Hacker News Reader

Comment by x0x0 | Hacker News Reader

What people do consider is that it's extraordinarily unfair for many people who struggle with housing costs -- imagine what eg SF-area rents do to a cook or cleaner earning even $50k annually -- if we're going to provide that for free to junkies.

Until there aren't large segments of SF who work very hard and are housing insecure anyway, it's just going to be politically impossible to provide homeless free housing.

View on HN

Why do the unhoused have to be housed in high cost SF? The nice thing about doing this as a country is that they can place people not in their highest cost cities.

Right now these problems are being left to counties to figure out, just like mental health

Unless you force people to relocate, they likely won't relocate themselves.

They relocated to where they are though. A lot, or even most of the people living on the streets of SF are not from SF, or even California for the matter.

They aren't "tech bros" down on their luck either... they're not failed entrepreneurs, or folks who just couldn't afford one too many rent payments.

They're people who chose to be there for many reasons, including the friendly environment that tolerates their lifestyle.

Are _you_ saying that it's unfair, or are you speaking for the working class?

I'm open to giving someone free housing if they aren't on drugs. I just can't wrap my head around why we should reward people with free housing for being drug addicts.

I have lots of sympathy for the drug-free homeless community. I think the drug addicted should be put in treatment programs or charged for possession of these drugs so that they can be treated in prison. I'm angry that we allow people to smoke fentanyl out in the open in SF. It's bad for everyone including those who are addicted.

A lot of homeless people, perhaps the majority, use drugs as a consequence of not having a place to live.

Think about it, it's obviously much easier to use escapist drugs when you live on the streets. Not only do you want to escape, you are also surrounded by drugs and other misery.

You are thinking about it the opposite way. In reality, you can't get people to stop using drugs while keeping them on the streets.

I think there needs to be some kind of sobriety requirement. Maybe put them through rehab, and then give them housing after they leave rehab.

I saw this tweet from the Y combinator ceo that says 25% of those in a permanent housing program in SF died. (I assume of overdose). Getting people housed shouldn’t be the priority, the priority is getting them drug free. https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1659972231328583680?s=20

Do you know how effective rehab is for people who don’t go voluntarily?

The unfortunate reality of drug addiction is that even for people who want out it’s very hard. For people who don’t, it’s quite a lot harder. If there was a magic pill that cured addiction I think we might make different policy choices, but given that there isn’t I don’t see how your plan can really work.

There aren’t any good solutions to this problem. IMO we should enforce existing laws around the possession of illegal substances. These drugs are a total drain on society. What message are we sending when we allow people to smoke fentanyl on the bart with no consequences?

Read this article and I think you'll understand the issue better: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/san-francisco-sros...

Just giving the homeless a moldy and bug infested tiny room without any additional help isn't going to help much. It's "housing first", not "housing only".

I don't think you understand addiction and rehab, frankly. Getting people to stop using drugs is quite easy, just keep them away from it for a while. You can send anyone to prison or rehab, and they'll stop using drugs for a while.

The hard part is getting people from restarting to use drugs once you let them free, and you can't even hope to do that successfully unless they are motivated themselves, which they won't be if they live on the street.

>I think there needs to be some kind of sobriety requirement. Maybe put them through rehab, and then give them housing after they leave rehab.

While I agree, there are many shelters that people don't use because they don't want to be sober, which defeats the purpose of reducing homelessness.

If they possess illegal drugs, why not prosecute them and put them in the prison system? It’s bad to have people smoking fentanyl on the sidewalks as if it’s a normal part of society.

> I'm open to giving someone free housing if they aren't on drugs

Sobriety is not a condition of housing. Many housed people drink and do drugs and don't get kicked out of their apartments for it. Why should we apply a harsher standard to our most vulnerable population?

The assumption is that drugs perpetuate the illness/uselessness of the homeless. If you have a home and can manage to afford it on your own, you get the privilege of drug consumption (within the law). If it is causing you to be unhoused or unhinged and the rest of the community is putting money into you having a place to sleep, it seems reasonable to impose some standards of behavior.

You’re welcome to do whatever you want at your own expense.

If you can’t function to a degree where society needs to clothe you, feed you and house you; it should come with strings attached. Resources are finite and “the vulnerable population” isn’t entitled to everyone’s else labor.

My point is simply that policy should be based on what is effective and humane. Keeping people housed only based on the contingency of their sobriety is neither. Under no circumstances is it better for someone to be unhoused than housed. Housing should be a human right, full stop.

The thing is: How do we encourage or enforce good behavior? At what point do we insist that an individual try not to be a burden, and to try to be a decent participant in society? That could be as little as "don't be a public nuisance and help around the housing complex once or twice a week".

If there is no standard for behavior or "giving back" to earn one's keep, bad actors will bring everyone down.

The drugs I'm talking about are illegal. Is it common to be a fentanyl addict that pays rent? Maybe but I doubt it. As a society we should do more to stop the opiod crisis. Why do we tolerate people smoking fentanyl on the bart or on our public sidewalks?

Do you think people are more likely to abuse drugs if they are on the streets, or if they are housed?

I think a drug addict will use drugs anywhere they are. Many were paying rent before they decided to prioritize getting high over paying rent.

Because they're paying for it? If society is paying for your housing you need to follow societies rules. Giving addicts free housing isn't humane. It's enabling their addiction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com