As skills and abilities are acquired or enhanced, these newly enabled people can move back into the general population. This would seem to satisfy the basic need of housing, the secondary need of work and building self-esteem, and a tertiary need of gaining education and skills to be able to reenter the workforce. The concentration of efforts should allow for maximum efficiency in distribution of funds to start and maintain these facilities.
I don’t have any estimates on what this program might cost, but whatever that is; doesn’t it seem like a good investment? If this basic works, then it seems possible to expand it to the original goals of the CCC and WPA; having the newly skilled work force apply themselves to infrastructure projects. Construction and maintenance of the levee system looks like a good place to start.
I’m sure that there are people out there who have a better understanding than I of what needs to be done, so please speak up. I would think that it is possible to get, even the ultra-conservatives behind this. We sell it as “making the streets safer”, or “making the city more attractive”, or something similar. Advertising agencies could be hired to make it sound compelling to the rich.
What do you think?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - One American's Rant
I had another thought about both the homeless and the poor that I didn't put into this article. It was long enough already and I was trying to stay focused.
Everyday the US wastes millions of pounds of food that could be used to feed people. Most restaurants, especially buffet style ones, throw out perfectly good food. Now, I can see why there would need to be some safeguards put into place to keep from poisoning anyone, but this seems doable. The same is true for schools, or more so, since that food was already paid for with taxes.
I'm going to see what it would take to do this locally, and will write something about what I find out.
2 - troll
check with your local food-not-bombs group which undoubtedly could use your help
3 - One American's Rant
troll,
I will check with as many local groups as I can. I not sure how to look up food-not-bombs in the phone book ;)
This has bugged me for years and I can't understand why it isn't done regularly. Anyway, I'll try and see what happens.
4 - troll
many f-n-b groups have web presences - here's a link to the original f-n-b book courtesy of Anarcissie...it's a fun read full of practicalities
I've been sitting with your idea for 'towns' for a bit and can't quite shake the ghettoish feeling
5 - One American's Rant
troll,
It does kind of sound that way, but I don't think that it HAS to be.
I'm going to read up some more on the CCC/WPA camps to see if something can be learned from them.
Keep in mind that I don't expect to hit a home run with this idea. I would be happy if this just stimulated someone else that could hit a HR, or a triple, hell a single would help.
6 - roger nowosielski
Hey, there's nothing wrong with "homeless towns." Just like the good ole boys clubs.
The more, the merrier.
7 - One American's Rant
Now Roger, that sounded snide but I don't know you well enough to be sure. If you have a better idea of how to: feed, house, and provide medical care; keep drugs and violence to a minimum; provide education and training facilities; and perhaps fix some of the national infrastructure then please let me know.
As I said to troll, I don't expect to come up with the perfect solution, but I do want to start a discussion about possibilities.
8 - roger nowosielski
Sure it was snide, you've got that right.
You don't want me to humor you now, that would be worse.
I suppose the next thing on the agenda are the poorhouses for the boys, Dickensian style.
Let's bring 'em all up to snuff so as to make 'em all productive, for the benefit of us all.
I'm fucking thrilled by the idea.
9 - One American's Rant
I've seen the light now. It's obviously better to let things stay the way they are. Maybe they will die soon and then the problem will be gone.
10 - roger nowosielski
By all means, don't stop. Keep on pluggin' ...
But here's a better idea. Why don't we put 'em back in the psycho wards from whence they came and release 'em once cured?
11 - Roger B
troll and Roger are right: it's ghettoization. Traditional ghettoization. Get all of 'them' together in one place where they can be monitored. Then they can be lead into group sterilization hospitals. Finally they can be euthanised. It's in everyones best interests. What kind of life could their offspring expect? Being brought up in such circumstances?
We can't let them mix in normal society! That would be a terrible moral hazard to our young people. To see such under-achievers rewarded. We should take everything they have and liquidate it and pass the money on to high achievers. That way our children will see for sure that the high-achieving are rewarded and the lazy under-achievers are punished.
Because we all know that the children of low achievers will probably be low achievers also, while children of high achievers are bound to be societies leaders.
It's just more humane to insulate the unfortunate offspring of the weak from needless contamination with ideas of living beyond their heritage.
It's part of our natural sense of christian mercy to spare youngsters that disappointment.
12 - Glenn Contrarian
Sheesh!
It's another instance of a need for a Goldilocks solution. There are those that DO need to be institutionalized since they are unable to care for themselves (and as a Foster parent of permanently-medically-fragile kids, I KNOW this), whereas there are others who can function in society, as high-functioning Downs patients can do.
Keep the ones in society who do not present a danger to themselves or others (and that kind of designation is fraught with tendency to misread), but the others who can NEVER take care of themselves (like my former Foster child, a low-functioning autistic who is now an 18-year-old adult with the mind of perhaps a 12-18 month old child) need to go to an institution.
Neither all in one direction, nor all in the other direction. In this debate, both are to some extent right...and the only real answer is to be found somewhere in the middle.
13 - troll
oar - I appreciate your attempt to come up with on-the-ground solutions rather than highfalutin phraseology
so take this as something of a friendly amendment to your plan -
as it's clear that local authorities and NGOs are incapable of providing the necessaries in the face of economic collapse I propose that we back squats wherein homeless folks can organize themselves coupled with appeals to the surrounding 'communities' for:
-protection from wolves and the State
-material support like food and building materials...the ever important porta-potties etc
-medical services
from these squats it might be possible to put together a project of taking possession of surplus houses
14 - ryland
troll,
I, for one, like your amendment. I also appreciate the fact that you are trying to find a workable compromise rather than shooting down anyone who tries to propose a solution with "devil's advocate" queries and/or snide flaming comments.
I think another necessary component to an actual workable plan would be to shut down the inevitable NIMBY groups, and get the media dogs to back down from reporting exclusively sensationalized bad news from the squats for at least a period of time. A bit more of a focus on the positive would do this country good, and allow potential solutions a window of opportunity to work...
15 - Dr Dreadful
OAR, another even-handed and well-analysed piece. Your absence of dogma on what is often a highly emotive topic is refreshing.
Notwithstanding the "ghettoisation" objections some have raised, your idea is neither without merit nor without takers. This project in Fresno, California, constructed under the auspices of my most recent employer, is one example. The (Republican) mayor has made solving the city's homelessness problem her flagship policy. Part of this has involved shutting down camps, but there's a lot more to it than just telling the tent dwellers to "move on", which has been the default approach of city governments in the past.
Mayor Swearengin recognises, as you do, that mental illness is a major cause of homelessness, and that even if helped into housing, many people just end up back on the streets again if they don't have a support system.
Ghettos aren't the answer because they create autonomous communities and don't help to reintegrate the formerly homeless. This is why the developments being built and planned in Fresno are urban, not exurban.
16 - One American's Rant
It seems to me, that it is better to do something, continue to move forward, make and work through plans, TRY, than to do nothing. It would have to be a major effort and I don't see how it could be done without government-level funding. What we have now is a result of hap-hazard, limited funding - too little, spread too far apart, to do much good. Not that the people and programs that are out there aren't DOING SOMETHING, and that is laudable and I'm sure appreciated by the ones being helped.
In any attempt to help, the end goal HAS to be getting as many people back on their feet as possible. Some will never be able to make it on their on and provisions for this must be taken into account. Others will likely decline the help for various reasons. I don't advocate locking them in Dickensian work houses or group sterilization hospitals (there is a logical fallacy here that I can't remember - taking the argument to illogical conclusions to show that it's wrong), and it was never intended that this be a permanent home, except for those that are best helped that way.
Glenn - I would hope that some portion of those helped would stay on and help others. I feel sure that a lot of the homeless have skills, or would be willing to learn them, that could help this cause.
troll - I looked into local f-n-b groups and they seemed to have died out a few years ago. They have a website and email, so a I will try and make contact.
ryland - we absolutely have to get rid of the NIMBY crowd, for other reasons, but for this one as well.
Doc - I will look into the Fresno project. I think we need to stay away from ghettos, but there would be gains in efficiency by having some minimum size group. It would be easier to have doctors, counselors, teachers, etc. work from some number of centralized locations.
17 - roger nowosielski
@15
Dogma? I should think the notion that " ... mental illness is a major cause of homelessness" is more of a dogma than letting go of "the conventional wisdom." It's precisely because OAR is beholden to this view -- and I don't care here about the exact proportions, because that's debatable -- which makes him blind to other causative factors and makes for a weak presentation -- not balanced and evenhanded as you suggest (though that may be the standard in college introductory course (in logic or whatever) as to what constitutes a good argument.
OAR is no kid though he may be new to blogging on a public site such as this. He ought to be able to handle constructive criticism without having to treat him with kid's gloves.
I understand, Dreadful, you're looking for "new blood" -- to invigorate BC, among other things -- but let's not encourage now bad habits of thought. OAR should be able to take it, especially if he thinks of it as "rites of passage."
Apparently, I have greater faith in him than you do.
18 - Dr Dreadful
Roger, you've consistently shown yourself to be occupying a different reality from the rest of us and your latest comment is yet one more example of that.
"Mental illness is a major cause of homelessness" is not dogma, it's a fact. Many of the positions taken with regard to the homelessness issue, however, are dogmatic. That's what I was referring to, along with the observation that OAR seems open to a number of different solutions.
19 - roger nowosielski
The rest of us, Dreadful. Again referring to the royal "we" as a matter of last resort?
In any case, you've just paid me a compliment without realizing it. If that's what the rest of you -- and I'm leaving the reference purposely ambiguous -- than I'm sure glad I'm not in that number.
Glad though you think you're all so right.
20 - roger nowosielski
And BTW, if I fail to respond to your subsequent comments, it's not for lack of anything to say, but we're experiencing internet connection problems in the area.
But then again, I don't see how discussing this further with you is going to produce any worthwhile results. You're just way too objective for somebody like me.
And no, I don't mean it as a compliment.
21 - Christopher Rose
Roger, the good Doctor isn't using the royal "we", he is simply stating a plain fact.
If you choose to interpret that as a compliment, then your ego is blocking your perception, which is intellectual dishonesty.
You are simply, yet again, misunderstanding what is being written, which just goes to demonstrate, for the umpteenth time, that you are neither as smart or perceptive as you like to think.
As such, you are very definitely part of the problem, not the solution...
22 - Igor
Seems to me that we have to do a better job of distributing societies needs and rewards. We have to cut the workweek to free up more work for the unemployed (even tho that requires commensurate wage cuts) and we have to integrate the homeless into our housing facilities without ghettoing people.
But I don't think we have the courage to do it. We'd rather fight over diminishing resources rather than share them. That's what the rightist belief system has dictated, and we're all of us, each one, egotistical enough to believe that WE can be the winners!
23 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
Doc's "way too objective" for you?
Many men I've known would refer to that as a feminine statement...but they'd do it as an insult.
It does, however, compel me to ask you if you are making your decisions based on evidence, or on which choice 'feels right'? Most people would say 'evidence' is the better metric...but there's studies that show the 'feels right' decision is sometimes the better choice.
But in any case, this strengthens your long-ago advice to me that appealing to peoples' heads won't work, that success in discussion lies in appealing to the heart.
24 - roger nowosielski
@21
"Good doctor"?
As far as know, he's not a doctor, which possibly makes him a charlatan.
What's good about that?
25 - One American's Rant
OK, I will revise my estimate based on the data linked to below. Mental illness is prevalent in the homeless, with between 15% and 33% being affected. I would tend towards the upper estimate since I doubt that many of the mentally ill homeless come forward to get treatment.
In Detroit Homelessness and Mental Illness
Year 2000 Stats
More stats on youth problem
Peer reviewed paper
More stats
More about causes