How should we define homelessness? - Two for one deal from the Progressive today!

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Original (Archive)

November is National Homelessness Awareness Month, and it has been over fourteen years since the federal government last updated its definition of homelessness. It is time to change that to reflect how people experience homelessness today, and to secure more funding to end housing instability.

An individual is considered homeless if they lack a fixed, adequate nighttime residence (including those staying in a homeless shelter), lose their residence without another place to go or are fleeing domestic violence.

Millions of people cycle in and out of homelessness each year. And that’s just when counting by the narrow federal definition. The actual number is likely far higher.

As a 2016 study highlighted, many people who lose their stable housing make the difficult decision to move into others’ homes. Examples of this include a parent and adult child living together, couchsurfing with friends, or two families living together. In 2019, 3.7 million people lived in households like this, most of whom are viewed by the government as at-risk of homelessness.

But staying temporarily with a friend or family member is not permanent stable housing. People living in doubled-up households represent a wide variety of situations, and those who need help to avoid losing what little stability they have shouldn’t be denied it because they don’t match a stereotypical view of being homeless.

There is precedent for this. Since 2009, unaccompanied youth between eighteen and twenty-five, as well as families with children, have been considered under a more extensive definition of homelessness by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Youth and families with children are considered homeless if they have not lived independently in permanent housing for a long time, frequently move and anticipate this will continue. The definition for these groups includes doubled-up households. In the 2022-2023 school year, 61 percent of homeless children in New York City were living in doubled-up households.

Many individuals older than twenty-five and without children meet this criteria. People who experience federally-defined homelessness sometimes temporarily stay with friends or family. For many of them, however, these arrangements are usually not a long-term solution, and are not an indication that they don’t need services.

Another 2022 study shows even these short stays can threaten an individuals’ priority for homeless services, such as shelters and housing, and jeopardize their ability to permanently exit homelessness.

Denying access to assistance perpetuates racial disparities in homelessness services.

A 2013 report for HUD found that Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indigenous and other non-white households were more likely to be doubled-up than white households. Doubled-up households were concentrated in cities and other urban areas across the United States. Latinx people experiencing homelessness are more likely to live in doubled-up housing conditions to avoid living in a shelter or on the street.

To be sure, those in the at-risk category are already eligible for homeless prevention services through HUD’s Emergency Solutions Grant such as permanent rental subsidies, eviction prevention and rapid rehousing programs. Rapid rehousing programs offer short-term services like finding rental housing, covering move-in costs, rent, deposits, utilities and negotiating with landlords.

Homelessness prevention, however, is a small piece of the overall federal response to homelessness, with the least amount of funding and the lowest priority. Counting temporary doubled-up housing situations as at-risk of homelessness makes less sense when individuals are experiencing literal homelessness every other night.

Permanent rental vouchers keep people housed. Yet families can spend up to six years on the waitlist for the Housing Choice Voucher, a permanent rental subsidy, especially if they are only at-risk of homelessness.

Policy makers, elected officials, funders and activists need to update the definition of homelessness to represent the much larger number of people who are actually experiencing homelessness. It is vital to dedicate more resources to those who are staying in precarious housing situations that can leave them homeless on the streets or in shelters at any time.
 
I define homelessness as a worthless surplus population of vermin that should be exterminated. At least, the "perpetually homeless" who have no desire to improve their life, be a contributing member of society, or have any respect for the social contract. I have the unfortunate "pleasure" of having to be around the homeless every day at work, and being around them has killed any sympathy or compassion I may once have held for them. Most homeless WANT to live that way because they have no desire to play by society's rules and be decent people who work hard to support themselves, be it because they're drug addicts who don't want to get clean, lazy assholes who don't want to work, or mentally ill people who don't want to get treatment.
 
I define homelessness as a worthless surplus population of vermin that should be exterminated. At least, the "perpetually homeless" who have no desire to improve their life, be a contributing member of society, or have any respect for the social contract. I have the unfortunate "pleasure" of having to be around the homeless every day at work, and being around them has killed any sympathy or compassion I may once have held for them. Most homeless WANT to live that way because they have no desire to play by society's rules and be decent people who work hard to support themselves, be it because they're drug addicts who don't want to get clean, lazy assholes who don't want to work, or mentally ill people who don't want to get treatment.
This is ultimately the problem, what do you do with people who choose to be incompatible with society? Let them shoot up in the woods and get eaten by bears when they OD? Do you want the cops to have the legal authority to commit schizos against their will? People want to duck the problems by claiming it's an issue with housing costs, but few long term homeless are that way due to economics.
 
Gronk and criddler have been good terms.

Target practice is my preferred term but that’ll get you in trouble if you say it out loud.
 
I define homelessness as a person without a house or apartment with little to no money.
 
Know an asshole who told me about how he couldn't get government assistance for rent unless it was a more expensive apartment than the one he had, so he did just that. Government assistance like that is retarded and so are most of these housing lunatics.

There's often tons of housing around that people could afford, it's just considered horrifically awful neighborhoods since the populations there are so 'diverse'. You have to try getting into a more expensive place mostly to help price out the poor people that would make life hell. However this upsets progressives that don't want to accept that maybe a lot of those poor people they're trying to stay away from are what make those neighborhoods awful.

So progressives try redefining homelessness as they brainstorm a solution to why they personally can't afford to stay in the nicest part of the city, which helped spawn all that YIMBY bullshit of wanting to create tons of giant apartment buildings all over the place (especially in San Francisco). It's a bunch of cope from progressives that can't accept that the people they want to champion are hell to live around.
 
Most homeless WANT to live that way because they have no desire to play by society's rules and be decent people who work hard to support themselves, be it because they're drug addicts who don't want to get clean, lazy assholes who don't want to work, or mentally ill people who don't want to get treatment.
Yep. Just like the Chris Rock bit about how "there's niggers, and then there's NIGGERS" there are two kinds of homeless, and they are very different.

You have "single mom crashing on a friend's couch because she lost her wagie job", and then you have the above.
 
I define homelessness as a worthless surplus population of vermin that should be exterminated. At least, the "perpetually homeless" who have no desire to improve their life, be a contributing member of society, or have any respect for the social contract. I have the unfortunate "pleasure" of having to be around the homeless every day at work, and being around them has killed any sympathy or compassion I may once have held for them. Most homeless WANT to live that way because they have no desire to play by society's rules and be decent people who work hard to support themselves, be it because they're drug addicts who don't want to get clean, lazy assholes who don't want to work, or mentally ill people who don't want to get treatment.
You've no compassion. Does your spouse know what worthless values you hold towards your fellow man?
 
It probably wouldn't be as big of a problem as it is if the ruling class didn't insist on undercutting the native working class by importing the entirety of Latin America to work under the table while simultaneously gutting traditional coping mechanisms for hard times like family and religion, meaning more people turn to destructive shit like drugs.
 
Fund... the Homeless. Nope, that is a confirmed money laundering scheme for decades. Otherwise, Skid Row wouldn't exist and California wouldn't be ad-hoc Mad Max.

Here's one for the scam...

And one for the homeless problem...

That said though, homeless is just a new 'pleasant' term for an old one but descriptive one. Vagrants or Bums. Here in Commiefornia, most of the bums you see out on the street are people tweaked out of their mind. That said, there are people who are trying to get their life together even doing what they can to survive in the rough hellhole that is this state. Though the former outnumber the latter.
 
It probably wouldn't be as big of a problem as it is if the ruling class didn't insist on undercutting the native working class by importing the entirety of Latin America to work under the table while simultaneously gutting traditional coping mechanisms for hard times like family and religion, meaning more people turn to destructive shit like drugs.
That and the way things are set up now, Section 8 is unrealistic* and we're allowing foreigners to buy up the property and use it to generate money for themselves.

*Between code requirements that most housing doesn't meet and only being able to consider stuff at market rate or below, Section 8 is specifically designed to crush your soul. You may have a voucher, but no one will take it.
 
Last edited:
You've no compassion. Does your spouse know what worthless values you hold towards your fellow man?

The homeless aren't my "fellow man". They're vermin. They're animals. I have plenty of compassion for actual human beings, not cockroaches in people suits leeching anything they can off hardworking people.
 
The homeless aren't my "fellow man". They're vermin. They're animals. I have plenty of compassion for actual human beings, not cockroaches in people suits leeching anything they can off hardworking people.
Even as an atheist I have more compassion than you and you’re probably religious. You are a waste of space.

I guess homeless veterans, too, to you are just vermin and animals. You are low. Way low.
 
I am so fucking sick of pro-homeless proggos bringing up the single mom living in her Corolla as an example of the average homeless person.
Everybody wants to help that stereotype, what we have to deal with in the real world instead is a bunch of schizophrenic tweakers high out of their mind on fentanyl, actively refusing what support services do exist for them because said services require sobriety as part of helping them no longer be homeless.

And the various NGOs tasked with "fixing" homelessness only cater to the latter group because they're a reliable source of government gibs, leaving private, usually Christian, charities to pick up the slack for people who don't want to live on the street anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom