this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023

36 points (97.4% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

2115 readers

1 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

felipeforte@lemmygrad.ml

What do we know about Colorado's war on the homeless? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 10 months ago by RedWizard@lemmygrad.ml to c/comradeship@lemmygrad.ml

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The holiday debates have begone.

"Only two people signed up for this tiny home program. The rest said they like being homeless."

I have the logic, but not living in Colorado, I don't have the facts. I do know they're playing a game of shuffle board with their homeless population after some quick investigation, but nothing specific to the claim. I'll get the article in reference if I can.

But man, how hard is it to accept that no one "wants" to be homeless.

This doesn't make it sound like Denver isn't doing its best.

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] micnd90@hexbear.net 26 points 10 months ago (2 children)

There is a good article about one in Boulder

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/homeless-boulder-rare-summer-count/

It is the same story all over. People are experiencing mental health and substance abuse issue, the rent is too damn high and become unhoused. Temporary unhoused shelters are never a good solution, because they are not safe. A lot of unhoused people feel safer sitting in open public space than cramped up in shelters with other unhoused people, especially in places where the weather is usually manageable like Colorado.

The solution is to build permanent apartment for the unhoused, so they can live with dignity without rent burden. And then most people can work on other aspects of their lives, like finding a job, getting an education, etc. But why would the private sector build permanent housing for people who don't have money? They would rather buy 3-4 houses in a row, bulldoze them and build a luxury apartment complex for the techbros in the city.

[–] RedWizard@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is good info. It sure doesn't sound like they're doing any kind of end-to-end care here.

According to some reports, they've built these tiny sheds that make FEMA tents look luxurious.
They're only allowed to be in these spaces or shelters for 14 days. I can't think of how anyone could turn their life around in 14 days.
They are setting arbitrary benchmarks and doing a piss poor job measuring those benchmarks (potentially counting people twice, also forcing people out of shelters to accommodate new people in shelters)
Most people who are homeless suffer from some form of disability. Which includes some form of substance abuse.
They do not provide enough material assistance for people with those disabilities. Substance Abuse is a lifelong affliction that needs long term care and assistance.
Shelters are overcrowded, only for a limited capacity, smelly, and unsafe.
Most can not get work because of how unkempt they are, and it does not appear they get any assistance in that regard.
Many face violence from cops and property theft when their encampments are cleared out.

So "They say they like being homeless" is really "They would rather be on the street." and that seems to be because....

They feel unsafe in the shelters.
- More likely to be attacked or assaulted with so many desperate people in such a tight place.
They are only in shelters for a limited time anyway, and could get kicked out to make room for more people.
Being outside is often safer because people are more spread out, and they are visible, making the risk of being assaulted lower.

[–] metalinvader@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ah. "Means testing" strikes again. (that's how I refer to "arbitrary and draconian requirements to be allowed to access" if that's wrong please correct me) It's always the part that people leave out of the "homeless people would rather be homeless" thing that fascists say. That they WOULD take shelter... if it was offered with no strings attached (and it never is).

[–] micnd90@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago

Having to beg for shelter and then still having to share private space in an unsafe living conditions sucks. If we give unhoused people some dignity, just give them a studio apartment and the key to it, free of use, no judgement, I'm sure a lot of them can pull themselves up. It takes considerable mental toll on unhoused people to never have a peace of mind in your own safe space. People understandably become more and more unhinged, lose their social skills and trust in society the longer they stay out being unhoused.

[–] Farvana@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 10 months ago

Boulder has a height limit on bldgs in the city (unless you're fucking Google) so shitty McMansions are what's being built after scraping a few lots

[–] D61@hexbear.net 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Over the years, the articles that describe the in's and out's of the "shelter" system make it sound like shelters are just a form of jail.

Have a spouse of a different gender and children? Well, your male partner can't be in the same shelter as you.

Got a pet? Well fuck right the hell off.

Dormitory living setups and shared bathrooms means your stuff is going to be stolen and any weirdo's that make it into the shelter will have free reign to do what they want to you, your stuff, and where you sleep.

Gay? Trans? Better hope you can hide it, especially if the group running the shelter has some form of right wing religious ideology that views these groups as demons or some other silly shit.

Is the managing group's funding primarily by government grants or private donations/grant programs? Well, the group better not do anything that might get the politicians or rich private citizens angry that you're helping/housing the wrong kind of person. So its best to have incredibly strict criteria to keep publicity problems to a minimum.

If you're looking for a job and they ask for an address, I find it hard to believe that shelters are set up to work as a "home address" so how the fuck you'd be able to apply for a job if you can't find a way to piggy back on somebody's PO Box and their home address for applications.

[–] su25@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

a lot of these shelters will also prohibit substances on the premises and not all of them involve treatment programs, so if you are addicted to a substance (usually fentanyl right now), you'd have to go cold turkey just for housing. you're expected to get clean on the street and then get housing.

[–] D61@hexbear.net 3 points 10 months ago

It also wouldn't surprise me if having a prescription for anything other than antibiotics might get you enough side eye to get booted out of or denied entry into a shelter.

[–] redsteel@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you’re looking for a job and they ask for an address, I find it hard to believe that shelters are set up to work as a “home address” so how the fuck you’d be able to apply for a job if you can’t find a way to piggy back on somebody’s PO Box and their home address for applications.

I've been there personally. I was advised by two separate people involved in state vocational programs and the shelter staff themselves to not use the shelter's street address on job applications, if it's avoidable.

Considering the potential "one shot" you get at most of these fucking employers/companies with the unaccountable Gestapo bullshit their human resources departments are known for, and not knowing whether they retain applications for future reference if someone applies multiple times, I decided to spend some of my dwindling money on a PO box. And even then I was questioned at two different interviews about it, not too invasively but enough to further fray my nerves in an already precarious situation I was desperate to get out of.

I couldn't even get a fucking library card when using a shelter's street address without being questioned about it.

[–] D61@hexbear.net 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's the thing, I'm positive that there's something that a shelter could set up to work as something that works as an address but isn't the actual shelter's own physical address.

[–] redsteel@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

By my own experience I would say it's necessary and should be legally mandated as long as this fucked up Calvinist society and the majority of private businesses which gatekeep the ability to pay for housing maintain their bigoted stigma against destitute people.

[–] D61@hexbear.net 2 points 10 months ago

Absolutely.