Mackenzie Click-Mickelson
Chugging along the path of life
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2015
- Messages
- 31,081
That's one of the things from the articles I was reading from my area and what has happened in my area too--promises made and broken.
To speak towards the housing thing people tend to not think about how a kind gesture can also be one of misguidedness. Here's some quotes from the article from my area on that:
“The system we’ve set up is pretty much based on a lie,” On paper, it’s a linear process. If homeless people meet a few demands, they can go from the street to shelter to transitional living to permanent housing. But shelters often come with fears of safety. And transitional housing, while providing some independence, “is like living with the strictest parents ever,” he said. “Parents who answer to institutional rules. You have to give up who you are and be who they require you to be just so you can stay.” Those who want to maintain their autonomy, or who fail to succeed in the system, pay the dangerous price of living on the street...seen countless people kicked out of shelters or transitional housing for not attending programming or for breaking rules. Once that happens, they’re back on the street. “You cannot teach houseless people a lesson by not housing them,” Once they are safe, they can start addressing their other problems, traumas and addictions. The ones that led them to the streets. The ones that got them kicked out of shelters."
Rules def. exist for safety of not only those in the shelter but the community but there is also an application of sensitivity. How many times do people find themselves in situations with their elderly parents when it comes to autonomy? Why would we expect anyone else to be different?
In the article you posted it mentioned this: "several motel residents distrust the tiny homes, worrying the rules would be too restrictive and the accommodations wouldn’t meet their needs. Two of the sites have shared bathrooms, which made some motel residents uncomfortable. One woman, who has two dogs, worried she’d have to give one up to accommodate the one-pet policy." Which again points to a kind but misguided gesture. Of course being in from the elements accounts for something it shouldn't always be seen as the benevolent gesture it often is portrayed as.
In the article you posted it did mention case management services but what kind of attention did those services give to these people, most of the time you hear about the overworked, too many cases and not enough help so did Apple just pay for the services without knowing the interaction and level of attentiveness? One interesting point is why wouldn't Apple be forthright about what the program entailed as the article says they declined to comment on the program? What is there to hide? Shouldn't be anything IMO. Patient information is not needed to tell people what you're paying supposedly millions for.
