

No?

Then WHY would you do that to others?

It has been written here on DU over and over and over, but apparently few read it..

THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS CITES THE FIGURE OF 16% OF HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE "MENTALLY ILL". DO YOU WISH FOR ALL TO BE DRUGGED?

[greytdemocrat]

71. You really are incredible.

I've been reading your comments for years and you never fail to disappoint.

[bobbolink]

122. Thank you. I'm glad you appreciate my contributions.

If you are going to be that sarcastic, why don't you hit the "ignore" button? That's what it's there for.

[Chemisse]

82. You seem like you could use a therapist, at the very least

To work on your anger issues.

[bobbolink]

104. And I'm sure you'd like for the 97 yo woman in another post to also have MANDATORY "therapy".

Those of you who insist on the same "treatment" as the RW do have "issues" of your own.

[Lilith Velkor]

149. She doesn't need therapy, she needs a fucking place to live!

You'd have anger issues, too, if you had no place to live and everybody around you assumed it was because you are lazy and crazy.

[AngryOldDem]

102. And sadly, a lot of mental health programs that were available are no more.

In the city where I used to live -- and where I worked as a guest attendant at the city's only overnight shelter -- mental health was the second cause (behind addictions) of most homelessness among our clientele. We were overwhelmed with people whom we were not trained nor certified to help. Some were violent. Some were suicidal. And the community-at-large, for the most part, looked the other way, including the state, which closed the only outpatient mental health facility in the city, which was a lifeline for many of our clients. Money was the reason and the state saw no problem with the homeless trecking 100 or 200 miles to the nearest such facility.

[Hekate]

70. Excellent, but the support services are absolutely crucial to success. If there's follow-through...

... from local government and the community, this could pave the way for other programs.

Hekate

[Brigid]

95. Anybody else notice . . .

how much less this costs than the 2 useless wars we're bogged down in right now? :grr:

[AngryOldDem]

100. This is a very successful program that many cities have.

Glad to see it.

[Octafish]

109. South Carolina for Progress.

Four words I'd never have put together in a sentence until now.

Thank you for this excellent news, ccharles000!

K&R for Prgress.

[ccharles000]

110. thank you but Charlotte is in North Carolina

[Octafish]

113. Argh! Of course... North Carolina for Progress.

Erk. Ack. No prblem. Cough. Zek. Chip...

Thanks for the kind correction, c-Man!

[bobbolink]

123. This isn't that much good news. I hope you will read my post #15.

This is PUNITIVE and doesn't address the REAL problems.

Making drug testing and counseling MANDATORY FOR EVERYONE is humiliating and harmful.

Just think how much YOU would like that.

[sonias]

114. Sounds wonderful

I wish every major city in America had the same program.

It really would help everyone. From the homeless who need affordable housing and training opportunities, to the city budgets that actually absorb other costs associated with homelessness.

Bless the Urban Minister Center. I wish it great success.

:applause:


Sonia

[bobbolink]

126. But it isn't. It's paternaiism. It's like whites programing people of color.

That would be resisted, and this will be, too.

[AlphaCentauri]

139. I know a lot of homeless living in apartments

they are the homeless with a job or a check from the government, once they lost their job or their check they are on the street.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

145. Many people are the employed homeless who are homeless due to the lack

of affordable housing - end of story. They end up living in their cars, or in camper shells in someone's back yard, or in run down motels that at least offer a roof and hopefully a working bathroom.

But, there have always been working poor, but they were accommodated in past decades. Boarding houses were actually small businesses, often run by widows or single women who happened to own property that rented out rooms or suites of rooms and offered the option of "board" - a shared communal meal. I think it would be a great idea to bring back that concept, but our modern sensibilities recoil in horror. I'd love to see all the vacant 5 bedroom 5 bath McMansions turned into boarding houses, but zoning ordinances and NIMBY attitudes make that a slim to long shot. (The landladies rented week to week or month to month so that they would have control and be able to eject "troublesome" borders)

When I was in college I lived in a lovely little complex of studio apartments. Each apartment had one very large living room/bedroom, a full eat-in kitchen and a great bathroom. I bet they were 500-600 sq ft. but they were WONDERFUL. Every person who lived in that complex configured their little space differently with furniture placement, bookshelves, etc. My apartment cost $112 dollars a month (in the 70's) and cable was an additional $6.00 a month. It was in the mountains, so you had to have cable TV. I have often thought since then that if I ever won the lottery, I would love to build similar complexes all over the country for very cheap rents. Small is beautiful, small is green.

If zoning were reasonably loosened up - older couples could build accessory apartments over their garages or in their basements and charge low rents in return for someone looking in on them, doing their shopping, yard maintenance, etc. Again, snobbery and NIMBY keeps communities from focusing on real world answers like these.