Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SerendipitySue t1_iwem2km wrote

A tough tough population they are targeting. I know albuquerque could not fill their little village because it required being sober for a month, and required a bit of community work, like sweeping walks and cleaning common areas. They also refused clearly out of control people.

It will be interesting to see if Salt lake has discovered the magic sauce to get this population off the streets.

378

Just_One_Hit t1_iwfju5n wrote

It looks like the Albuquerque tiny home village got rid of the 30-day sober before entry requirement, they're just required to be sober while living in the village now (source):

>Two of the major hurdles the village faced earlier on in filling the 30 homes were a lack of funding for staff and the requirement that people are already sober before they move in. Chavez says the 30-day sobriety policy is now no longer part of the vetting process; however, there are still rules residents need to follow. Applicants must be willing to take part in a harm reduction or recovery program and follow rules of no drug or alcohol use within the tiny home village.

Denver also has successful tiny home villages running for a half decade now (source). There's no magic sauce. People just need to have realistic expectations for harm reduction programs, and realize that housing first is the humane and fiscally responsible option.

185

Northstar1989 t1_iwfnzoe wrote

>30-day sober before entry

>housing first

This was the problem.

It's not really housing first if you start adding difficult requirements (staying sober an entire month while dealing with the extreme stress of homelessness and likely untreated mental illness is extremely hard and not exactly a low bar to entry for someone with an addiction) to even get the housing.

The whole point of Housing First is that by giving people a stable place to live, it becomes feasible to actually start dealing with problems like addiction (a difficult issue to tackle even for people who have never been homeless).

129

londonladse t1_iwg5gyd wrote

This. I couldn't even begin my sobreity journey until I had my own roof over my head.

31

mcslootypants t1_iwgzsoq wrote

Policy makers never heard of Maslow’s Hierarchy apparently.

Nothing can be accomplished until basic needs are met. Coping mechanisms (substance abuse) exist because those have been absent.

Or let’s put the cart before the horse and then blame the horse for being lazy! Genius.

26

Northstar1989 t1_iwjcyr3 wrote

Pretty spot-on.

'Cept I don't think they don't know better.

I suspect the malice and lack of understanding is intentional. A lot of politicians get elected through resentment-fueled politics nowadays.

3

mcslootypants t1_iwjkmhy wrote

You’re right, I was being generous assuming no mal-intent. They absolutely have access to mental/public health and policy experts.

Blaming individuals for moral failure rather than addressing systemic issues must be hella convenient though.

4

siggydude t1_iwhkfyq wrote

This is so encouraging to hear! I was part of the design for the Albuquerque Tiny Home Village and was really disheartened when I heard early on that they only had like 5 out the 30 tiny homes filled because of the requirements

8

corsicanguppy t1_iwfj1ry wrote

You need that other hand, the support from a mental health outpatient service to assess and guide people toward whatever help they can get, so they can be built toward sobriety and some pharma help ... or advanced care options for the profound cases.

... which, in America, for a person without really good insurance, may not be bountiful; I understand.

34

Syndrome1986 t1_iwigfpx wrote

Hiring a licensed therapist to run the thing might be a good step. You have the services on retainer and onsite at least part of the time.

3

gregorydgraham t1_iwfcw2g wrote

The secret sauce is not having stupid restrictions and accepting that some unsightly things will occur

27

FeelDeAssTyson t1_iwfdas7 wrote

Stupid as in staying sober? Don't the staff and specialists who work there deserve a safe working environment?

38

gregorydgraham t1_iwfg7t9 wrote

Yep, its stupid to demand people with problems fix their problems BEFORE you offer support for their problems

49

Zergzapper t1_iwfi6j3 wrote

And the Finn's proved it, housing first assistance is incredibly helpful, imagine trying to get clean when every night you are sleeping in a different place where it's not really safe well how bout you take a drink or a hit and now that problem is much less stressful. It's literally keeping them using just to keep them from a stress breakdown on the street which is of course also not a good mental health solution. You get people off the street, an address to have mail and checks sent to, a place with a locking front door, they immediately feel safer and those stressors are no longer there and no it's easier to.get them help.

30

Northstar1989 t1_iwfoiv8 wrote

>imagine trying to get clean when every night you are sleeping in a different place where it's not really safe

Exactly this.

Asking homeless people with addictions to be completely, 100% clean for an entire month before providing them housing is horribly unrealistic, and grounded in a lack of empathy or understanding of what these peoples' experiences are like...

18

Vyzantinist t1_iwg9ebt wrote

> imagine trying to get clean when every night you are sleeping in a different place where it's not really safe well how bout you take a drink or a hit and now that problem is much less stressful. It's literally keeping them using just to keep them from a stress breakdown on the street which is of course also not a good mental health solution.

This so much. Normies really don't know how bleak and soul-crushing homelessness is. You'd have to be a lottery-odds level of person to get and/or stay sober when you're in that environment.

8

corsicanguppy t1_iwfj9yh wrote

> fix their problems BEFORE you offer support for their problems

Alcohol and homelessness are comorbid and complex but not the same problems; and they require separate, layered solutions.

7

Northstar1989 t1_iwfoe7f wrote

>they require separate, layered solutions.

Solutions which are extremely, extremely difficult to provide in a sufficiently reliable manner while a person is still living on the streets or in shelters.

13

gregorydgraham t1_iwfpmi6 wrote

Oh no! Things are hard! Guess we’ll just leave them too die

/s for the eradication of doubt

3

Northstar1989 t1_iwfob1s wrote

>Stupid as in staying sober?

Stupid because it's incredibly difficult for someone struggling with addiction to BECOME (not "stay" as you misleadingly and falsely claim) sober while out on the streets.

Experience proves it's extremely difficult for an addict to become sober even when they have never been homeless. Doing it while still living on the streets, for an entire month (not some more realistic, reasonable requirement, like a few days) is nigh-impossible.

Asking for near-impossible things as a prerequisite to providing someone help is wishful thinking at best, and malice fueled by resentment and pride at worst...

33

g_cheeks t1_iwfys0e wrote

Much better for them to be in a program that they must participate in while being homed. Having a safe place to sleep and your own space makes a HUGE difference and will assist with many of the occupants progression of getting back on their feet

13

Northstar1989 t1_iwjbp2e wrote

Exactly.

Make participation mandatory, but don't make it a prerequisite to get off the streets.

1

Ryan7456 t1_iwfz63d wrote

Because every person who isn't sober is a violent psychopath.

0

SerendipitySue t1_iwfj4bk wrote

There are safety concerns for the other resident and staff and also the very facililities. Not unsightly..but dangerous.

So in Albuquerque they are selective. They also found some that qualified declined housing when they found it included participation in social services and minimal worl cleaning up the facilities. Last I read, they did get a few residents who were overjoyed.

The alburqerque project has no fed funding, so they could experiment with this model. As best as i recall.

18

corsicanguppy t1_iwfj6mp wrote

I don't think no restrictions worked well in the past. They may work better in tiny homes which are fully detached and have that added noise barrier of no shared walls, but that may be rare and doesn't seem to be definitely the case here.

1

gregorydgraham t1_iwfpig8 wrote

“I don’t think” - this is weak, you need to pump it up with “only an idiot thinks”

“Worked well” - this is an obvious weasel word (albeit a compound one), avoid slipperiness with “worked at all”.

“They may work better” - this is both weak and weaselly. Try “they only ever work”

“But that may be rare and doesn’t seem to be definitely the case here” - Ay caramba! Do you kiss your girlfriend with those lips? Even “but I don’t think so” would’ve been better

−17

JonnyBugLifter t1_iwgpl2r wrote

I’d love to watch an HOA try and do there thing in that neighborhood.

1

w3are138 t1_iwg1t2j wrote

That’s such a shame. I really believe in housing first without restrictions and definitely without the restriction of being sober for an entire month. People need to be housed first before they can address their other problems. It saddens me so much to imagine people being turned away just bc they’re suffering from addiction. We need to decriminalize drugs and really accept that addiction is a disease in this country, a medical condition that needs medical treatment. It needs to be treated the same as a broken leg or an ear infection. Removing the stigma and criminality would allow so many people to get the help they desperately need. It would save so many lives.

0