- cross-posted to:
- upliftingnews@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- upliftingnews@lemmy.world
Number of unsheltered dropped by more than half in this Nevada city after large tent to house its homeless was built
The “Biggest Little City in the World” is earning a new distinction: one of the few cities in the West to get large numbers of homeless off its streets.
The city teamed with Sparks, a neighboring city, and surrounding Washoe County to build a Nevada Cares Campus in 2021 that could accommodate more than 600 people in a giant tent and satellite sleeping pods. Since that year, the number of homeless living on the street has plummeted to 329 this year from 780, according to annual point-in-time counts.
The 58% drop is striking when compared with many other Western cities which have seen their unsheltered homeless populations grow or stagnate since the pandemic, amid soaring drug addiction and a federal appeals-court order that prevents cities in the region from clearing streets without providing enough beds. California has spent about $20 billion over the last five years to combat the problem, yet still has half the nation’s unsheltered homeless.
Once people are off the street and in the tent, the other part of Reno’s approach kicks in: helping them find a job, access other services and move them into permanent housing. Other cities are taking notice.
You must log in or register to comment.
Nothing new here. Give people access to free private housing and they can take care of everything else in their life.
I can’t imagine how hard it is to get a job to get yourself back on your feet when you don’t even have a permanent address.
Nowhere to keep/wash your clothes. Nowhere to shower. Nowhere to get mail. I’d bet a lot of computer systems aren’t even built to handle people without an address.
Its basically impossible
Having an actual address is ingrained in all aspects of modern life in the US. Picture trying to get a loan for a car, or applying for a job without an address - mandatory fields when doing either. Then look at the housing market, and it would be obvious to anybody why it’s so hard for these people.
Not to mention a lot of that paperwork might criminally prosecute you if you use some other address.
Think of the stories of people who were accused of being fraudulent voters for putting their address as a nearby grocery store or something like that.
It’s part of the conservative design of society, to be as cruel as possible to people who don’t comport.
It’s a good and necessary foundation but certainly not all of the equation. Mental health and addiction services are also necessary. Simply housing people will help a good chunk of the homeless population but that is largely the unseen homeless population that couch surfs and/or stays in their cars. They are very at risk of falling into the chronically homeless which takes a lot more resources to fix.
“Housing first” is the idea that most of life falling apart is from losing your most basic need: shelter.
It’s stressful to keep a job, distancing from friends and dates and family, if you don’t have a home and smell weird
Instead, when we give people homes without conditions, they can breath a sigh of relief, and have enough spoons to tackle the rest of the problems.
As pointed out, or as might need to be pointed out, nobody builds something this expensive without considering the auxiliary social services to help people get out of the situation for the next occupant.
It’s the most cost effective thing you can do, anything else is cruel, bureaucratic, and inefficient.
If you already have a job and relationships and suddenly end up unhoused, the community letting that spiral to your job firing you is a failing of the whole town. It doesn’t have to, all we need is to fill those empty homes…
Great to see from Reno.
I wonder how much this has to do with the fact that the Reno-Sparks area has a LOT of undeveloped land with no single family homes or apartments around it.
One of the biggest challenges in my area, the San Francisco Bay Area, is that most people agree that we need more housing and places for homeless people. But, no one wants housing for the homeless next to where they live.
Every neighborhood fights it, and undeveloped land is hard to find. So it’s got to be next to someone.
San Francisco residents will fight any development, not just housing for the homeless.
Seems the answer is lots of small distributed homeless support infrastructure to support the homeless that are already present in their neighborhoods. Still easier said than done though
Sounds much nicer than Las Vegas
Homeless people live in the tunnels under Las Vegas. Tunnels which can flood and wash them away in a desert downpour.
Too bad it’s not available in my country because I really wanted to read that!
Thanks! I forget it exists sometimes.
Shoot em $5 if you have it, they could use it :)
Fucking pay walls. I miss 12ft.io
Crazy how much money we spend on shit like space exploration when we can’t even take care of our people at home.
I guess it’s cause space exploration funnels more money to the ruling class faster than affordable housing.
We can do both. The problem is the people that believe certain people don’t “deserve” help.
Some people do not deserve help. Some people continuously make bad decision. I’ve seen such people turn their life around - but only after every friend gave up giving them free beds and meals. These people got straight A’s in school until they figured out they could cheat society to get everything for nothing.
The problem is that is a tiny minority of homeless. Most homeless either are trying but things are set against them, or don’t have the ability to fix their problems. Bay area housing is horribly expensive, and so there are a lot of homeless who would like to have a house but they can’t afford anything on the income they can earn (long term the solution is fix zoning so cheap housing can be built, but best case this is 20 years to make a difference). There are a lot of disabled people who cannot work a good job - often the disability is mental, and thus they will never be able get a good job and support themselves.
How do we turn the “folks standing around in a welfare line” conversations to reminding people that those exist but are a minority and most homeless have problems that we should help them with? don’t attack the message of lazy people - it is a real issue, just reminding people that we are looking at those who are not lazy.
Some people do not deserve help. Some people continuously make bad decision. I’ve seen such people turn their life around - but only after every friend gave up giving them free beds and meals. These people got straight A’s in school until they figured out they could cheat society to get everything for nothing.
The problem is that is a tiny minority of homeless. Most homeless either are trying but things are set against them, or don’t have the ability to fix their problems. Bay area housing is horribly expensive, and so there are a lot of homeless who would like to have a house but they can’t afford anything on the income they can earn (long term the solution is fix zoning so cheap housing can be built, but best case this is 20 years to make a difference). There are a lot of disabled people who cannot work a good job - often the disability is mental, and thus they will never be able get a good job and support themselves.
How do we turn the “folks standing around in a welfare line” conversations to reminding people that those exist but are a minority and most homeless have problems that we should help them with? don’t attack the message of lazy people - it is a real issue, just reminding people that we are looking at those who are not lazy.
If they are homeless, then how are they “cheating society to get everything for nothing?”
Getting straight A’s in school doesn’t preclude someone from having a mental health crisis, financial disaster, etc…
If one must have a spotless record to be eligible for help, it might defeat the purpose.
How lofty a view must you have of yourself that you should determine who is deserving of help surviving?
They are living for free with someone else, eating their food. Or.they are abusing welfare to have a house even though they could hold a job. Once all such programs stop supporting their lazy ways they get a job and prove they can work.
There are a lot of people deserving if help because they are unable to help themselves. However I have personally known a number who are pretending to need help so they can be lazy. Telling the difference is easy in practice, but hard to write down formally.
Some people do not deserve help. Some people continuously make bad decision. I’ve seen such people turn their life around - but only after every friend gave up giving them free beds and meals. These people got straight A’s in school until they figured out they could cheat society to get everything for nothing.
The problem is that is a tiny minority of homeless. Most homeless either are trying but things are set against them, or don’t have the ability to fix their problems. Bay area housing is horribly expensive, and so there are a lot of homeless who would like to have a house but they can’t afford anything on the income they can earn (long term the solution is fix zoning so cheap housing can be built, but best case this is 20 years to make a difference). There are a lot of disabled people who cannot work a good job - often the disability is mental, and thus they will never be able get a good job and support themselves.
How do we turn the “folks standing around in a welfare line” conversations to reminding people that those exist but are a minority and most homeless have problems that we should help them with? don’t attack the message of lazy people - it is a real issue, just reminding people that we are looking at those who are not lazy.
I don’t think we can do both, considering both endeavors don’t have enough funding.
The money is there though, it’s just not allotted to the right places.
It’s not allotted to the right places because we funnel as much money as possible to whatever makes rich people richer the fastest.
That’s space exploration, not housing.
I agree with you but space is far from being the most heavily subsidized sector. It’s not even close.
That’s private equity, not space exploration.
2023 NASA spending: $30.92B
2023 DoD spending: $1.52T ($152,000B)
Absolute miss. The problem has nothing to do with “running out of money”.
Yeah, it’s that money being spent in the wrong place to make rich people richer faster.
🤡
Wrong again. Go for 3?
The issue is misappropriation of funds, and lack of political will to make substantive developments for the homeless. A nimby issue largely.
Why are you attacking nasa of all things instead of all the other things?
