Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We took a cab from the airport in London, and passed some lovely old brick row houses. They looked like the very pricey brownstones in NYC. The driver told us they were used to house the homeless.
I think those may have been council houses that you saw in England? Council houses provide housing assistance for low-income families who would otherwise be in danger of becoming homeless. People who live in council houses (which are owned by the local government council in the area) pay much lower rent than they would have to pay for a rental property in the private sector.
I travel to the U.K. often to visit family, and we have had a few family members who were able to get on the list for a council flat (which is an apartment for low-income retirees and other individuals, whereas the council houses are for low-income families).
Every time we start talking about creating the perfect society my mind eventually moves down the path to forced compliance. Not sure if there's anywhere else it could go.
Seems we need to accept imperfection. I think everyone must know that satisfaction in the face of imperfection is a triumph.
And the solution to that is individual - in everyone learning at an early age that we are all dealt bad cards, whether they show or not, and that the goal in life is to try to find satisfaction in accepting them or transforming. Maybe all by ourselves with little or no resources or help.
That would be a psychological help and start everyone could benefit from. The cynic in me screams, "B.S." But how else do you survive in a miserable situation?
If I think in the absolute abstract of how to create a perfect society I can list a number of things we now do as a culture which would have to be discontinued because they promote conditions which cause mental or physical disease. And those seem to be the major factors in preventing people from achieving a state of satisfaction.
Would preventative methods for a few generations be a solution rather than waiting for the calamity and then trying to pick up the pieces? I mean, who hasn't seen this coming for a long time?
It would be ugly but it would work. And, "It might be more humane to have a few existing generations suffer in order for future generations to thrive," the Politician pleads his case. Have you no heart?
Ironic, evil chuckle here. Because that's where I end up when I try to solve this problem.
I took an "Alternative Amsterdam" walking tour. Part of the tour was looking at some newer housing that had been built by the government to house the poor. These houses were built among existing buildings where wealthier people lived. The rules dictate that the architectural style of the housing has to fit in with the older, traditional housing in the same area.
The woman giving the tour said that as a general rule, if you look down on the people next door because they live in "social housing", you are regarded as a jerk. The attitude is different, and that is likely something that has to change here before we making progress with helping the homeless. As long as a large chunk of the population looks at the homeless as losers and parasites and that way of thinking is seen as acceptable, the political will to improve their lives will not come about.
I remember reading about this too. There's a totally different mindset in other cultures who view themselves as a "community" and feel obligated to help others---like in Finland.
It seems like the individualistic mindset in the U.S. prevents this....
Social housing in Europe typically is very much associated with high crime and blight. If you've ever been to some of the council flats in London or social housing in Paris, you'll not want to stick around after dark. Europe isn't some social paradise where everyone's in a happy community.
The anti-lockdown riots in the Netherlands were particularly violent - and driven by urban youths - because there's a lot of disaffection and resentment going on in spite of all the extremely generous programs run by the government.
Social housing in Europe typically is very much associated with high crime and blight. If you've ever been to some of the council flats in London or social housing in Paris, you'll not want to stick around after dark. Europe isn't some social paradise where everyone's in a happy community.
The anti-lockdown riots in the Netherlands were particularly violent - and driven by urban youths - because there's a lot of disaffection and resentment going on in spite of all the extremely generous programs run by the government.
I don't think that anyone here is painting Europe as being a social paradise. It does seem, though, that many countries in Europe are actually doing more to solve the problem of homelessness and other social ills than people here in the U.S. are doing.
I'm not familiar with the council flats in the larger cities of London or Paris that you mentioned, but I am familiar with the council flats in England's northern towns, as we have an elderly relative living in one right now. The council flat gives our family member the independence she desires at a price she can afford. Trust me, we would not stand for this elderly relative living in the kind of environment that you imagine to exist throughout all of Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
As long as a large chunk of the population looks at the homeless as losers and parasites and that way of thinking is seen as acceptable, the political will to improve their lives will not come about.
I don’t know about “King” but if I was a super rich billionaire like Bezos or Musk, I’d buy a lot of abandoned multi-leveled parking garages in downtown Houston, and make “contributions” to which ever city officials I needed to legally convert them into housing shelters. And, I’d hire lots of security to make sure the places don’t become dope or prostitution houses. And I hire companies to empty out the porta-johns twice a week. As far as food, they would have to find other help but at least they’d have shelter and not have to live in a tent city.
I'd give them the option to get clean, mental health care and to go to work. Do what they need to do to become contributors. Those who don't want to play along would be sent to an island.
I'd give them the option to get clean, mental health care and to go to work. Do what they need to do to become contributors. Those who don't want to play along would be sent to an island.
There are always going to be a percentage of the mentally ill who are never, ever, no matter what, going to be able to take care of themselves, under threat or not. They are simply not capable of "playing along" without supervision.
Some years ago (1990s) a group of people to which I belonged through my job went to a local drop-in center in lower Manhattan to see if we could offer help. By drop-in center, that meant it was not a shelter where anyone stayed overnight, but it was a place where homeless people in the area could get a meal, take a shower, get a change of clothing, and speak to social workers about available services. They could sit inside for a while during the day on a chair at a table.
They turned down our offer of help. After some initial resistance from neighborhood businesses, the local restaurants began to support the center with donations of food, so much that it was picked up and brought to other food pantries around the city. They didn't really need anything from us.
However, we had some good conversations with one of the men running the place, and he told us that many of the clients were suffering from some sort of mental illness or addiction and that they were connected to the systems of services throughout the city to help them. He told us of one case where a man wandered in and after providing him with food, hygiene and clothing, they sat him down and talked about his situation.
He was a veteran of the US military who had severe PTSD after serving in Vietnam. He had been in a mental institution until the Reagan era, when it was decided that he'd be just fine if he was let out and given medication to take. When the meds ran out, he was supposed to go to such and such a place and get them refilled, but when the meds ran out, he didn't have the capacity to remember to go get new meds or where to get them, and so he had been living on the street suffering from his delusions and hallucinations. They did a search on his ID and information, and it turned out that he had eight years worth of veterans' disability benefits coming to him, but he had no address to which they could be sent.
A person like this, particularly one who served our country, needs to have someone to help him monitor his mental health care and manage his daily activities. Nothing was going to make him magically all better and able to "play along".
lock 'em back up..Reagan turned 'em loose..institutionalize 'em again..
look at Kensington (Phila) on you tube or places like downtown San Fran or any major city..double the social services..double the police force..we've got the money..we always have money for wars..
Trump nor Biden nor any Presidential hopeful will really address the problem..we are now a third world country..
Next re-open the mental institutions and add compulsory drug addiction treatment. 3 strikes and you are out. Get arrested 3 times, and you go straight to a mental competency exam. If you fail, mandatory admission to the loony bin unless or until you are deemed competent to handle your own affairs.
If it is only a matter of addiction, then off to treatment. If you fail treatment 3 times and still live addicted on the street, it is off to camp. Successively longer sentences for each subsequent conviction. Camp would be a big tent city inside a fenced in area where all food and basic needs are provided, but NO drugs. These folks proved they can live outside, then let them live outside while they did their terms. It worked for Sheriff Joe in Arizona.
I don't want to see homeless mixed in with the general prison population unless they are truly violent, so I would warehouse them in an open air, outdoor camp.
If you can't play nice with others for whatever reason, then you don't get to be free. Sorry.
It is a shame we don't have a nice island with good weather to put them on where they can all live with one another, like how Australia started. You wouldn't need a big island.
Just drop off food, clothes, tools, and other needed supplies every week. You would need outside police so it didn't go all "Lord of the Flies", and people convicted of crimes would be removed from the island and put in jail/prison as normal for convicted criminals. The peaceful, cooperative ones left would have their own isolated world in which to exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
