The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

In Newcastle there's a zero homelessness policy in place. Everyone is guaranteed a bed. There are maybe a handful of people who for various reasons avoid this but not many.
Nonetheless I was speaking to the manager of a large homeless shelter once and he mentioned its common that first thing in the morning he will see the people staying at his place head out with a sleeping bag to beg.

The best approach to tackling homelessness I've heard of is in Finland where they've had great success with a housing first approach. This is what a lot of cities in the UK like Newcastle are trying to copy.

Okay, but even if you sleep in a homeless shelter, you're still homeless.

As I understand it in Edmonton they won't turn anyone away but still plenty chose not to go to shelters.  Shelters insist you not be visibly intoxicated (for the safety of other guests) plus you can't bring in big shopping carts full of stuff.

Homeless shelters are just a step on the way to more permanent housing.
The shelters I have visited generally have some emergency beds that they keep free in case someone is suddenly at risk of sleeping on the street and some longer term rooms which aren't too different to student accommodation- private bedroom, maybe shower, shared kitchen. Ultimately however the plan with the people living there is to move them into a proper flat asap.

And I understand the appeal of "Housing First" - but if you're putting up someone with active mental health / drug addictions in housing how do you ensure they don't just trash the place?  It's a story I've heard several times - homeless person jumps through the hoops, gets housing, invites friends over, the place gets trashed, and they're back on the streets.

That you put housing first doesn't necessarily mean you ignore all the other needs.
Priority number 1 is not having them freeze to death on the streets. If they've mental problems then getting those under control would follow pretty sharply afterwards.
Indeed for some tackling the mental problems is a necessary step to tackle the priority of housing.

[Tamas]

One of the Fidesz-led Budapest districts just made sleeping in public spaces illegal. Duh, case closed, homelessness eliminated.

[Sheilbh]

Nonresponsive to Larch's point about coercion.

I think it's the same, no? In Finland it's because people will freeze but during covid it was necessary for lockdown.

I'm sure synthetic opioids haven't helped, but I expect that a bigger driving force is the vast increase in housing costs relative to income.

When I first moved to Vancouver and hung out in the punk rock scene I new a non-trivial number of junkies, and knew of many more as part of the larger young person / hard drinking / punk rock scene. Every one of them were housed.

Yeah and there does seem an issue with housing supply in lots of major cities around the world - including liberal ones which is why you have homelessness being bad even in very progressive places like San Francisco.

In the UK I think there's a clear link to changing in benefits policy and austerity on council spending (homelessness is a council obligation).

[crazy canuck]

Is it the homelessness that's getting worse, or that it's more difficult to not see the homeless?  To the extent that the latter is the problem, I think that the crackdown on police brutality is partly responsible.  I think in the past it was easier for police to harass the homeless to not be an eyesore, not in good neighborhoods anyway.  I also imagine that when it comes to homeless people, even many of the advocates of police accountability would secretly hope that police doesn't feel too accountable when taking care of the homeless people.

What's your hypothesis here? That there's no real change in homelessness, but rather it's that the police is less heavy-handed and abusive so "regular folks" see more homeless than "we used to back in the day"?

Hypothesis would be too strong a word.  I don't know if the homelessness really is increasing, but that doesn't mean that I'm hypothesizing that it's not increasing.  It's something that needs to be looked into rather than assumed.

I do think that police being more gun-shy, or being maliciously compliant with policies, depending on how you want to look at it, plays a big part in the general perception of people that quality of life is going down the tubes.

They were probably a lot of things you don't know. But that doesn't mean they aren't happening.

[Sheilbh]

For the BBC's 100th birthday, 100 seconds of things going wrong on BBC News - Guy Goma is always a particular joy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-63159569

The top story at 30 seconds is a highlight.

[Barrister]

Is it the homelessness that's getting worse, or that it's more difficult to not see the homeless?  To the extent that the latter is the problem, I think that the crackdown on police brutality is partly responsible.  I think in the past it was easier for police to harass the homeless to not be an eyesore, not in good neighborhoods anyway.  I also imagine that when it comes to homeless people, even many of the advocates of police accountability would secretly hope that police doesn't feel too accountable when taking care of the homeless people.

What's your hypothesis here? That there's no real change in homelessness, but rather it's that the police is less heavy-handed and abusive so "regular folks" see more homeless than "we used to back in the day"?

Hypothesis would be too strong a word.  I don't know if the homelessness really is increasing, but that doesn't mean that I'm hypothesizing that it's not increasing.  It's something that needs to be looked into rather than assumed.

I do think that police being more gun-shy, or being maliciously compliant with policies, depending on how you want to look at it, plays a big part in the general perception of people that quality of life is going down the tubes.

I believe this is happening.  Homelessness is increasing, but the visibility of it is also increasing due to change in police tactics.

Again going to Edmonton - we increasingly have homeless encampments.  It used to be police would immediately smash up such encampments.  Now though they don't do so unless they can go in with social workers and the like to offer immediate places to go and transport to those locations.  As a result encampments get larger and stay up longer.

[grumbler]

They were probably a lot of things you don't know. But that doesn't mean they aren't happening.

Thanks, Captain Truism.

[crazy canuck]

They were probably a lot of things you don't know. But that doesn't mean they aren't happening.

Thanks, Captain Truism.

You're welcome.  But a Truism is something that everyone understands.  I was responding to a person who did not.

[grumbler]

They were probably a lot of things you don't know. But that doesn't mean they aren't happening.

Thanks, Captain Truism.

You're welcome.  But a Truism is something that everyone understands.  I was responding to a person who did not.

I suspect that the ignorant person in that exchange was not DGuller.  You might want to read what he wrote again before further making an ass of yourself.

[Zanza]

The Saudis actually started building the silly line city. 

[Jacob]

What's the deal with that?

[The Brain]

No left turns.

[Valmy]

What's the deal with that?

It is supposed to have these super fast trains that instantly whisk you away to wherever you want to go, even if it is 100 kilometers away on the line. It is supposed to be super futuristic and environmentally friendly and invisible because it has reflective sides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyWaax07_ks

Here is a very cynical Hungarian whiningtelling you all about it.

[Josquius]

Just noticed a funny thing in English.
Barring means except for. You can't eat any fruit barring apples. You can eat the apples.
Barred meanwhile means banned. Eating apples is barred. You can't eat them
Strange how it developed in two directions.

[grumbler]

Just noticed a funny thing in English.
Barring means except for. You can't eat any fruit barring apples. You can eat the apples.
Barred meanwhile means banned. Eating apples is barred. You can't eat them
Strange how it developed in two directions.

One is a preposition, one a verb.  As a noun, there are more than a dozen meanings.

If you want an example of a verb that has contradictory meanings, look up "sanction."