[ErikVandeWater]

I wish this article were more specific on what "housing first" means. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that homeless shelters across the country have empty beds, and that these are not considered housing.

When the article describes an alternative of providing the homeless "housing," what does this housing look like? What aspects of housing are provided that are not generally provided at homeless shelters? Is it privacy, security of belongings, a place to stay during the day, quietness during the night, or other factors that are most substantially different from what is currently available?

[jasmer]

Basically something that resembles a home aka apartment.

'Shelters' are not close to that. They are places to 'kind of sleep' and that's usually it.

It's not a 'home' if you have to share a room with 40 other smelly people and you have to be out by morning. There is a lot of theft, violence, many homeless find it much more peacable to sleep rough than in a shelter.

Many people are so messed up and many incorrigably irresponsible so this program won't work (the flats will immediately turn into repulsively dirty crack houses), but for many it's foundational to be able to sleep and 'be' somewhere that's warm, protected from the elements, where you're not going to be accosted, stolen from.

Just imagine trying to 'get a job' when you live in a tent. Our society is not very capable of handling that. Forget the physical duress of it - it's the psychological aspect. If you are in bum like conditions, surrounded by other bums, crackheads, thieves, it's really hard to fathom yourself as a 'good coffee server'.

Give people a flat with decent neighbours, a community etc and that's the bedrock from which everything else is founded, including their own identity.

All of that said, Finland is not California, and they are light years apart.

I can 100% see it working in Helsinki and not in Cali at all. For one thing, there would be 20 million people lined up for 'free housing' in Cali. They don't have the same kinds of communities to integrate people into, weaker family and cultural structures. Much, much worse violence etc..

But 'housing first' is an important insight to consider because when you think about it it makes sense.

[luckylion]

> But 'housing first' is an important insight to consider because when you think about it it makes sense.

And it's a good goal, too. I mean, to achieve that, you'd have to aggressively build apartments, because it's not like we have 50% of flats being empty and people ending up on the street because nobody will take the government's money and rent out apartments. Once you do that appropriately, some of the pressure will be lowered. You'll still end up with some people landing on the streets, but you'll have fewer, because rents are more affordable and especially smaller apartments are being built. Fewer people, smaller problem.

Unfortunately, that might also be why we're not doing it everywhere. For all I can tell, most local governments don't want new housing.

[jasmer]

They don't want new housing in specific areas and it's a 100% canard of an issue.

There is tons of space in Cali and no reason whatsover to build cheap housing in the most choice spots. It's ideology.

Just get the housing built.

LA County and Cali in general seems to be incompetent on the level of corruption in many ways which is sad.

And FYI state shoud be sharing this problem, moving individuals into already built housing in different states.

[standardUser]

Shelters are not homes and are no intended to be. They are a bed to sleep in if you don't have one that night and can comply with all of their many, many rules.

[Schroedingersat]

"Shelters" with no privacy, no ability to protect your belongings, predatory salvation army evangelicals, and lurking pimps are not homes.