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 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.

Exactly. When people hear "homeless" they have been conditioned to think of the recently widowed mother of two living out of her car or the laid off laborer who suddenly lost his job and was evicted because he couldn't pay rent. Those cases were far more common up until the late 90s or so. Now they are an increasingly small minority. My heart goes out to people like that who have just had a lot of bad luck suddenly fall in their lap, but want to actually get back on their feet and live a normal life again. Those people are the ones who deserve the help, the handouts, the programs and charities.

The problem is that the majority of homeless these days do not fall into that minority. The majority of homeless have adopted homelessness as their lifestyle and have rejected any attempt to live like a decent human being any longer. They have abandoned the dignity, self-respect, and nobility of living like a human being. The Tranq Zombies, the meth heads, the mentally ill who refuse treatment, the Heroin/Fentanyl junkies...they have no desire to live by society's rules and expectations and live a decent life. They want to live by their own rules. The problem is that they are doing it right in front of everyone else and they expect everyone to support their lifestyle. They don't have the common decency to do it out in the woods where they're not bothering anyone else.

As I've said before, the thing that killed any compass or sympathy I ever had for these animals was having to be around them a lot of the time. It's hard to consider someone your "fellow man" when they're caked in their own feces and whipping their dick out in front of women and children to take a piss on the bus/train. Or when they are literally stealing hand sanitizer to drink it. Or when they literally smell worse than a farm animal because they are covered in all sorts of filth. Or when they are literally robbing another homeless person of everything they own because that homeless person is having a medical emergency or overdose and can't do anything about it. Or when they're standing in the middle of an intersection blocking traffic in all directions so they can argue with the voices in their head because they refuse to get treatment. Yeah, kinda hard to see people like that as anything more than worthless insects.
 
You've no compassion. Does your spouse know what worthless values you hold towards your fellow man?
And how many homeless people have you let come into your house with no questions asked since you're so damn keen on throwing stones around in a few threads on the farms?
 
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.
Invite a couple bums in your city to live on your street. Not even in your home, just tell them they are welcome to live near you and report back in a week after your car has been broken into, there is a hot steaming shit in your driveway and you get suckerpunched by a tweaker when checking your mail.
 
Invite a couple bums in your city to live on your street. Not even in your home, just tell them they are welcome to live near you and report back in a week after your car has been broken into, there is a hot steaming shit in your driveway and you get suckerpunched by a tweaker when checking your mail.

A lot of these bleeding-heart retards who want to enable the homeless have little to no actual experience with terminally homeless vermin. The few homeless people they may have run in to are likely your stereotypical "homeless vet down on his luck" living out of his truck. Not the filthy schizo addict squatting on the sidewalk with fifty other worthless wretches, shit stains on his pants, back bent almost in half from nodding off while standing up because of Tranq or Fentanyl.
 
Invite a couple bums in your city to live on your street. Not even in your home, just tell them they are welcome to live near you and report back in a week after your car has been broken into, there is a hot steaming shit in your driveway and you get suckerpunched by a tweaker when checking your mail.
Sucker punched by a tweaker. And shit in your driveway. It sounds like you live in the shitty part of town and you are in good company. Try and up your income and live somewhere else.
 
There would be less homeless people if there were less handouts.
There would be fewer homeless people if the government actually ran the support services themselves instead of farming it out to various nonprofits ran by their friends and family, whose continued existence now requires that homelessness isn't ever solved.
 
Said it before, saying it again. Those "Housing First" programs don't work. How do I know? My city trumpeted the announcement of the Thurgood Marshall Apartments, at a cost of millions for 12 units with 24/7 support on-site. I've tried and tried to get just ONE success story out of them and they just send me a boilerplate and direct me to their website. No success stories to be found. If there were, that person would be on the fucking news.

You can't help those who refuse to help themselves. I lived among them in not one, but two rooming houses (fun times being the only female in both situations - the stories I have about those joints holy shit) and when I was in the heavier throes of my addiction, I packed my ass up and tried to get help and was DENIED. Wrong color, that was the South Side and I am not Hispanic. No pity for the white girl on dope.

So yeah, I've seen a lot of this shit and feel not one iota for the people who choose the lifestyle. As 99 percent of the time it is a choice.
 
Said it before, saying it again. Those "Housing First" programs don't work. How do I know? My city trumpeted the announcement of the Thurgood Marshall Apartments, at a cost of millions for 12 units with 24/7 support on-site. I've tried and tried to get just ONE success story out of them and they just send me a boilerplate and direct me to their website. No success stories to be found. If there were, that person would be on the fucking news.

You can't help those who refuse to help themselves. I lived among them in not one, but two rooming houses (fun times being the only female in both situations - the stories I have about those joints holy shit) and when I was in the heavier throes of my addiction, I packed my ass up and tried to get help and was DENIED. Wrong color, that was the South Side and I am not Hispanic. No pity for the white girl on dope.

So yeah, I've seen a lot of this shit and feel not one iota for the people who choose the lifestyle. As 99 percent of the time it is a choice.
Housing first works great, you're just misunderstanding the intent.
If the goal is simply to move the problem off of the government's ledger while simultaneously guaranteeing a job in perpetuity to friends and family, paid for by tax dollars, then it works AMAZINGLY well.
 
I define it as bums who loiter on street corners and beg. Pretty straightforward. No clean needle programs in NH (that I know of) but they're enabled in other ways. They're allowed to just hang out wherever (there's a CVS I avoid walking past because these assholes mill around by the entrance and harass people) and the problem is mostly enabled because this state is governed by retards. Gov is a RINO so that's just gravy.
 
Last edited:
Tbh the majority of homeless I've worked around are in one of 3 categories
1.) Disable and unable to afford to care for themselves
2.) Drugged out schizos
3.) People hard up
Number 2 is the vast majority
And it's difficult to know if the second group disguises themselves like the first and third groups.
 
We needs mo money fo dem programs!

Fuck off, if someone is living with their parents, or living with their children, or their family and another family are splitting a single domicile, they aren't homeless, shut the fuck up
 
I've got this crazy idea, how about define it as someone without a home? Don't beat me up too badly if this is a stupid thing to say...!
 
Ffs everything has a month and some things overlap on the same months making it worthless. When is national everything is normal month?

I did homeless for 9 years. One of the two things that led me out of that situation was not drawing attention to it. Besides, we don't need a month of "awareness." If you live in any city you're already aware there are homeless people.
 
I've got this crazy idea, how about define it as someone without a home? Don't beat me up too badly if this is a stupid thing to say...!
Too much wiggle room, junkie sympathizers then start declaring rolling meth lab RVs as "homes" and fine you for calling a towing company to get it off of your block.

I propose it gets defined as:
Anyone not paying rent, a mortgage, or owning a home and paying property taxes on it
 
Too much wiggle room, junkie sympathizers then start declaring rolling meth lab RVs as "homes" and fine you for calling a towing company to get it off of your block.

I propose it gets defined as:
Anyone not paying rent, a mortgage, or owning a home and paying property taxes on it
If it's a meth lab, or even just more realistically a public nuisance due to disorderly conduct, then it should not be difficult to remove it under city ordinances regardless.

On the other hand, if they're actually keeping to themselves and not making messes or noise or causing problems (so, almost never), then there's no good reason to harass them anyway, so it seems like a self-solving problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom