[seanmcdirmid]

I’ve had neighbors with substance abuse problems and it was hell until my lease expired and I could get out. I’m glad you were functional when addicted or homeless, but that is the exception, not the rule.

I get it, I’m just another NIMBY becuase I’ve experienced someone trying to cook meth in their apartment next door, or a rat infestation overflowing from a hoarder. There are simply a lot of people out there who can’t live alone without lots of help. To think otherwise is insanity.

Houston’s approach is going to have blowback (I f it hasn’t already) if they are just throwing people in housing in the community. Again, housing first simply doesn’t work, you need to throw in a lot of additional social services if you don’t want the place to burn down. We also want to avoid slums where we just concentrate all the unhoused together, making the problem even more difficult.

I get the ideal that everyone deserves housing regardless of their lifestyle choices, implementation is much more complicated than that.

[pseudalopex]

"In 2019, 20.4 million people aged 12 or older (or 7.4 percent of this population) had an SUD in the past year, including 14.5 million who had an alcohol use disorder and 8.3 million who had an illicit drug use disorder (Figure 46)."[1] How many cook meth do you think? Probably you had neighbors whose substance abuse problems didn't affect you.

Housing 1st doesn't mean no social services. Providing social services is easier when people have homes actually.

[1] https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2019-nsduh-annual-nationa...

[goodpoint]

> I get it, I’m just another NIMBY

No need for strawmanning.

> There are simply a lot of people out there who can’t live alone without lots of help

You seem to keep labeling people as being intrinsically "homeless", "addicts", "unable to live alone".

This can happen to anybody, just like mental and physical illness can come without warning and without asking for permission.

"housing first" does not automatically imply "housing first and zero social services".

[mountainplus]

> There are simply a lot of people out there who can’t live alone without lots of help. To think otherwise is insanity.

> housing first simply doesn’t work, (...) implementation is much more complicated than that.

Thanks for sharing your experiences as well which helps understanding your position. However by your comment you seem to be arguing with yourself. I totally agree that they need support that's what I'm advocating for. You are the one in our discussion advocating against (or, at least, pointing out fairly hypothetical and broad-scoped reasons for possible failure) any advancement on giving that "lots of help" (eg. basic human decency). Surely you can't mean that leaving these poor people on the street, or moving them to an island for some zoning law schenanigans or just general sociopathic disregard (if they need it -- shouldn't they be consulted what is that they need?) looking through them or commenting here how giving them housing won't work, is a way towards giving them that?

Just for the fun of it you might try to imagine a situation where your home gets broken into you are robbed of your posessions, your sense of security but worse follows, a misinterpreted word on your interview with the kind insurance guy, or a mail never delivered makes them mark you suspicious and stall on paying you. You have no friends or ones you have are out of town, your parents can't pay for your accomodation, you spend a few nights at a hotel but then you might not have more cash, you are out of options and spend a few nights strolling or staring in a McDo, stressed out and tired. US has this stupid no-notice firing thing, so let's say after a week of no-show you get to charge your laptop to see you have been terminated. Now imagine how would you like others and the society to handle you and your situation. In one world you are now described as an addict, homeless person that might be unable to live alone on some webforums.