Supreme Court to Hear Case Re: the Homeless

[VintageBetter]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/...e_code=1.k00.daN0.muoG7vdpbT4n&smid=url-share

The above is an opinion piece on the problem, written in part by a man who was homeless for 8 years. Here is his site: Invisible People - Changing The Story Of Homelessness

Here's an article about a single mom who cannot find an apartment for $1,600 a month in New York and its suburbs. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/...e_code=1.k00.SN83.WYPHTp8I9PDr&smid=url-share

I went through a similar experience to find my current place. I did not live with friends or family since my late brother, the only one with spare space, was super-selfish and toxic and my kids have no spare space at all. I lived in a motel for a few months. That was four years ago, but legally speaking, motel dwellers are considered homeless because unless the motel has been converted into a long-term rental, it is not a dwelling. It's not even legally considered a month-to-month rental.

State law also says motel dwellers have to move every 30 days, although I have seen articles that say that's not true. However, it's easier to move than to argue with a motel manager and his corporate backers, isn't it? The faceless corporation doesn't give a darn about a 61-year-old lady. She can go live in Hades for all they care.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/12/...e_code=1.k00.YQtu.U3ZhaL3mEAUj&smid=url-share

I know a lot of Boomers don't understand the homeless. They tend to say, "Just get a job, any job." But the MATH of this present time doesn't work. Let's say that single mom gets paid $20 an hour. She makes $800 a week gross. So that means $1,600 a month is 50% of her gross income.

In S.F., Texas, L.A. and NY many landlords allow that! There is no longer a limit of 33% of income for rent. It's very common to find apartments that say 50% of income for rent is fine.

That's her gross income - not her take-home pay. So, she's probably willing to pay 60% to 65% of her take-home pay on rent. I wish the reporter had asked her that question, and also asked her why she can't move back in with her parents for an extended time. Maybe she just wants to be out of their hair, or just wants to be an adult and live her own life away from the scrutiny of parents, right? It's a pretty normal developmental stage for young adults to want to live on their own.

When I was in my 20s and married, our rent, even on one income when I had a baby and stayed home, was 25% of gross income.
I have never forgotten that when I hear young adults complaining - how the economy was FAR less greedy when I was a young person. Landlords were less greedy. Home builders were far less greedy.

Then the 80s happened, the "Greed is Good " era. I'm just trying to point out that greed is bad. Greed is downright evil. Greed is NOT Jesus blessing you, or us, or anyone. WE ARE NOT SMARTER THAN TODAY'S YOUNG PEOPLE. WE DID NOT MAKE BETTER CHOICES THAN THEY HAVE.

I'll give you one stupid choice my ex was sold on and I went along with: We leased two cars for about four or five years. LEASED instead of buying. Why? Because my ex really wanted to have fun car-shopping every two years and his brother convinvd him that was a cost-efficient way to own a car.

What did I do after we spilt? I got a copy of Consumer Reports to find out which used cars are the most reliable and I bought a 9-year-old Honda. I got ripped off on the interest rate because I foolishly accepted the dealer loan, but I was in a hurry and kind of ignorant about how to find the best used car financing. Plus, I was ashamed. I was ashamed of my ignorance of how to buy a used car, and ashamed that I was a woman, alone, walking into a dealership with no man to "protect me". This was in the 90s - still plenty of ripping off of women by auto mechanics and car dealers happening then, and still today.

But did that used Honda run well for quite a few years? It did. When it was too expensive to repair I bought another used car to replace it, with a credit union loan. I learned.

WE were in a housing system that was still built to help us, for the most part. Then it all got flipped upside-down by political philosophies and unproven THEORIES. Greed is just what it always was an always has been - a tool of kings. Greed is the beginner of wars.

I will step down from my soapbox now. The homelessness topic always gets me riled up because our society does not have to be THIS dysfunctional. The dysfunction is a result of stupid, error-filled, uninformed, cruel and prejudiced choices that our leaders have made.

 

[VaughanJB]

Thank you for posting this.

There is a HUGE gap in most peoples opinions as I see it. That is, they don't really know who the homeless are. They picture them as street vagrants, addicted, dirty, thieves. While those people do exist, there's a whole other population who are now homeless because of rising prices. There is the working homeless (yes, they exist). There are the homeless due to health conditions (and not just mental illness, bankruptcies still include a huge number of people driven to the street by medical bills).

The one we should focus on now are those simply priced out of the market. This is very dangerous. It's happening more and more, and if we project ahead to our children and our gran children, we're creating a terrible legacy. As it is, people are living at home with their parents to an older and older age due to finances. This will get increasingly worse. It's undermining society, and 20 years from now could be catastrophic.

Being homeless is no joke, and you don't have to be lazy, addicted, or criminal to fall into the trap.

Let me give one example - study found that 11% of workers at Disney either were, or had been, homeless. See, wages are too low, and housing costs too high. But we ignore this and lay the blame on the people for wanting to work, they should simply get a better job, right? All the while Disney rakes in profits from their work, and no-one cares about that.

Homelessness is getting worse, it's going to become one of the big issues over the next 20 to 30 years, yet we're sleep walking into it. The term "affordable housing" is treated as though it's where the failures live - where really it simply means, housing people in a strata of our society can afford to live.

 

[Debrah N.]

I've read a couple articles on how Finland is conquering the problem of homelessness in their country. The crux of it is, you can't help people with the myriad issues that the homeless face, unless they have structure in their lives and it starts with a warm place to live. At this point, they have only about 3600 homeless in the entire country. And from there they work to help with jobs, getting people healthy again, groups that help each other with all their life issues.... It's apparently reduced strain on hospitals, clinics, police, etc.

That's what socialism today is all about. Society taking care of their weakest members! And the country overall benefits. And the interesting thing is, this idea came out of their conservative politicians! If I had a choice and a desire to live anywhere else in the world, it would be Finland. I keep reading one positive story after another about that country.

In case you're interested, you can read about it here....https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-paradigm-shift-in-social-policy-how-finland-conquered-homelessness-a-ba1a531e-8129-4c71-94fc-7268c5b109d9#

 

[StarSong]

Finland has a population of over 5.6 million. 3600 homeless is a minuscule percentage (less than .06%) of their total population. Not saying theirs is an easy fix, but overlaying a small country's solutions onto big countries with much larger homeless populations might be folly.

US population is roughly 340 million with approximately half a million being homeless. so .14% of the the total population, meaning 2.3 times the rate and over 138 times the number of people. Canada's homeless estimation ranges from 150,000-300,000. Split the difference and call it 225,000 with a general population of 39 million. So a homeless rate of .57%

It's a lot easier to solve 3600 people's problems in a small country than hundreds of thousands in a large one. Especially when adding in large (marginalized) indigenous populations, drug & alcohol problems, mental illness and combinations of the three.

As someone who lives in a state with a high number of homeless, I can assure people that BILLIONS are being thrown at this problem. Government social services and local charities are highly engaged.

Substance abuse problems and mental illness are rampant - many estimate 1/2 - 3/4 of L.A.'s homeless have drug and/or alcohol dependence. 25% suffer from mental illnesses (many overlap into the count of substance problems). I'm not talking about "self-reported" numbers, but estimates taken by those whose job involves interacting with, evaluating, and offering assistance to the unhoused.

This is a stubborn, highly intractable problem. If there were an easy solutions, we'd have employed it.

 

[VaughanJB]

That's what socialism today is all about. Society taking care of their weakest members! And the country overall benefits. And the interesting thing is, this idea came out of their conservative politicians! If I had a choice and a desire to live anywhere else in the world, it would be Finland. I keep reading one positive story after another about that country.

I wouldn't phrase this as a "socialism" solution/problem. It's really not. It is being created by a capitalist model that favors those that have over the rest of us. I'm not homeless, I assume you aren't either - but the gap between between you and I and the more wealthy is growing year on year.

I don't care what political system is in place - ALL countries should be judged not by their richest, but by how they treat their poorest. There will always be more of the latter. I think it demands reflection when the greatest country this planet has ever known doesn't seem to care about the growing problem of an underclass of people doomed to live in shop doorways. Of all the solutions/funding our nations do, to all kinds of programs, tax breaks, corporate welfare and war - no-one is going to convince me we could address the homeless issue.

Saying that - there are homeless people that are too far gone in mental/physical illness. They will die on our streets. But let's not let them distract us from the working poor, and those there because of crisis. We could at least care about them, for goodness sakes.

It doesn't take a socialist government to address the issue, it only takes a society that cares about fellow Americans who are in much worse situations than themselves. And yes, this applies equally to the UK.

 

[papa tiger]

The best answer for the Squatters and Homeless are fenced in minimum security facilities based on tents inside of Quonset huts.
These facilities then can double as Emergency Shelters for the Desperate who have lost their homes due to weather or events.
The homeless will stand at the corners and panhandle, thus creating cash to minimum pay stays in the Quonset hut.

I was 18 and started a job in the City. I slept in my car for most of a week until my 1-bedroom apartment was ready. I was homeless.
Later I roomed with 4 other guys while my new Mobile home was moved and set up. Same when I bought a Home, stayed at a Motel
for 2 weeks till the people selling could get moved and me moved in. I just kept working hard 6 days a week. I did it. So can they.
________________________________________________________________
With the Will there is a Way to respectability. We thank you for your stay here!

 

[VaughanJB]

US population is roughly 340 million with approximately half a million being homeless. so .14% of the the total population, meaning 2.3 times the rate and over 138 times the number of people. Canada's homeless estimation ranges from 150,000-300,000. Split the difference and call it 225,000 with a general population of 39 million. So a homeless rate of .57%

Stats can hide a multitude of sin. Around 1 in 500 Americans have experienced homelessness. Phrased that way, it's not so tiny.

As someone who lives in a state with a high number of homeless, I can assure people that BILLIONS are being thrown at this problem. Government social services and local charities are highly engaged.

This reminds me of the so called War on Drugs. More than a trillion has been spent on it by the US alone. Yet here we are, drowning in narcotics. You see, it's not the amount of money, it's how it's spent. Apparently, a whole lot of money is clearly being wasted.

Personally I think the problem goes deeper. Capitalism demands growth and profit. Labor costs are pushed down to increase dividend payments, and everyone just says "hey, that's business". But to enable this, you need labor costs that are tiny, minuscule. So they off-shored to China, and now India and Vietnam among others. In other words, the current model only works by creating an impoverished class. I have first hand experience of this in India.

In the mean time, there are calls to move manufacturing back to the US and UK. It's laughable. With minimum wages in place, it simply cannot work. It will never work. Besides, people don't care, as long as they can get their new iPhone at a price they like.

Substance abuse problems and mental illness are rampant - many estimate 1/2 - 3/4 of L.A.'s homeless have drug and/or alcohol dependence. 25% suffer from mental illnesses (many overlap into the count of substance problems). I'm not talking about "self-reported" numbers, but estimates taken by those whose job involves interacting with, evaluating, and offering assistance to the unhoused.

This is a stubborn, highly intractable problem. If there were an easy solutions, we'd have employed it.

This is true to an extent, but I'm reminded of a couple of things. Firstly, as I've said previously, not all homeless are addicts of mentally ill. That's almost a caricature. Secondly, we keep spending money on things that clearly aren't helping. For example, let's consider Methadone Clinics. Should they really be a for profit business? By making it for profit, you're creating a market for the drug.

 

[Remy]

There is way more complexity to the homeless problem than the drug addicts and severe personality disorders who don't want to work. Believe me, I've seen the camps in my town, even behind my work place and I've encountered them closely when feeding the ferals at work.

But even in California with some rent control, it's still out of hand when the rent is up 10% every year and these predatory owners raise it to the max. I lived here for some years when the former local owners did not raise the rent. Were they still making money? I'm sure they were. Now it's yearly.

And I hear on the news about low income housing. A few Habitat for Humanity houses being built. Great. But it's a tiny drop.

 

[TheOtherRick]

I was fortunate to have a lifeline to grab, being old and crippled got me into a nursing home instead of having to survive on the street. If I didn't have this I don't know what I would have done. I had a house, then my wife had her accident if it weren't for covid I would have faced this four years ago.

We split everything and with both our incomes we made it, barely, but we did it. When we lost her Social Security I lost the the house. Then SS cut me because of an overpayment, I could have hung on by my fingernails if they hadn't but they did.

We had six years left I fumbled on the six-yard line, and the extra five hundred per month would have left me in my home, instead it's costing the state thousands to keep me. I don't have a solution, I wish that I did, but solving homelessness has got to be a priority.

 

[StarSong]

Stats can hide a multitude of sin. Around 1 in 500 Americans have experienced homelessness. Phrased that way, it's not so tiny.

You misinterpreted my post. I never suggested homelessness was tiny in the US. In fact, it's an enormous problem. My point about billions being spent was meant to show that voters indeed consider it a big enough problem to put our money where our mouth is.

This is true to an extent, but I'm reminded of a couple of things. Firstly, as I've said previously, not all homeless are addicts of mentally ill. That's almost a caricature.

Good grief. I didn't say ALL homeless were addicts or mentally ill.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Does capitalism (rather than communism/socialism) exacerbate the problem? Of course. Then again, to the best of my knowledge socialism in big countries has yet to work. The people running the show never seem to be the ones going to grocery stores with empty shelves, or living in overcrowded hovel apartments with iffy heat.

 

[Remy]

@TheOtherRick I hope things are going well at the home. But you are absolutely right about cost. They will pay the extraordinary monthly nursing home costs but won't help in other ways. We need more home health services.

 

[Remy]

Perhaps I'm wrong on this. But homelessness might need to be looked at other than under one unbrella. There are the mentally ill, drug addicts, people who can't function for whatever reason. Then you have the working poor that are just being shoved out.

I have a decent amount in savings. In combination with my stupid trauma induced mistakes and increased prices in my area, I'm yet to find just a decent mobile in a park. Because of my past experiences, I really don't want an all ages park. I want the security of 55+

 

[oldman]

I have read articles that stated things like, “I interviewed 15 homes less people. Out of the 15 people, only 6 said they would like to live in their own apartment or house. I get the notion that many homeless people have chosen the life they live.

Back in high school, a friend and I decided we were going to take off on the weekend after graduation and hit the rails. We met at the train yard on Saturday morning. We found a train that was headed south. How did we know where it was going, you may ask? Because my friend’s dad worked for Conrail at the time and he asked his dad how he can tell where a train is going.

His dad told him, he can’t tell where the train is headed, but if the train has 3 or more engines, it’s not going to be driving around the rail yard. So that Saturday morning, we saw a train with 3 locomotives attached to a set of car haulers full of cars. The last 3 cars were box cars, so we tried to get inside the first car, but it was locked. We tried the second car and it was open and loaded with Caterpillar tractor parts, so we decided that was going to be our car when it’s time. Once the train started to move or pull out, we were supposed to jump into the car, but wait.

When it came time to make our move and jump into the car because the train started to move, we both chickened out. The other guys in our little group had fun with that. It took us a few weeks to live that down. I really enjoyed being around trains.

 

[Murrmurr]

The Supreme Court case is about whether or not homeless people's rights are violated when they are fined, ticketed, or jailed for living in a tent somewhere in a city. In 2022, the SC decided homelessness is not a punishable crime.

That decision (Martin vs Grants Pass) is being challenged.

"Leaders from dozens of cities and states — both liberal and conservative — have been hoping the US Supreme Court would overturn the Martin and Grants Pass decisions, which they claim were incorrectly decided and leave governments ill-equipped to safely manage their communities. Many groups representing the rights of homeless people, in turn, have said there’s no reason for the US Supreme Court to reconsider the rulings as there’s no clear disagreement among circuit courts to resolve."

More here: The Supreme Court will decide what cities can do about tent encampments

 

[Debrah N.]

Finland has a population of over 5.6 million. 3600 homeless is a minuscule percentage (less than .06%) of their total population. Not saying theirs is an easy fix, but overlaying a small country's solutions onto big countries with much larger homeless populations might be folly.

US population is roughly 340 million with approximately half a million being homeless. so .14% of the the total population, meaning 2.3 times the rate and over 138 times the number of people. Canada's homeless estimation ranges from 150,000-300,000. Split the difference and call it 225,000 with a general population of 39 million. So a homeless rate of .57%

It's a lot easier to solve 3600 people's problems in a small country than hundreds of thousands in a large one. Especially when adding in large (marginalized) indigenous populations, drug & alcohol problems, mental illness and combinations of the three.

As someone who lives in a state with a high number of homeless, I can assure people that BILLIONS are being thrown at this problem. Government social services and local charities are highly engaged.

Substance abuse problems and mental illness are rampant - many estimate 1/2 - 3/4 of L.A.'s homeless have drug and/or alcohol dependence. 25% suffer from mental illnesses (many overlap into the count of substance problems). I'm not talking about "self-reported" numbers, but estimates taken by those whose job involves interacting with, evaluating, and offering assistance to the unhoused.

This is a stubborn, highly intractable problem. If there were an easy solutions, we'd have employed it.

They previously had about 18,000 homeless people in 1987. With drug issues and mental health issues, just as in Canada and America. So to get it down to 3600 by 2022 is amazing. Especially as each of our countries has only seen the numbers rising. I live in Alberta with a total population of 4.5 million and we currently have a homeless population of about 5,000 in the two major cities, Edmonton and Calgary. So for a country of 5.5 million with a homeless population of 18,000 to bring it down to 3,600, while the rest of the world sees rising numbers! Credit where credit is due.

 

[Debrah N.]

I was fortunate to have a lifeline to grab, being old and crippled got me into a nursing home instead of having to survive on the street. If I didn't have this I don't know what I would have done. I had a house, then my wife had her accident if it weren't for covid I would have faced this four years ago.

We split everything and with both our incomes we made it, barely, but we did it. When we lost her Social Security I lost the the house. Then SS cut me because of an overpayment, I could have hung on by my fingernails if they hadn't but they did.

We had six years left I fumbled on the six-yard line, and the extra five hundred per month would have left me in my home, instead it's costing the state thousands to keep me. I don't have a solution, I wish that I did, but solving homelessness has got to be a priority.

You had a tough situation that 'the fates' slammed you with and it must have made for many sleepless nights Rick. I once read a woman's blog and I can't even remember now what the gist of it was, but that one post garnered a couple hundred comments and they were all from seniors who were terrified of becoming homeless for all kinds of reasons, including some that spoke of situations like yours. I'm so glad to hear that you weren't someone who fell between the cracks and ended up on the street.

 

[Debrah N.]

I wouldn't phrase this as a "socialism" solution/problem. It's really not. It is being created by a capitalist model that favors those that have over the rest of us. I'm not homeless, I assume you aren't either - but the gap between between you and I and the more wealthy is growing year on year.

I don't care what political system is in place - ALL countries should be judged not by their richest, but by how they treat their poorest. There will always be more of the latter. I think it demands reflection when the greatest country this planet has ever known doesn't seem to care about the growing problem of an underclass of people doomed to live in shop doorways. Of all the solutions/funding our nations do, to all kinds of programs, tax breaks, corporate welfare and war - no-one is going to convince me we could address the homeless issue.

Saying that - there are homeless people that are too far gone in mental/physical illness. They will die on our streets. But let's not let them distract us from the working poor, and those there because of crisis. We could at least care about them, for goodness sakes.

It doesn't take a socialist government to address the issue, it only takes a society that cares about fellow Americans who are in much worse situations than themselves. And yes, this applies equally to the UK.

You're right, maybe the wrong word to use in the current North American context, but it still remains that Finland (my favourite example of a country that cares about it's citizens), apparently thinks/calls itself a socialist-Democratic country with a high concern for all it's citizens and the people support that attitude for the most part. And if you're desire is for all countries to be judged by how it treats the poorest, then Finland gets an A++. As for Canada, well, I think we'd get about a C+ (maybe a B) on that score. Some concern but with a lot of animosity from a great many in the country.

 

[StarSong]

They previously had about 18,000 homeless people in 1987. With drug issues and mental health issues, just as in Canada and America. So to get it down to 3600 by 2022 is amazing. Especially as each of our countries has only seen the numbers rising. I live in Alberta with a total population of 4.5 million and we currently have a homeless population of about 5,000 in the two major cities, Edmonton and Calgary. So for a country of 5.5 million with a homeless population of 18,000 to bring it down to 3,600, while the rest of the world sees rising numbers! Credit where credit is due.

You didn't mention them bringing down their homeless population since 1987 in your earlier post. Yes, they certainly deserve credit for that stellar accomplishment. There is no free lunch though.

Income tax for those earning over 13,000 Euros ($13,800 USD) per year is 48%. Plus there are state taxes and other payroll deductions. Then there's Value Added Tax is generally 24%, with food at 14%.
Taxation in Finland - Wikipedia
Social Security taxes are 31.18%
https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/personal-income-tax-rate

Finland may not consider itself a socialist country but if it quacks like a duck...

Average house square footage is 880. US: 2164. Canada: 1948.
Mind you, I'm not casting aspersions on Finland or on socialism. It seems unlikely, however, that Canada or the US is likely to embrace that model anytime soon.

 

[Debrah N.]

You didn't mention them bringing down their homeless population since 1987 in your earlier post. Yes, they certainly deserve credit for that stellar accomplishment. There is no free lunch though.

Income tax for those earning over 13,000 Euros ($13,800 USD) per year is 48%. Plus there are state taxes and other payroll deductions. Then there's Value Added Tax is generally 24%, with food at 14%.
Taxation in Finland - Wikipedia
Social Security taxes are 31.18%
https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/personal-income-tax-rate

Finland may not consider itself a socialist country but if it quacks like a duck...

Average house square footage is 880. US: 2164. Canada: 1948.
Mind you, I'm not casting aspersions on Finland or on socialism. It seems unlikely, however, that Canada or the US is likely to embrace that model anytime soon.

You know, that tax rate might seem high but think of it. Their senior's never have to worry about being homeless or having to pay exorbitant medical costs, if you're any age, you can go to university and it's covered, their children get the best educations and always excellent according to global standards.....

Here we prize this 'take care of yourself' attitude but how many kids graduate from school hardly able to read, seniors agonize about being homeless or have to decide between paying rent, buying their meds or buying groceries. Families can go bankrupt in the USA because of unexpected medical expenses while Finland has universal health care. Finland is overcoming their homelessness problem and they have a violent crime rate resulting in death that is 1.2 per 100,000 compared to Canada's at 2.3 and 6.4 in the USA. (http://globalnews.ca)

And in a Gallup poll that is taken annually, in the opinion of seniors, Finland is always in the top 5 countries for happiness. Interestingly for the under 30's, they are at #7, which I can sort of understand because 'young' people are probably more inclined to appreciate the 'what's mine is mine' way of thinking so the higher tax rate would be a thorn in their side. Maybe in general not so inclined to 'for the good of all' sort of thinking.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/612125/happiest-country-earth.aspx

I also don't think Finland minds being called a socialist country. Seems to me I even read a comment on some thread I was reading, where a Finnish person made reference to their country being a Social-Democracy. Sounds like they embrace it. For the good and the happiness of 'all' you know. And I'll bet when those under-30's start getting to the expenses of raising and educating their kids and then staring down at the facts of senior-hood, they convert to the other column of being comfortable with the tax rates because they understand the benefits of being in a country that cares about their well being no matter their age or abilities.

 

[VintageBetter]

@TheOtherRick I'm really sorry that happened to you. Are there any elder abuse laws in your state? I don't know how my state squares its elder abuse laws with allowing anyone 62+ to live on the streets. But, they do. Ain't no law in my state against Seniors being homeless.

I could write a letter to my state reps or the governor asking that question, but they won't give a darn, so I don't bother. It will just get them sending me solicitations to give them money for their campaigns.

 

[TheOtherRick]

I wrote my congressional rep before they invaded Iraq voicing my opposition I got a letter back saying too bad so sad and pleas for money for twenty years after.

 

[StarSong]

I also don't think Finland minds being called a socialist country. Seems to me I even read a comment on some thread I was reading, where a Finnish person made reference to their country being a Social-Democracy. Sounds like they embrace it. For the good and the happiness of 'all' you know. And I'll bet when those under-30's start getting to the expenses of raising and educating their kids and then staring down at the facts of senior-hood, they convert to the other column of being comfortable with the tax rates because they understand the benefits of being in a country that cares about their well being no matter their age or abilities.

My point is that the US, Canada and most other countries are unlikely to follow what is perceived as a socialist template. The very word is enough to make most Americans start clutching their pearls.

A high tax rate that takes care of people's needs will surely reduce their citizens' anxiety. On the flip side that happiness index might drop a bit when folks want things like a new washing machine, automobile, luxury item or pricey vacation, but have very little in their checking accounts after taxes - plus have to pay 24% VAT.

 

[VaughanJB]

Good grief. I didn't say ALL homeless were addicts or mentally ill.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Are you? I've gone back over you original post, and my reply, and I can't fathom why you've written this. Read it again, then perhaps quote where I accused you, specifically, of saying all homeless are addicts or mentally ill. What you'll find is that, in a conversational way, developed the topic at hand. Why are you being so defensive that you're assuming slights?

Moving on - I read a paper recently, but annoyingly forget what and where it was. The thing is spoke about was what is most needed - homes, or jobs? That, of course, sets aside medical treatments, etc. I've always fallen on the "homes" side of the argument, but this paper had me wavering. Perhaps it's simply not an either/or thing? Besides, what work can the homeless do? I mean, they're highly unlikely to get even an average pay level right from the street - which is what the working homeless illustrate.

I guess its because there are many facets to the problem. There isn't one answer/solution. It'll take an entire program rolled out over years.

 

[VaughanJB]

You're right, maybe the wrong word to use in the current North American context, but it still remains that Finland (my favourite example of a country that cares about it's citizens), apparently thinks/calls itself a socialist-Democratic country with a high concern for all it's citizens and the people support that attitude for the most part. And if you're desire is for all countries to be judged by how it treats the poorest, then Finland gets an A++. As for Canada, well, I think we'd get about a C+ (maybe a B) on that score. Some concern but with a lot of animosity from a great many in the country.

Oh, I'm not trying to judge Finland specifically. There is no socialist/left any more. That all moved to a centrist attitude, and the right simply got more extreme to maintain the combative nature of politics. I'm really not super-knowledgeable on Finland, and I've never actually been there (been to Sweden and Norway, though - very nice).

 

[Debrah N.]

Oh, I'm not trying to judge Finland specifically. There is no socialist/left any more. That all moved to a centrist attitude, and the right simply got more extreme to maintain the combative nature of politics. I'm really not super-knowledgeable on Finland, and I've never actually been there (been to Sweden and Norway, though - very nice).

I've never been there either but I started getting the occasional story coming through on. the algorithm and have looked up an issue or two and every time, I'm impressed at their management of their country and the focus on the people. My feeling is, government is in place to take care of it's citizens period. And Finland seems to do a pretty god job.

I think your reply to Star Song had it right when you said you thought homes were the first priority. Again to Finland, that's their thinking too and they say that having a home gives even drug addicted or unwell people a sound base to improve from. That particular article that I'd read, mentioned that while those homeless who usually don't have jobs, can't pay their own rent in the beginning, there are a great many that do become capable of taking care of even that responsibility over time as they work through their issues, find jobs and begin to re-enter society. And how hard must it be, to get a job if your only address/phone number is some shelter? Nobody is going to hire someone in that predicament.