Starbucks to close stores for employee safety. Let’s discuss.

[Ann.without.an.e]

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/trending/just-beginning-starbucks-ceo-says-many-more-store-closings-tap/PVQOFPI3DRD5FFSFCFO7BBVPX4/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2TkJ40k2-VxyKG1KNPoiWnfUKx5kgd5Nq6MlEFBeVx5H7QDPsjiQfElAg&fs=e&s=cl#l5uvvyeeicyat98bkf
 

a quote:

“The video, posted on Twitter, also shows Schultz explaining the closures target stores deemed “not profitable” due to an uptick in what Bloomberg called “safety-related problems,” including crime, homelessness and drug use in store bathrooms.
“It has shocked me that one of the primary concerns that our retail partners have is their own personal safety,” Schultz said in the video.”

I rarely go to Starbucks but the last few times I went to a location within walking distance to a homeless population it was terrible. Homeless people asleep at tables and outside, the bathroom was closed down and unavailable (because of reasons states above), one store smelled so bad like alcohol and urine mixed. 
 

This is a result of a decision a few years ago that anyone can be there even if they aren’t a customer. Employees aren’t allowed to ask people to leave.
 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Ann.without.an.e

[Hyacinth]

14 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/trending/just-beginning-starbucks-ceo-says-many-more-store-closings-tap/PVQOFPI3DRD5FFSFCFO7BBVPX4/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2TkJ40k2-VxyKG1KNPoiWnfUKx5kgd5Nq6MlEFBeVx5H7QDPsjiQfElAg&fs=e&s=cl#l5uvvyeeicyat98bkf
 

a quote:

“The video, posted on Twitter, also shows Schultz explaining the closures target stores deemed “not profitable” due to an uptick in what Bloomberg called “safety-related problems,” including crime, homelessness and drug use in store bathrooms.
“It has shocked me that one of the primary concerns that our retail partners have is their own personal safety,” Schultz said in the video.”

I rarely go to Starbucks but the last few times I went to a location within walking distance to a homeless population it was terrible. Homeless people asleep at tables and outside, the bathroom was closed down and unavailable (because of reasons states above), one store smelled so bad like alcohol and urine mixed. 
 

This is a result of a decision a few years ago that anyone can be there even if they aren’t a customer. Employees aren’t allowed to ask people to leave.
 

 

 

What did they think was going to happen? Are the leaders really surprised?

[Ann.without.an.e]

I know right, I feel like we may have even discussed here (or maybe it was irl with some friends) where this would go? 😂

I find it so head in the sand that they won’t acknowledge it was their own corporate decisions and fear of having standards that led to this decision. No acknowledgement. It’s almost embarrassing.

[Bambam]

I'm not surprised. At least one bakery in our area closed due to problems with homeless folks coming in/harassing employees arriving extremely early in the morning to start baking - owners just didn't feel comfortable with the situations they were having to face regularly - nor did they feel their employees should have to face those situations either.  I loved that bakery. I miss them. 
 

[Faith-manor]

37 minutes ago, Bambam said:

I'm not surprised. At least one bakery in our area closed due to problems with homeless folks coming in/harassing employees arriving extremely early in the morning to start baking - owners just didn't feel comfortable with the situations they were having to face regularly - nor did they feel their employees should have to face those situations either.  I loved that bakery. I miss them. 
 

I think situations like these require community action. Individual businesses can solve them alone.

[Faith-manor]

Also, we do have a fast food restaurant in the county who has faced this same issue of employee safety. It is the Taco Bell in the county seat. The owner closed it for one month and had a renovation done. The dining area was torn out, and the kitchen expanded as well as the drive through lane. It will be a drive through only now with all the employees who once worked the front taking orders, cleaning the dining area, etc, now working in the kitchen and filling orders. They have always done more of their business as drive through than dine-in, so I think it will work. Starbucks may be at a disadvantage because some of their stores do not have drive through, and cannot expand to offer that.

[Bambam]

3 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I think situations like these require community action. Individual businesses can solve them alone.

The community action was to demolish an older run down but still in business motel where many homeless, drug users/sellers, and prostitutes hung out. That has improved that area (one friend lives close and she now feels much safer and the park she lives next to is now really usable for families again), but the issue seems to have just relocated to other areas. I do not know what the solution is, but just relocating the issue doesn't seem like a solution to me. 

[Faith-manor]

1 minute ago, Bambam said:

The community action was to demolish an older run down but still in business motel where many homeless, drug users/sellers, and prostitutes hung out. That has improved that area (one friend lives close and she now feels much safer and the park she lives next to is now really usable for families again), but the issue seems to have just relocated to other areas. I do not know what the solution is, but just relocating the issue doesn't seem like a solution to me. 

Yes, I think so too. That seems like a simplistic approach to a complex problem. I guess at least they tried which is more than what some communities do. I feel sorry for the business owners who face this.

[Ann.without.an.e]

3 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I think situations like these require community action. Individual businesses can solve them alone.

What sort of community action do you think would work? I’m genuinely curious.

 
Business owners can’t call police without being made to be the bad guy for escalating a situation. No one wants to involve police but no one wants to deal with the issues at hand.

1 minute ago, Bambam said:

The community action was to demolish an older run down but still in business motel where many homeless, drug users/sellers, and prostitutes hung out. That has improved that area (one friend lives close and she now feels much safer and the park she lives next to is now really usable for families again), but the issue seems to have just relocated to other areas. I do not know what the solution is, but just relocating the issue doesn't seem like a solution to me. 

Yes just like Starbucks won’t change their policies back, they’ll just remove themselves from the areas that face these issues. We’re just relocating the problems and have no real tools to solve the issues. I don’t have answers either but I wish there were true solutions. 

[Faith-manor]

I think that the mini home idea with a central bath, shower, kitchen center that one community in Oregon tried seemed to really help. It gave each homeless person their own space/privacy, an address which so important for applying for jobs and social safety net benefits, and a safe place to be. But, it has been a few years since I read up on it so I don't know if it was effective in the long term.

[HomeAgain]

It is a right shame that communities often only use the solution of criminalizing homeless people instead of offering assistance.  When you stop to think about what your options are they're very limited:

• Must leave the homeless shelter at first light, even in winter
• Hostile architecture means parks, city streets, true public areas are not public-centered
• There are no bathrooms in metro stations, so you can't use the train to escape from the weather
• There are few to no mental health services
• Getting back on your feet is prohibitive without a location that provides free wifi
• Libraries are available, but often close earlier or have wonky hours

 

So the problem isn't the homeless population in Starbucks.  The problem is that city leaders have not stepped up to the plate and offered actual assistance to homeless people, which means businesses like Starbucks are filling social gaps.

[Soror]

I'd like to hear more info because from what I'd read these are also stores that were unionizing. Maybe I didn't get the full picture or that isn't accurate but it gave me pause in accepting their story that this is all about safety.

ITA with programs that help the homeless. We can't just make laws against their existence and expect them to go away. Do we just want to throw them all in jail?

[Ann.without.an.e]

18 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

It is a right shame that communities often only use the solution of criminalizing homeless people instead of offering assistance.  When you stop to think about what your options are they're very limited:

• Must leave the homeless shelter at first light, even in winter
• Hostile architecture means parks, city streets, true public areas are not public-centered
• There are no bathrooms in metro stations, so you can't use the train to escape from the weather
• There are few to no mental health services
• Getting back on your feet is prohibitive without a location that provides free wifi
• Libraries are available, but often close earlier or have wonky hours

 

So the problem isn't the homeless population in Starbucks.  The problem is that city leaders have not stepped up to the plate and offered actual assistance to homeless people, which means businesses like Starbucks are filling social gaps.

I fully agree and see the problems. I think there needs to be real solutions. 
To be clear when I said that about calling police, I mean for when workers feel threatened. Being homeless isn’t a crime. These people don’t need to be incarcerated. They need help. Establishments like Starbucks can’t truly do that. 

24 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I think that the mini home idea with a central bath, shower, kitchen center that one community in Oregon tried seemed to really help. It gave each homeless person their own space/privacy, an address which so important for applying for jobs and social safety net benefits, and a safe place to be. But, it has been a few years since I read up on it so I don't know if it was effective in the long term.

This is a great idea. 

[Annie G]

43 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

What sort of community action do you think would work? I’m genuinely curious.

The city nearest us has implemented a government sanctioned encampment for homeless people. They have set aside a centrally located park, provided tents and portable potties (working on bathing facilities), and have staff to help residents get things they need like ID, birth certificates, social,security cards, etc., and also help them get services they might need. 
Our climate is mild enough that tents are ok for maybe 10 months of the year. Not a perfect solution, but it does give people their own space. A family can stay together, or a single person can have his/her own space.  
The goal is to give them a place to live while they wait for the rapid rehousing program (which is a private organization, I think) to find them permanent housing. 
 

It’s not perfect, and I don’t like criminalizing homelessness, but businesses need to be able to run without non customers running off the customers they need to stay afloat. Dd worked in a Santa Barbara Starbucks and had to clean up needles and other stuff left behind when addicts used the bathroom to do drugs. It can be scary to have to break into a bathroom and find a person passed out with a needle still in her arm. 
 

Government action is community action. Working together - bringing agencies and volunteers together to fill needs, along with government agencies, is the only way I can see a way forward.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

We have two homeless centers(really one is a converted house and one is a church that has built a homeless shelter)  and neither one requires that you leave during the day.  Also, anyone in this county who wants housing can get it, even if the shelters are full. If you go to catholic charities and request housing they’ll get you a cheap motel room if the shelters are full. Some people live there for months.  You don’t have to leave during the day.

And there’s still a large homeless problem.  I can’t take my kids to the wonderful big library because there are continually fights inside and outside, we’ve found needles in the bathrooms, drunk people sleeping in the chairs.  Since the homeless and addicted population tend to use the 911 system for medical care, I’ve had the opportunity to ask why people don’t go to the homeless shelters.  The bottom line almost always is there is a strict no alcohol or drug policy and you have to be actively seeking a job or working while there unless you’re disabled, and then the expectation is that you’ll be making plans for subsidized housing for disabled people.   It’s easy for me to think well, yeah, homeless shelters aren’t permanent and of course you should be seeking sobriety—but truthfully there are people who don’t necessarily want to be housed, do not want rehab or sobriety, are not interested really in getting clean, do not want a job even if they are able to work, probably because you cannot be high or drunk at most jobs.  I may not understand it, but that’s reality.  I don’t live someplace where tents would be appropriate(it’s 98 degrees today; in six months it will be 5 degrees), but frankly the motels don’t want people using drugs in their rooms and neither do the homeless shelters.

Harm reduction programs are great and I’m familiar with one close by, but honestly the usage still isn’t fantastic and homelessness and public drug use, as well as overdoses, is a major issue despite having a safe place to get clean needles and shoot up.

I don’t have the answers, but it’s a problem I see almost daily. And I don’t live in a very urban area.

[Bambam]

1 hour ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Business owners can’t call police without being made to be the bad guy for escalating a situation. No one wants to involve police but no one wants to deal with the issues at hand.

Owners did call police during the regular store hours. Criminal Trespass (?) tickets (?) were issued, and offenders were relocated or told to move along, but it was never ending.  It wasn't a solution, people were less desirous of going there because of that issue, and it only stopped the problem for that short amount of time. 

But the real issue was the arriving early in the morning and being concerned for your safety going into the building. It's 0 dark thirty, no one else but suspicious characters are around, things happen, you can call the cops, but it takes a while for them to get there, and it isn't like they can arrange to be there at 0 dark thirty to escort you into the building and make sure building is secure *each* and *every* day you are open. The police do have other calls to respond to. You could hire security, but the cost of your goods just went up a huge amount - especially if you are a small business already struggling. 

[Ann.without.an.e]

8 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Since the homeless and addicted population tend to use the 911 system for medical care, I’ve had the opportunity to ask why people don’t go to the homeless shelters.  The bottom line almost always is there is a strict no alcohol or drug policy and you have to be actively seeking a job or working while there unless you’re disabled, and then the expectation is that you’ll be making plans for subsidized housing for disabled people.   It’s easy for me to think well, yeah, homeless shelters aren’t permanent and of course you should be seeking sobriety—but truthfully there are people who don’t necessarily want to be housed, do not want rehab or sobriety, are not interested really in getting clean, do not want a job even if they are able to work, probably because you cannot be high or drunk at most jobs.  I may not understand it, but that’s reality.  I don’t live someplace where tents would be appropriate(it’s 98 degrees today; in six months it will be 5 degrees), but frankly the motels don’t want people using drugs in their rooms and neither do the homeless shelters.

 

 

DH and I used to volunteer at a local rescue mission and we saw this a lot. It was rare to meet people who were homeless who weren’t abusing alcohol or drugs. They didn’t have shelter options because of the drugs and alcohol. We would feed them but they didn’t want solutions either, unless it meant someone catered to them as they continued to be strung out on these things. In our area, the situation where someone just needed a break is practically unheard of (I know this isn’t the case in all areas). There are so many helps and aids and programs for someone who is homeless but not if they are also dependent on substances. There are rules for a lot of the help organizations and shelters and they don’t want to abide by the rules. They’d rather live on the street than give up the substance. The bigger issue that I see is the drug abuse. 

[denarii]

58 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I think that the mini home idea with a central bath, shower, kitchen center that one community in Oregon tried seemed to really help. It gave each homeless person their own space/privacy, an address which so important for applying for jobs and social safety net benefits, and a safe place to be. But, it has been a few years since I read up on it so I don't know if it was effective in the long term.

I've seen similar programs but the problem is the cost of running them is often more than just providing rental vouchers etc. But giving rent money to drug addicts doesn't earn you votes. 

The big issue is the homeless are not one single demographic with cohesive needs. 

I've seen them broken down into three basic categories by need.

1. Short term homeless. These are usually your laid off, recently disable, etc. They usually need temporary monetary support, assistance findings employment, and/or navigating government forms. 

2. Medium term homeless. Mental health issues OR drug addition is usually the primary problem. Giving them job training will not help them at the moment. They need harm reduction support like methadone, safe injection sites etc (let's keep them alive while we try and help get them clean), mental health supports, transitional housing. 

3. Long term homeless. Severe mental health issues and drug addiction. These people will often never be housed independently without a large amount of support and a social safety network built around them. 

This topic is a very sore spot for me. I watched an old friend spiral down through addiction and mental health struggles until he was stabbed to death a year ago. 

Training to respond appropriately and de-escalate situations requires training that I would not expect Starbucks employees to have. 

[prairiewindmomma]

The mental health--drug abuse thing seems to be circular here. People start with one and it circles back to the other.

I live in a place where there are a variety of options for the houseless--authorized campsites with trash pickup and port-a-potties, a limited number of tiny houses, shelters that provide laundry/showers/food/access to limited nursing care.  Cooling and heating shelters are opened up.  But, people also go to Starbucks because there's free wifi, it's temperature controlled, and so on.  

We're having a couple of stores close here.  One has a nearly sister location inside of a grocery store.  The other filed to unionize recently.

1% of Starbucks stores are unionized, Starbucks is closing 19% of unionized stores.

[thewellerman]

I've heard a few homeless people discuss their concerns with shelters, namely that they are dirty and their things get stolen.  While it seems like a good idea to group these troubled people together, I think grouping them is perhaps a big part of why the shelter system and supports fail.  These are people who are already struggling physically, emotionally, etc, and they are not going to necessarily have the skills or means to build healthy communities with each other.  People with means and skills have a hard time managing to help just 1 person and often cannot.  It seems bizarre to me to blame the homeless and hurting for not utilizing resources or the groups that try to help them for not not doing more and doing it better.  

 

[denarii]

34 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

 I can’t take my kids to the wonderful big library because there are continually fights inside and outside, we’ve found needles in the bathrooms, drunk people sleeping in the chairs.  

Ok. This bothers me. I've facilitated a lot of training for library staff and this is absolutely a failure on the part of management. 

At the bare minimum they must have sharp containers in every bathroom. Period. Naloxone must be part of their first aid kits and staff have to be trained. My local library does naloxone training for staff every year. 

Second they need rules on appropriate behavior in the library and staff must be trained and support in enforcing them.

Fighting? Call the cops. I absolutely do not want anyone trying to break up a fight. Violence or threats of violence are an immediate 911 call and the perpetrators are banned for a time. 

Sleeping? My local library has a no sleeping rule and it is enforced but done so kindly. 

 

 

[Arcadia]

7 minutes ago, denarii said:

 

Fighting? Call the cops. I absolutely do not want anyone trying to break up a fight. Violence or threats of violence are an immediate 911 call and the perpetrators are banned for a time. 

My nearest state university allows public to use the library. People sometimes fight with the library security. It can be scary to use the library.

OP,

The Starbucks inside Target, Macy’s, Safeway supermarket, college campuses and food courts are doing very well locally. All these places have security on site though. One of the malls we go to have a Starbucks in the food court and another Starbucks in the parking lot with a drive thru. The one with the drive through has most of their customers doing the drive thru or picking up mobile orders. The space inside for customers is small and I don’t remember any seating.  
My local large Starbucks stores are rather empty during the pandemic with many just grabbing their mobile orders and leaving.  I won’t be surprised if Starbucks give up some of the large ones due to rental costs and downsize to a smaller store front.

[brehon]

1 hour ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Since the homeless and addicted population tend to use the 911 system for medical care, I’ve had the opportunity to ask why people don’t go to the homeless shelters.  The bottom line almost always is there is a strict no alcohol or drug policy and you have to be actively seeking a job or working while there unless you’re disabled, and then the expectation is that you’ll be making plans for subsidized housing for disabled people.   It’s easy for me to think well, yeah, homeless shelters aren’t permanent and of course you should be seeking sobriety—but truthfully there are people who don’t necessarily want to be housed, do not want rehab or sobriety, are not interested really in getting clean, do not want a job even if they are able to work, probably because you cannot be high or drunk at most jobs.

The bolded is definitely true in the cities near where I live. Big City tried the tent idea and it was an utter failure. I don’t think they tied it with various forms of assistance, though. The city council has since stopped the tent expansion policy and tried to clean up the worst affected areas. 

[mum]

My daughter was a case manager in a homeless shelter in a metro area that has exceedingly high homelessness. It was a program that required participants to be drug and alcohol free, the program offered a lot of help and was for a specified length of time. Participants had to WANT to improve their situation, be training for a job, etc.  It was very successful. Not 100% of course, but on balance, successful. So that's one way to go.

The drug and alcohol issue is harder. Most shelters are basically saying, "We will help you as long as you give up the things that are your coping mechanisms while you are in the most desperate situation of your life."  It's expecting a lot to ask someone to give up their coping mechanism BEFORE they've had adequate help with all of their problems which led them to seek the coping measures in the first place. I have read many studies that show best results from providing at least shelter, toilets and showers (nothing fancy at all) to everyone who needs it, regardless of their substance use. Only when someone feels that they have those most basic human needs met, can their substance abuse issues begin to be addressed. And some truly don't want to/can't give up their substances. (I know there will be disagreement to the "can't" but I think in some cases it is true). If they can't/won't give up their substances are we saying that they don't deserve any help at all? I can't answer that, but even prisoners are entitled to food and shelter. They are all human beings. 

I have no answers. I just feel a lot of compassion. I just spent a week living in the neighborhood with the highest concentrated poverty in the United States. A family member lives there permanently, by choice, because they feel the neighborhood and the people in it have value-even if they are raving in front of your house or leaving needles on the street.

[Lady Florida.]

2 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

 I can’t take my kids to the wonderful big library because there are continually fights inside and outside, we’ve found needles in the bathrooms, drunk people sleeping in the chairs.  

One of our biggest library branches has the same problem. People I know who live in an are that makes it the closest library will go out of their way to a different branch. 

2 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I don’t have the answers, but it’s a problem I see almost daily. And I don’t live in a very urban area.

I also don't live in an urban area. It's a big problem and sometimes I think it's harder to find solutions in suburban type areas like mine. I too don't have answers.

[prairiewindmomma]

Re: the unhoused and civility, a point I didn't get too deep in initially. I'm seeing general "civility" issues everywhere. My local urgent care, which is decidedly NOT filled with the unhoused now has two posted security guards. Every exam room has a number of signs up re: mask wearing, being civil, and so on.  We have had a huge uptick in road rage shootings.  Someone was recently killed on the highway coming back from the beach. I'm actually going to the beach less because every time I go, people are honking and yelling and brake checking because people are going 65 in a 55 and they want to go 80.  We've had amazon drivers and bus drivers and just random drivers get shot in neighborhoods that I wouldn't characterize as rough. I see really angry people everywhere I go. 

So, IMO, the rage and safety issues aren't just among the unhoused.

And I still think most of the recent store closures are about union busting.  Chipotle is doing much the same right now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/07/20/chipotle-union-maine-store-closure/

[denarii]

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

My nearest state university allows public to use the library. People sometimes fight with the library security. It can be scary to use the library.

Unfortunately there isn't a magic bullet but I 100% believe, with sufficient staff training and support, the severity and frequency of incidents can be reduced. 

 

[mum]

34 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Re: the unhoused and civility, a point I didn't get too deep in initially. I'm seeing general "civility" issues everywhere. My local urgent care, which is decidedly NOT filled with the unhoused now has two posted security guards. Every exam room has a number of signs up re: mask wearing, being civil, and so on.  We have had a huge uptick in road rage shootings.  Someone was recently killed on the highway coming back from the beach. I'm actually going to the beach less because every time I go, people are honking and yelling and brake checking because people are going 65 in a 55 and they want to go 80.  We've had amazon drivers and bus drivers and just random drivers get shot in neighborhoods that I wouldn't characterize as rough. I see really angry people everywhere I go. 

So, IMO, the rage and safety issues aren't just among the unhoused.

And I still think most of the recent store closures are about union busting.  Chipotle is doing much the same right now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/07/20/chipotle-union-maine-store-closure/

Agree!

[Grace Hopper]

3 hours ago, mum said:

My daughter was a case manager in a homeless shelter in a metro area that has exceedingly high homelessness. It was a program that required participants to be drug and alcohol free, the program offered a lot of help and was for a specified length of time. Participants had to WANT to improve their situation, be training for a job, etc.  It was very successful. Not 100% of course, but on balance, successful. So that's one way to go.

The drug and alcohol issue is harder. Most shelters are basically saying, "We will help you as long as you give up the things that are your coping mechanisms while you are in the most desperate situation of your life."  It's expecting a lot to ask someone to give up their coping mechanism BEFORE they've had adequate help with all of their problems which led them to seek the coping measures in the first place. I have read many studies that show best results from providing at least shelter, toilets and showers (nothing fancy at all) to everyone who needs it, regardless of their substance use. Only when someone feels that they have those most basic human needs met, can their substance abuse issues begin to be addressed. And some truly don't want to/can't give up their substances. (I know there will be disagreement to the "can't" but I think in some cases it is true). If they can't/won't give up their substances are we saying that they don't deserve any help at all? I can't answer that, but even prisoners are entitled to food and shelter. They are all human beings. 

I have no answers. I just feel a lot of compassion. I just spent a week living in the neighborhood with the highest concentrated poverty in the United States. A family member lives there permanently, by choice, because they feel the neighborhood and the people in it have value-even if they are raving in front of your house or leaving needles on the street.

Thanks for sharing that point - quite valid. I’d not heard this mentioned before but it definitely makes sense. 

[denarii]

5 hours ago, mum said:

The drug and alcohol issue is harder. Most shelters are basically saying, "We will help you as long as you give up the things that are your coping mechanisms while you are in the most desperate situation of your life."  It's expecting a lot to ask someone to give up their coping mechanism BEFORE they've had adequate help with all of their problems which led them to seek the coping measures in the first place. I have read many studies that show best results from providing at least shelter, toilets and showers (nothing fancy at all) to everyone who needs it, regardless of their substance use. Only when someone feels that they have those most basic human needs met, can their substance abuse issues begin to be addressed. And some truly don't want to/can't give up their substances. (I know there will be disagreement to the "can't" but I think in some cases it is true). If they can't/won't give up their substances are we saying that they don't deserve any help at all? I can't answer that, but even prisoners are entitled to food and shelter. They are all human beings. 

I once asked a regular I hadn't seen in a while how they were doing. They smiled and replied "I'm doing really good. I'm drunk right now but I'm not high!"

Honestly, there are times someone shares with me and I can't help but think "yup, if I was you I'd be high or drunk right now too".

Requiring a drug user suffering from schizophrenia to be sober, participating in job training etc. to have a safe place to sleep is just cruel. Instead he will sleep rough during a Canadian winter and lose most of his hand to frostbite. I promise his hospital stay cost more than just housing him for the winter would have cost. 

But we are a society that likes to kick people when they are down. 

[whitestavern]

8 hours ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

 

DH and I used to volunteer at a local rescue mission and we saw this a lot. It was rare to meet people who were homeless who weren’t abusing alcohol or drugs. They didn’t have shelter options because of the drugs and alcohol. We would feed them but they didn’t want solutions either, unless it meant someone catered to them as they continued to be strung out on these things. In our area, the situation where someone just needed a break is practically unheard of (I know this isn’t the case in all areas). There are so many helps and aids and programs for someone who is homeless but not if they are also dependent on substances. There are rules for a lot of the help organizations and shelters and they don’t want to abide by the rules. They’d rather live on the street than give up the substance. The bigger issue that I see is the drug abuse. 

The homeless shelter in our area opted to close because of a new state regulation requiring shelters to admit intoxicated clients. 🙁

[whitestavern]

1 hour ago, denarii said:

I once asked a regular I hadn't seen in a while how they were doing. They smiled and replied "I'm doing really good. I'm drunk right now but I'm not high!"

Honestly, there are times someone shares with me and I can't help but think "yup, if I was you I'd be high or drunk right now too".

Requiring a drug user suffering from schizophrenia to be sober, participating in job training etc. to have a safe place to sleep is just cruel. Instead he will sleep rough during a Canadian winter and lose most of his hand to frostbite. I promise his hospital stay cost more than just housing him for the winter would have cost. 

But we are a society that likes to kick people when they are down. 

But it’s not really fair to the people who are in the shelters who aren’t under an influence, including the staff, especially if the drunk or high people are loud, violent, vomiting, etc. 

[denarii]

1 minute ago, whitestavern said:

But it’s not really fair to the people who are in the shelters who aren’t under an influence, including the staff, especially if the drunk or high people are loud, violent, vomiting, etc. 

Key word being IF. If they have been using and are not not loud, violent, or vomiting etc why kick them out? 

I've seen some pretty appalling behavior from people who are sober. 

We need short term rental assistance and easy to access dry shelters for people experiencing a short term crisis. 

We need transitional housing for people going through mental health or addiction outpatient treatment. 

And yes, we need wet shelters so people, drug addicts are people, don't die of exposure on the streets. 

[livetoread]

I am in favor of helping the substance abusers get housing too. We have this notion that if people are miserable enough, they'll find the motivation to quit, but we are starting to realize for a lot of users, this isn't true. Numbing yourself can be a pain avoidant coping mechanism. Maybe people will use less when they are in less pain and manage to see some hope for a different life. "Hitting bottom" might not be necessary after all and there can be a lot of trauma done on the way down to the bottom.

I have a relative who does substance abuse therapy and they have a lot to say about the harm they think has been done by the main substance abuse theories. They see usage as often trauma based numbing and the goal might be safer, less frequent usage rather than abstinence. They also see it as often a response to lack of community and connection which ends up a vicious circle because it is hard to build connection to someone who is using frequently.

 

 

 

[Happy2BaMom]

2 hours ago, livetoread said:

I have a relative who does substance abuse therapy and they have a lot to say about the harm they think has been done by the main substance abuse theories. They see usage as often trauma based numbing and the goal might be safer, less frequent usage rather than abstinence. They also see it as often a response to lack of community and connection which ends up a vicious circle because it is hard to build connection to someone who is using frequently.

Dr. Gabor Mate's book, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction, details these very things (as do his YT talks.  A very worthwhile read.

[Ann.without.an.e]

Idk y’all, I think it would be great if we lived in a world where abusers were helped up and that dominoed into them finding motivation to do better. Theidea that you can’t do better because your situation is so bleak is hard for me because of personal experience. My aunt is strung out and she’s been helped so many times. She drained my grandmother financially multiple times over trying to help her. She will take and take and take and disappear when she has what she wants and show back when she needs food, shelter, clothing, and money. She’s been offered a roof over her head, a good job, clothes, food, etc multiples times by so many of us. Nothing matters to her but her next hit. She will throw it all away in a hot second for that. Do we hate on these people? No. I have a lot of compassion for them, I hate that they are enslaved to a substance that controls them. But I’ve truly seen that you can help and give and give and it do nothing  because the substance always wins, well 99% of the time anyway. She always cried about her “bad luck” but would never admit it was her bad decisions again and again. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Ann.without.an.e

[livetoread]

13 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Idk y’all, I think it would be great if we lived in a world where abusers were helped up and that dominoed into them finding motivation to do better. Theidea that you can’t do better because your situation is so bleak is hard for me because of personal experience. My aunt is strung out and she’s been helped so many times. She drained my grandmother financially multiple times over trying to help her. She will take and take and take and disappear when she has what she wants and show back when she needs food, shelter, clothing, and money. She’s been offered a roof over her head, a good job, clothes, food, etc multiples times by so many of us. Nothing matters to her but her next hit. She will throw it all away in a hot second for that. Do we hate on these people? No. I have a lot of compassion for them, I hate that they are enslaved to a substance that controls them. But I’ve truly seen that you can help and give and give and it do nothing  because the substance always wins, well 99% of the time anyway. She always cried about her “bad luck” but would never admit it was her bad decisions again and again. 

I don't disagree with you and I don't think anything you said is counter to what I was saying. Addiction is messy and hard for all involved. There are no easy answers, and you're right, it's not as simple as saying just give them help and they'll be better. It goes deeper than that for sure. 

[Farrar]

There was a great piece in the NYT earlier this week about how codependence and rock bottom are total myths. There's nothing to back them up. It's utter nonsense.

That was focused on family and friends, but I'd say the same goes for housing first policies. Housing first isn't about anything but actually housing people with no strings attached.

As for Starbucks, this feels like a media manipulation issue. My Starbucks is in an area with lots of homeless people. This is not a real issue. I really think Starbucks is just trying to get sympathy for the idea that they should be given a pass to mistreat people. And to get rid of stores that were considering unionizing. That's like how Chipotle just shut down their store that unionized. 

[Happy2BaMom]

13 hours ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Idk y’all, I think it would be great if we lived in a world where abusers were helped up and that dominoed into them finding motivation to do better. Theidea that you can’t do better because your situation is so bleak is hard for me because of personal experience. My aunt is strung out and she’s been helped so many times. She drained my grandmother financially multiple times over trying to help her. She will take and take and take and disappear when she has what she wants and show back when she needs food, shelter, clothing, and money. She’s been offered a roof over her head, a good job, clothes, food, etc multiples times by so many of us. Nothing matters to her but her next hit. She will throw it all away in a hot second for that. Do we hate on these people? No. I have a lot of compassion for them, I hate that they are enslaved to a substance that controls them. But I’ve truly seen that you can help and give and give and it do nothing  because the substance always wins, well 99% of the time anyway. She always cried about her “bad luck” but would never admit it was her bad decisions again and again. 

I'm not sure if my post was part of what was intended in your response, but (in case it was), I wanted to clarify that Dr. Mate' does not advocate for blindly giving addicts things. His focus is more on the true root causes of addiction, which are just. not. understood. in this society, and trying to address those root causes (many of which are emotional). I'll also add that none of those causes IMHO are really being addressed in our society, and so we will continue to proliferate addicts, and everything that goes along with them.

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Happy2BaMom

[Lawyer&Mom]

One of the stores that is closing is in my affluent, upscale neighborhood.  I haven’t been there since before the pandemic, so I don’t know what they are dealing with, but I never would have guessed that location would have a safety issue.  Several fancier coffee shops have opened in our neighborhood recently, so if you told me that Starbucks location was underperforming, I would be less surprised.  

[Tanaqui]

Addiction is a disease, a mental illness - and it's one many people end up with after trying to self-medicate a pre-existing mental illness.

It's not okay to say "We're not going to help you so long as you show the symptoms of a disease. Go heal yourself first, without any of the assistance that might make it possible to get better, then we'll help you". It's not okay, and it's not logical either. It's just stupid and backwards.

[Grace Hopper]

1 hour ago, Lawyer&Mom said:

One of the stores that is closing is in my affluent, upscale neighborhood.  I haven’t been there since before the pandemic, so I don’t know what they are dealing with, but I never would have guessed that location would have a safety issue.  Several fancier coffee shops have opened in our neighborhood recently, so if you told me that Starbucks location was underperforming, I would be less surprised.  

Starbuck’s isn’t the only game in town anymore as far as sit-in coffee shops. I suspect they can lower overhead by exiting the cafe model - especially since it sounds like (at least in your area) there are competitors. And SB devotees will still use the drive thru. Just thinking of the SB’s in my area, also with now lots of other coffee shops, that SB’s drive thru lanes are always busy and that even folks who come in to sit only have one beverage even if they are sitting in the space for a long time. Just my observation. 

[Lawyer&Mom]

1 hour ago, Grace Hopper said:

Starbuck’s isn’t the only game in town anymore as far as sit-in coffee shops. I suspect they can lower overhead by exiting the cafe model - especially since it sounds like (at least in your area) there are competitors. And SB devotees will still use the drive thru. Just thinking of the SB’s in my area, also with now lots of other coffee shops, that SB’s drive thru lanes are always busy and that even folks who come in to sit only have one beverage even if they are sitting in the space for a long time. Just my observation. 

We don’t have any SB drive-thrus, but SB devotees can just go to the *other* neighborhood Starbucks…  This is Seattle. We have *so* many!

[ktgrok]

21 hours ago, livetoread said:

I am in favor of helping the substance abusers get housing too. We have this notion that if people are miserable enough, they'll find the motivation to quit, but we are starting to realize for a lot of users, this isn't true. Numbing yourself can be a pain avoidant coping mechanism. Maybe people will use less when they are in less pain and manage to see some hope for a different life. "Hitting bottom" might not be necessary after all and there can be a lot of trauma done on the way down to the bottom.

I have a relative who does substance abuse therapy and they have a lot to say about the harm they think has been done by the main substance abuse theories. They see usage as often trauma based numbing and the goal might be safer, less frequent usage rather than abstinence. They also see it as often a response to lack of community and connection which ends up a vicious circle because it is hard to build connection to someone who is using frequently.

 

 

 

Yes! I can say that my own vices and addictions get worse the more stressed I am, and the less stable I am in my life. Expecting people to be off substances before they "earn" housing is just crazy. A safe place to stay shouldn't be something you have to earn. 

17 hours ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Idk y’all, I think it would be great if we lived in a world where abusers were helped up and that dominoed into them finding motivation to do better. Theidea that you can’t do better because your situation is so bleak is hard for me because of personal experience. My aunt is strung out and she’s been helped so many times. She drained my grandmother financially multiple times over trying to help her. She will take and take and take and disappear when she has what she wants and show back when she needs food, shelter, clothing, and money. She’s been offered a roof over her head, a good job, clothes, food, etc multiples times by so many of us. Nothing matters to her but her next hit. She will throw it all away in a hot second for that. Do we hate on these people? No. I have a lot of compassion for them, I hate that they are enslaved to a substance that controls them. But I’ve truly seen that you can help and give and give and it do nothing  because the substance always wins, well 99% of the time anyway. She always cried about her “bad luck” but would never admit it was her bad decisions again and again. 

Oh, some people are VERY broken in serious ways. But, I don't see how it would be worse for someone like your aunt to hav ea free place to stay, without strings, while abusing drugs, vs being on the streets or couch surfing, you know?

[ktgrok]

Some info on Housing First models. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Research.pdf

[Excelsior! Academy]

I don't know what the solution is.  In OKC, we have a large amount of opportunities for assistance from shelters and day labor opportunities, as well as, no-strings attached, regular meals given by local churches.  Unfortunately, some of our local homeless population is caused by location.  When formally incarcerated people are released they are given a choice of a small amount of cash and a bus ticket to a Greyhound station.  We have a popular one in down-town OKC.  Also, due to the fact that we have two major interstates intersecting here, a certain amount of the homeless population will travel the interstates to panhandle. Quite lucratively, I might add!  Unfortunately, many of our homeless population is due to mental illness and personal choice.  Not that they choose homelessness, just poor choices like addiction that can result in homelessness.  No shelters around here will allow a dog to accompany their owner so many of our homeless dog owners are faced with the choice to abandon their dog or stay homeless.

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Excelsior! Academy

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Excelsior! Academy said:

I  No shelters around here will allow a dog to accompany their owner so many of our homeless dog owners are faced with the choice to abandon their dog or stay homeless.

 

Many also won't let you in if you are intoxicated. Other reasons people dont' use them are theft, assault, etc happening in the shelter. When you only have a few belongings, having them stolen is more than you can handle. 

Safe housing, in a housing first model, not a dehumanizing dangerous shelter, is what they need. 

[Melissa in Australia]

Before the huge housing crisis here in Australia there was and probably to a lesser extent still is housing given to some homeless drug addicts. A percent of them destroyed the houses. When in drug filled rages they would smash the plaster boards, smash windows deficate on the floors etc. Landlords really don't like having to constantly repair houses destroyed like that. Sometimes some people are  next to impossable to help. 

 

One of my sons, an apprentice is living in a low income unit.. It is the cheepist rent in the very large town he lives in. The neighbour on one side if him is an unemployed druggie. He regularly goes on rampage  destroying things, smashing property  including other people who live there's cars with a metal bar.   Not a nice neighbour. Who wants to have a tenant like that. 

[Rosie_0801]

Homelessness should be an expected outcome for people subject to laws that terminate their income if their savings reach a level below what's needed for a first month's rent and bond.

[denarii]

On 7/21/2022 at 3:15 PM, denarii said:

Requiring a drug user suffering from schizophrenia to be sober, participating in job training etc. to have a safe place to sleep is just cruel. Instead he will sleep rough during a Canadian winter and lose most of his hand to frostbite. I promise his hospital stay cost more than just housing him for the winter would have cost. 

But we are a society that likes to kick people when they are down. 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by denarii
Overshared