Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I’d keep building homeless shelters until there was enough beds for every homeless person. If later on there were more homeless people, I’d build more shelters.
I mean it’s pretty straightforward.
In actual fact I’m not willing to commit to that, but if I were committing to that the solution is dead obvious.
Homeless shelters are not housing; they're shelter for the night. They kick you out in the morning and you can't be sure you'll have a bed there in the evening. You can't keep your stuff there from day to day. And while you're sleeping, your stuff gets stolen. You can't have visitors. You don't have a permanent address, so you can't get mail.
The low end of housing starts with something like a room in a rooming house, SRO, residential hotel, or the like. You share a bathroom and kitchen with other tenants, but you have a room with a bed and a lock on the door. You can keep your stuff there and nobody will rummage through it while you sleep. You can come home to the same place every night. You have an address; you can get mail.
Sure but imo shelter is step zero. If you have people living on the streets, focusing on housing is putting the cart before the horse.
Shelter - - > housing - - > homes
In order of priority
Sure, but there are folks who prefer to stay in tent encampments or cars rather than try to get into homeless shelters. In an encampment, they get to keep their dogs, their drugs, their self-defense tools; their friends can visit; they have a spot they can stay in during the day ... until the city sends someone to clear them out. Whereas in a shelter they're forced to abandon the dog, the drugs, and the knife; and they don't even get a place they can stay for more than a night at a time.
Yes, I debated addressing that...we need better shelters. And safe consumption sites.
You also have to consider infrastructure. What good would 1000 homeless shelters be if you only had the staff or resources to run 100? For the record I am very pro-public housing, but it's a pretty complex situation.