A little research into the Houston Solution.
When I look at the pamphlet that a homeless person in Houston would receive from “Coalition for the Homeless”, which shows where to go for shelter, there are zero non-Christian solutions.
The Beacon - Evangelical
Salvation Army - Evangelical
Star of Hope - a “Christian Centered Community”
Covenant house - Catholic
There are more options for food, with only about 10% secular options.
Substance abuse programs are much better, with the majority being secular options.
My “Disagree, speaking for myself” comment Ray was in regards to the way you characterized “everyone in this discussion,” suggesting that by addressing homelessness as a social problem, we are “dehumanizing” homeless individuals. I have read over all of the posts here, and did not find one comment from anyone that I would describe as dehumanizing of the homeless; on the contrary, many remarks of compassion and care.
That said, from the perspective of the LL and LR quadrants, homelessness is a social problem, and analysis of it is within integralism’s province. And most analysis has to begin with collecting data and studies and facts as they are currently known. As it was not mentioned in the video, I do not know how many of the 100 non-profits in Houston are faith-based organizations; do you?
I do know that according to a Baylor University 2017 study, non-governmental faith-based organizations were providing 58% of emergency shelter beds and food programs in the 11 cities surveyed across the nation. Part of the reason for this is that since the presidency of George W. Bush, more money has been available to religious organizations to provide soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and substance abuse treatment. But there are exceptions in the nation as well; for instance, only 40% of homeless services in New York City are provided by faith-based orgs; the rest are government or privately funded or secular non-profits.
I do understand your point about “food being exchanged for a sermon.” I imagine there are some homeless individuals who would not object to this. (A 1992 survey of 655 men and women on the streets in LA found that 96% “believe in God.” A 1994 study found that 42% of homeless women credited God and religion for their ability to survive and be clean of substances. As these studies are rather old; I don’t know what the stats might be today.) And I imagine that there are plenty of homeless people who would object to the sermon requirement, where it exists.
The fact that serving the homeless is so dependent on faith-based organizations speaks to at least two of the points the journalist was making in the video: strong political leadership supportive of government helping the homeless is one key to doing just that, and another is there being adequate housing options that the homeless can afford. If you watched the video, you heard him discuss how Dallas, without this necessary kind of political leadership, saw their homeless population rise during the period that Houston’s decreased (and two years later, Dallas adopted Houston’s program). The other factor is the willingness for governments, businesses, secular non-profits and organizations, foundations, and taxpayers to put money towards helping homeless people, which thus far, there is a pretty poor record of.
See we don’t have this in the UK. Youre only put in hospital if you do something pretty extreme, like if you seriously hurt yourself, or can’t function because of psychosis. It’s a problem too, because so many people need mental health care but dont get much help. I feel like if you argue your case rationally you wouldn’t be put in hospital even in America though?
Health insurance in America sounds like the reason for the above insanity with American mental health services.
Homeless shelters here are mostly secular, and funded by the state. They just help people, without asking anything in return
I agree I should avoid terms like “everyone”.
If for no other reason than it gives “everyone” a reason to not address the message behind the words and instead take personal umbrage.
The way the United States goes about “solving” social issues is just broken at AQAL. It’s almost as bad as having no solution. While we can judge the society without any solutions as immoral or at a lower stage of development, offering bad solutions allows Americans to believe they / our society is superior when it is not, or that people offering solutions are morally higher - but if you look closer there is a taint of moral inurement attached to the offering.
I have described the inhumane nature of solutions being offered (in the United States). I didn’t mention this geographical specificity, so of course @Julia248 has a reason to disagree as the UK has a different situation.
The alternative in the United States: Receive food and shelter in exchange for a religious sales pitch. If your very existence is against church doctrine, such as LGBTQ or Muslim or Wiccan or unmarried partnership, and so on - you have to conform to religious doctrine in exchange for food and shelter. The goal of one of the organizations in offering “charity” is clearly stated: “To create a Christian Centered Community”.
Again, this is only the surface level. The deeper level is solving modern Society’s absurd and broken structure. Yes, one solution is building dormitory style housing for single people, but the deeper problem is modern society sees this as “less than”. Another option is cafeteria style food options. I ate at such a place daily in Europe. I got a good, healthy cheap European meal (means soup and bread included). Let’s say the equivalent would be like $5 today. Similar options for food and lodging were available in US cities 75 years ago, but our basic economic system and social morals destroyed those options. When I was young there were public rest rooms. Now cities are designed with no restrooms available except in business establishments for paying customers only. Water is unavailable in public areas except if purchased in a bottle from a store.
The issue is less that homeless people need homes and more that homeless people need social and economic acceptance. Let homeless people sleep in a park without harassment, give them a place to use the toilet and take a shower. These things don’t really cost money. How much does a spigot and hose cost? Actually zero. The current approach costs more because it’s more expensive to put a lock on the water spigot. It’s more expensive to create cities hostile by design and intent to the homeless
Here is a video of more of what I am describing.
Modern society goes out of its way to make life more uncomfortable for the homeless. Just reversing that trend would be treating them as human beings rather than a problem to solve.
It’s a bit schizophrenic for governments to propose solutions to problems of homelessness on the one hand and then on the other hand create policies that display society’s simmering hostility towards the homeless.
Addressing this irrational and seething hatred of society for the homeless is more important than any monetary solution.
It’s a delicate balance. People can romanticise the homeless kind of lifestyle, like think Henry David Thoreau, and the people LaWanna mentioned before in the thread, and this song by Johnny Flynn: https://youtu.be/Z8A960XZ6ZM?si=YviYZroH-2CffTys.
Focusing too much on this polarity of the greatness of freedom, however, can take away from focusing on the fact that many homeless people are suffering through their homelessness and that they need help. If you think of the positives of homelessness, you don’t think enough of the solutions. But then focusing only on the solutions can put homeless people only in the victim archetype, and this isn’t the case all the time.
I agree it should be accepted more as a lifestyle, and there be public toilets, showers and so on. Somewhere I stayed was so positive towards the homeless, they even had public showers: Dartmouth in Devon: https://discoverdartmouth.com/.
Thrice disagree for myself and really for the rest of the thread from what I can tell. Pretty sure people are being fairly reasonable and empathetic about the topic. Sounds more like a talking point than an assessment of this discussion.
I am not sure. I definitely see exemplary thinking and discussion from some of its members that I don’t get anywhere else and that I’ve been looking for a while in people I would like to collaborate with. Then there’s some played out and problematic communication here that the internet (and often the real world) is similarly bogged down with.
I’m not talking about any kind of romance and it’s not a binary issue. I’m aware that there are people “selling” the romance of such a lifestyle, just as there are people selling the romance of owning more house than people really need or can afford. Both extremes can lead to problems if one buys into the sales pitch of the romance of the solution.
I’d be interested in a response to the actual problem I am describing, regardless of if @LaWanna@MattMazz feels it applies personally to them.
Is it possible that what homeless people need or want may not actually in every case be actual housing?
Is it possible that most “solutions” are not actually looking at the true needs or desires of all but instead a minority of homeless people?
Is it true that when the problem is discussed people tend to discuss homeless people as tropes without looking at the great diversity of problems - or indeed lack of problem except in the eye of the viewer.
There are already lots of solutions to homelessness. Shall I repeat them and restate that they aren’t all that nice and that indeed some are inhumane and yet continue to be offered as “solutions”. Many of these solutions are more for the sake of an uncaring or sadistic public, or who just don’t want to see it or a “rescuing” public who want to see themselves as saints regardless of what the homeless actually want?
At the most messed up level are “solutions” that make the lives of homeless worse so they move along to somewhere else: locking up water sources and toilet facilities or eliminating these facilities altogether except in businesses for paying customers only. Denial of water is inhumane because it is a basic human survival level need and all kinds of physical and psychological problems result from dehydration. Warmth in winter is also a basic human need and redesigning public spaces to deny access to heat sources is also inhumane. We have hostile city “improvements” intended to make sitting anywhere in the public space uncomfortable or even painful. These solutions actually cost more money than just leaving the status quo and for this money the lives of homeless are made worse off.
Along side this we have the police “solution”, which again is to harass the homeless so they move along and out of warm or comfortable spaces.
Then we have the solution of shelters, which are the majority of the time operated according to stricter interpretations of the Bible as the actual literal Word of God. At these shelters there is the overt goal of recruiting more members into their branch of Christianity, without regard to if this is actually what the homeless want. Another issue is that many homeless don’t want to stay in these shelters because the shelters are not “tiered” and just group all “homeless” together as a monolithic group. As a result these facilities need to have tight security, which is often more unpleasant than sleeping outside - were it not for the sadistic “solutions” mentioned above.
Then there is the solution for those with emotional or mental disabilities, including Dementia and depression. If you happen to be unhoused and also have mental illness, odds are good that you will be locked up at some point and forced to take drugs intended to make you compliant with the rules of the facility. Nine times out of 10 this is a cheaper version of a drug with the effects of just making you brain dead and unable to focus on anything. The intention of these facilities is not to cure or help patients, but to hold them in zombie status basically forever.
Opposite to these solutions, we have real solutions that “nobody” (used rhetorically - don’t get upset) is considering.
1 - Just provide a warm space with toilet and clean water and a shower. If these already exist in a public space, don’t have police drive them out. Make camping legal in parks until 6 am. It’s messed up to have homeless people face the decision of either getting a trespassing violation for sleeping on private property or a camping citation for sleeping in a public park.
2 - Don’t freak out about people lying on the sidewalk. Last night I had to step over an old man lying on the sidewalk next to his walker. I Said “You alright?” and when he nodded I gave him the shaka sign and a smile and moved on. I just wanted to make sure he wasn’t having a medical emergency.
3 - More state operated and “tiered” shelters. Overturn zoning laws that made Dormitories and cafeterias illegal. Make tax breaks for operating Dormitories and Cafeterias. Allow drug addicts to have a safe space to take drugs. Nothing fancy - just a clean floor in a safe space to lie down for an hour or so while they have their trip. Allow the flop house to return - where drunks can pass out in a safe space for a minimal price. Have separate and cleaner facilities for family oriented homeless communities and a separate more secure facilities for those with a history of violence. This will also reduce the need for mental health facilities because the majority of patients locked up involuntarily really just needed a safe place to live and were criminalized for not conforming to societal norms. They suffer from depression, PTSD, and other conditions and really mostly need a society that doesn’t criminalize nonviolent behavior and use the excuse that it’s better for them.
These first three are not so much what needs to be done, but more bad “solutions” that need to be undone or reversed. Homelessness first need to be decriminalized and destigmatized. All throughout human history the poor have had places to go to sleep and eat. Only in modern times have we made laws to actively make the plight of poor people worse. So when people start offering “solutions”, I want to clarify if the solution is for the homeless people or for a society with demonstrable sadistic behavior towards the homeless.
The next three are not so much solving the “homeless problem”, but reducing the probability of the por or middle class becoming homeless.
4 - Section 8 / HUD Administrative problems. I have no evidence of wrongful intent, but it is suspicious that some cities process this paperwork quickly while some have a backlog of many years.
5 - Impose an increased property tax on housing in residential zoning that is not occupied. This will increase the supply of housing available at lower prices and reduce artificial inflation of housing prices resulting from corporate investment in vacant housing, which will allow more working people to buy more affordable homes.
6 - Outlaw the HELOC for refinancing unsecured consumer debt as well as using refinance funds to pay consumer debt. HELOC and Refinancing should only be used to finance equity, not consumption. Nothing brings foreclosure crashing down like zero equity in a house because it has been used to finance consumer spending on a lifestyle the homeowner could not afford.
You’re presenting this as a binary issue, @raybennett.
No one in this thread has said they are against providing free water for everyone, public toilets and public showers, comfortable benches and allowing people to camp, sleep and park where they want to. Everyone in this thread has been suggesting humane solutions, and providing free water for everyone, public toilets and public showers, comfortable benches and allowing people to camp, sleep and park where they want to are also humane solutions.
Ask people whether they agree with these additional solutions rather than assuming they don’t.
In the UK, we already have public toilets everywhere and free drinking water in many places, as well as comfortable places to sit and sleep. Sleeping in campervans is often an issue though.
I agree that of course there are many different homeless people and different solutions are needed for different people.
No one in this thread has said removing water and toilet facilities, and forcing people to move is a solution to helping homeless people; no one in this thread has said removing water and toilet facilities, and forcing people to move is a ‘solution’ of any kind, or that a ‘solution’ to homelessness is removing homeless people from the public eye.
No one in this thread has said they disagree with homeless people living outdoors/in public spaces if they want to.
Another aspect, which is vital, is that safe accommodation is needed for homeless females and homeless trans people - e.g. if shared accommodation, separate accommodation for: the different sexes and gender identities; families; and people wanting to be in mixed accommodation.
So given the Borgen Project list (or the metacrisis … or the polycrisis … or however you wish to define many interlocking global problems), what to do? Here is my recommended short list:
self-care. Basic food, clothing, shelter, etc. Whatever you need to feel nurtured and stable on a personal level.
work on what is right in front of you.
when you run into barriers, or treadmills, use systems thinking to figure out the root causes that are frustrating your efforts.
redirect your efforts toward the root causes.
cycle back through 2) though 4)
Quite a few cycles of this should lead you to a view of the world along the lines of AQAL and other Integral schemas. Your notions about root causes should be getting more refined along the way. Then you can work on what you can work on, trusting that results on that level will bear fruit on other issues down the road.
For me, education has become job #1. More precisely, education that helps people sort out extreme complexity. Threads like this are helpful for that.
Umm … I actually did ask questions and was asking for agree or disagree.
Your response is kind of mind boggling to the point I have no idea if you read what you quoted me as saying, because I clearly asked questions if people agree or disagree.
Thus the problem with “Integral”, or the idea of an “Integral Response Team” - getting back to @Sidra 's request we remain on topic.
There is a joke in here somewhere about “How many Integralists does it take to answer a simple question.”
My conclusion is that there is absolutely no way Integralists can even support a simple position without endlessly diverting into circular discussions.
So @MattMazz my conclusion is the idea that Integralists could actually solve problems in crisis situations seems to me absurd at this point.
Analysis paralysis seems to be the most likely result.
Yes … and … this problem exists beyond the bounds of integral also. The Big Theory world in general seems better at talk than action. That said, there are a few of us with action figure vibes who actually do things. (If anyone wants to hear about my personal project portfolio, please DM me.) OK, so why integral? Because at least integral respects the contours of what any global solution needs to look like. It has enough raw dimensions. Fleshing it all out … making it operational in specific situations … aligning it and informing it with contrasting perspectives … takes work. But it beats the hell out of Netflix, which is my only other serious alternative on this rainy December weekend.
I’m not sure there is total “analysis paralysis” when it comes to governments helping the homeless. In addition to Houston’s efforts, whether those efforts are palatable to all of us or not, L.A. has taken some steps towards assisting its 46,000 unhoused people, most of whom were in encampments and are now in “interim housing.” Granted, while the motivation behind it may be partly or mostly political (to assuage the concerns of neighborhoods and businesses), we might also give humanitarian concerns as motivation a little benefit of the doubt–I don’t think we can write off every public official or every citizen as uncaring or inhumane or hateful towards the homeless. I tried to post the article from the L.A. Times here, but for some reason, (an embedded graphic, I believe), it wouldn’t post. But if you’re interested in reading it, it is titled: “Column: Is L.A. actually solving homelessness? The answer will start with perception, not reality.”
The article hits upon, however briefly or shallowly, homelessness as a societal failure, a housing problem, a humanitarian concern, and a trash/fire/sanitation concern, while acknowledging people’s discomfort and impatience with the homeless, particularly their encampments, as well as the violence that is directed towards homeless individuals.
I will be the ‘meanie’ here who states that there is a legitimate public interest in the dispersal of some homeless encampments. For example, in the article reference was made to an ecological reserve, a fresh-water wetlands, that was decimated by an RV encampment, with everything from battery acid to trash to human waste in the marsh. (Yes, there is a need for public toilets. I spoke a few days ago to a local person where I live who has a dance studio on a main drag near the downtown, with a creek running by it. The person said each day, they clean up human feces from homeless people camping by the creek.)
As I have mentioned in prior posts here, I don’t believe all homeless people can or should have to live indoors. But I personally prefer the idea of acreage set aside for encampments, complete with water and sanitation facilities, security, and walking distance to shopping, and cooling/warming centers where needed.
I think the trend on these issues is to make them binary: “encampments” are one thing. Sleeping overnight with a toilet facility nearby then moving on is another thing entirely.
The problem is the “solutions” are making situations worse. People get offended by people sleeping on the pavement, so they complain and the mayor eliminates public restrooms. This makes the situation worse because then there is poop all over the city. Similarly, cities as a “solution” make it illegal to exist basically anywhere overnight except in a home, so the homeless move to “encampments”. The costs of clearing out these encampments are in the hundreds of thousands each time it’s done.
The “meanie” part isn’t removal of homeless encampments - it would be the support of solutions that led to the encampments in the first place.
It’s also not a binary “hateful” and “meanie” on one side and “humanitarian” on the other. Often it’s the humanitarians who come up with the worst solutions. A call to the police out of humanitarian concern brings the same results as a call to police out of hateful concerns. Being compassionately locked up or told to move with the threat of harassment is the same as being locked up and harassed. The spiritual bypassing compassionate humanitarian who does not understand the problems drives people into homeless encampments or forces them into interim housing ghettos is only kicking the can down the road at a higher cost later.
The solution is not to fix homelessness. Homelessness is a symptom, or more accurately the cleanliness and health of homeless people is a symptom of the worst aspects of our society.
Honestly - again - what is missing from the discussion is trying to see any of this from the “the homeless” point of view. From this point of view we would see actual solutions to the problems human beings have rather than solutions to problems that polite society has seeing homeless people.
Some homeless people want a way to get back on their feet. Some just want society to not mess with them. Do they have the right to not live in a home and also have a place to shower and drink water? For some the deeper problem is addiction. The solutions for addicts are even more layers deeper and from there start to get to the roots of society’s problems that are being ignored. Give a homeless person interim housing and they have a clean place to sleep for a week. Solve their PTSD, depression or mental illness and you start to see how messed up the entirety of society is, and how is anyone not addicted to a thousand things in our spiritually dead culture. (Hint- everyone has addictions to life destroying things just some addictions are accepted while others are not)
That’s fair. To generalize a bit, any complex social problem will typically feature multiple points of view, each of which comes from different life experiences, has different priorities and favors different courses of action. Sometimes these priorities and action plans clash with one another.
It’s not like there is one integral solution up in the sky that all right thinking people need to agree with. I see integral as more of a process for people (growing up, waking up, etc.) that needs to be practiced from whatever experiential base a given person has. For that reason, the discussion needs to be situated in personal perspectives.
My perspective is that of a relatively comfortable person, whose only risk of homelessness would involve disasters of apocalyptic proportions. However, in the course of navigating surrounding urban areas, I do encounter homeless people all the time. My main intervention on that is teaching job skills to low income people. Some of my students have lost housing in the middle of a quarter. I try to be flexible and compassionate. Some of the larger homeless population are behaviorally disordered in various ways. I’m not doing much about that at the moment, but I could visualize working on some sort of drugs/crime/mental health/housing task force at a future date. (Used to do that sort of thing before kids came into our lives). We do also donate to local food banks from time to time. None of that is taking credit for anything (or blame, for that matter), just creating context for a POV.
I guess I view this matter through the lens of say, a local city council member, who would need to integrate all the different perspectives and align policies accordingly. Clean, safe, attractive neighborhoods are a top priority in that world. Due to recent state action, high density zoning is now the norm, and more high density housing is coming in. We recently added to the police force. There is a state mental hospital near us that treats criminal suspects pre-trial. It is overloaded and underfunded, so mentally ill are housed in jails pre-trial, against court orders, resulting in fines against the state. If I could pull on one thread to unravel the situation, it would be increasing capacity in the residential mental health system to unclog the criminal justice and treatment pipelines. Till then, we get people throwing rocks off overpasses, shootings in camps, needles in the street, and fires under the freeway. None of that puts the public in the mood for improved sanitation or camping facilities.
I think the scope of the “crisis” has to be more clearly defined.
Is antisemitism, in fact a “crisis”?
This is related to the homeless problem: It’s probably more important to define what exactly the problem is before looking for solutions.
Why is the crisis “antisemitism” rather than “racism”
Are we referring to the global antisemitism or only in the USA? In either case, why antisemitism rather than racism
Are we only talking about overt acts of violence, or people saying things and thinking things? Is there a hate crime against Jewish people that is not being investigated, as there are against people of other races and religions?
Are Jewish people underprivileged in our society and lack wealth or power? Is there a systemic bias in American business or politics that exclude Jews?
It reminds me of the old saying that “if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail”
I guess so, I can barely keep up with it. I think there are the pieces for something impactful here and this discussion so far has been very helpful for me. I am still orienting myself according to this stage of development so talking through it in various ways crystallizes it more and more.
I think you hit a nerve. I’m starting to sense that people in general are starting to want to get beyond theory debate and onto things that are more actionable.
This is all straight from the governor’s office. Check your favorite news feed for articles and commentary much more critical about any of this. What is the integral approach to all this? Good question!
