[ExI] Homelessness (was Re: Social right to have a living)

[Jeff Davis]

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Damien Sullivan
> <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> Homelessness
>> might look different if every citizen had by right a place they could go
>> to.
>
> Giving homeless people a home sounds like a really good idea, until you actually try it.

Sounds a lot like the old right -wing racist bigotry.  Just put
"nigger" in the place of "homeless" and it's a perfect cliche.

>They don't know how to take care of a home.

"They" (wink, wink)

> They  don't care about the home because they
> haven't invested in it.

They (wink, wink),

> It often becomes a place for them and their friends to take drugs,

Egregious slam at those degenerate "druggies", another group the
bigot-are-us crowd feel righteous about scapegoating.


> which makes the home a toxic dump unable to be
> used by anyone afterwards.

Aside from being ridiculous on the face of it, it shows the right's
obsession with "property over humanity".

> Many homeless in the US are mentally ill, turned out
> on the streets by well meaning liberals at the ACLU.

Egregious slam of "liberals".  Can you hear the sneer.  (Just like the
intonation of "nigger" from the lips of a ""conservative" southerner).
 Should be "turned out on the streets by the Regan Administration."
That is if you care about facts.

>
> Programs that are successful require daily
> visits to the home,  education and a number
>of other programs in addition to just giving
> them a home.
>
> Not all homeless people are created
> equal, and some would do well if
> you just gave them a house.

>I would submit that the percentage that
> would do well in this situation is lower
> than you might think.

You would submit, eh?  Well, dang!, that must mean it's true then.
>
> In Singapore, they give everyone a home.

Googled this up, seems like a thoroughly successful program, none of
the "poor people are filthy vermin" results seen in my brief scan of
the report.  But maybe they were just lieing,...you know those gooks.

Squatters No More: Singapore Social Housing

http://www.pragueinstitute.org/GUDMag07Vol3Iss1/Yuen.htm

> The homes became  uninhabitable
> for many people in short order.

I don't doubt that some right-wing rag somewhere would put that spin
on it.  The report I read(link above; missed seeing any links from
you) was more neutral in tone.  Various problems that developed in the
program -- such as occasionally shoddy construction -- were addressed.
 Regarding resident "adjustment" issues see the end of this rather
comprehensive (ie long) article.

Squatters No More: Singapore Social Housing
Belinda Yuen

In this paper, we investigate the public housing policy of Singapore,
which is often cited as a successful example of affordable housing
production in Asian cities. As with Hong Kong, the Singapore public
housing policy intervention for resident population has progressively
led to society-wide enjoyment of the right to adequate housing. Some
85 per cent of Singapore’s resident population live in public housing.
More than 850,000 housing units in 23 new towns have been constructed.
While the poor elsewhere are homeless, the poorest 20 per cent of
households in Singapore have equal access to housing resources, albeit
public housing, and many are homeowners. The proportions bear witness
to the realization of housing rights.

>So they changed the  program so people
> had to pay for the home,

No.  They made purchase of the rental units optional and doable.  No "had to".

> and it worked much better.

What you meant was, "and that made an excellent program of state
subsidized social engineering (ie socialism) even better."

> This isn't a simple problem.

Particularly if you come at it from a "poor/homeless people are
degenerate deranged trash" point of view.

Best, Jeff Davis

 There's always a choice between treating well-
 phrased nonsense kindly and delivering a firm
 notice of no nonsense on the premises. The former
 tends to give the nonsense giver advantage...

                          Reason