The holiday debates have begone.
"Only two people signed up for this tiny home program. The rest said they like being homeless."
I have the logic, but not living in Colorado, I don't have the facts. I do know they're playing a game of shuffle board with their homeless population after some quick investigation, but nothing specific to the claim. I'll get the article in reference if I can.
But man, how hard is it to accept that no one "wants" to be homeless.
This doesn't make it sound like Denver isn't doing its best.
Over the years, the articles that describe the in's and out's of the "shelter" system make it sound like shelters are just a form of jail.
Have a spouse of a different gender and children? Well, your male partner can't be in the same shelter as you.
Got a pet? Well fuck right the hell off.
Dormitory living setups and shared bathrooms means your stuff is going to be stolen and any weirdo's that make it into the shelter will have free reign to do what they want to you, your stuff, and where you sleep.
Gay? Trans? Better hope you can hide it, especially if the group running the shelter has some form of right wing religious ideology that views these groups as demons or some other silly shit.
Is the managing group's funding primarily by government grants or private donations/grant programs? Well, the group better not do anything that might get the politicians or rich private citizens angry that you're helping/housing the wrong kind of person. So its best to have incredibly strict criteria to keep publicity problems to a minimum.
If you're looking for a job and they ask for an address, I find it hard to believe that shelters are set up to work as a "home address" so how the fuck you'd be able to apply for a job if you can't find a way to piggy back on somebody's PO Box and their home address for applications.
a lot of these shelters will also prohibit substances on the premises and not all of them involve treatment programs, so if you are addicted to a substance (usually fentanyl right now), you'd have to go cold turkey just for housing. you're expected to get clean on the street and then get housing.
It also wouldn't surprise me if having a prescription for anything other than antibiotics might get you enough side eye to get booted out of or denied entry into a shelter.
I've been there personally. I was advised by two separate people involved in state vocational programs and the shelter staff themselves to not use the shelter's street address on job applications, if it's avoidable.
Considering the potential "one shot" you get at most of these fucking employers/companies with the unaccountable Gestapo bullshit their human resources departments are known for, and not knowing whether they retain applications for future reference if someone applies multiple times, I decided to spend some of my dwindling money on a PO box. And even then I was questioned at two different interviews about it, not too invasively but enough to further fray my nerves in an already precarious situation I was desperate to get out of.
I couldn't even get a fucking library card when using a shelter's street address without being questioned about it.
That's the thing, I'm positive that there's something that a shelter could set up to work as something that works as an address but isn't the actual shelter's own physical address.
By my own experience I would say it's necessary and should be legally mandated as long as this fucked up Calvinist society and the majority of private businesses which gatekeep the ability to pay for housing maintain their bigoted stigma against destitute people.
Absolutely.