View Poll Results: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • If it's cheaper to the taxpayer, I would support providing apartments for the homeless.

    29 65.91%
  • I would not support providing apartments to the homeless even if it is cheaper to the taxpayer.

    15 34.09%
Page 16 of 26 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 259

Thread: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

  1. #151
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,055

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    I'd love for them to have jobs! Of course I would! So take a look at that homeless person with that shopping cart. How exactly is he going to get a bath, get cleaned up, shaved, brush his teeth, get his clothes clean and pressed (assuming he has any clothes appropriate for the job), and get to work...and just as importantly, how's he going to do that day after day? It's not like he has a place to keep his clothes neat and clean until the next day.

    This, btw, is one of the things that paying for apartments for the homeless does - it makes it easier for them to get and keep jobs.
    And the reality is that guy is probably mentally ill, or addicted to drugs or alcohol, likely both, and is in a downward spiral that's tough to stop on your own. It is tough for those with support - family, friends, lots of money. Put them on the streets and there is little actual chance. If the housing first approach works, my guess is it does so by providing a way for someone to 'fail' a few times and not be immediately back on the downward spiral on the streets and so gives them an actual chance to make it long term. It's a guess, but we know from our own population that lots of them take 2 or 3 or 4 tries before it "sticks" long term. We expect it and plan for it.

  2. #152
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Thing is, study after study has found that yes, it IS cheaper to pay for apartments for homeless to live in than it is to pay for what happens because they're out on the streets (police, courts (and lawyers), jails, emergency rooms, increased insurance costs for businesses). I've seen nothing yet showing that it's more expensive to provide apartments than it is to leave them on the streets.

    It's not a presupposition - it's a fact. A counterintuitive fact to be sure, but a fact nonetheless.
    My response to you was to indicate that the poll was poorly worded because of the prejudicial language. I personally have not looked at the link you posted. I don't know if the study was done by a group with an agenda. I don't know about the validity of the study. I'm not commenting on the study.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  3. #153
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Seen
    08-14-15 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    428

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    No, it's not extortion, I'm just pointing out that a junkie on the streets costs us all a lot of money. If he steals and is caught, you provide free housing, 3 meals a day, TV, healthcare in jail, and he comes out and usually starts using again, with a record, even harder to get a job, and so steals again. IMO, if it is cheaper and works better to provide free housing in an apartment instead of jail, I'll gladly support that effort. It's just a function of what works.
    I have a different view of human nature, at least when it comes to thieves.


    10% a success depends on the alternative. If that 10% is an avoided AIDS case or Hep C or whatever, and a lifetime of expensive medical care, and those cases in effect pay for the others who fail, no problem with me.
    Okay. I don't really concern myself with preventing other people's ailments.

    We just apply different standards to who should receive aid, which is understandable. I don't much care why they're homeless, only what works best and is better for them and society in the long run. Some here think the potential for abuse is high and maybe they're right. If so the programs long term might be a failure. All I have to go on are the studies to date, which are of mostly pilot programs, and certainly are only open to a small slice of the total homeless population. Perhaps these programs will work for only a small slice of that population. We know our little charity doesn't work for many because to stay they do have to follow some basic rules - look for work, cook, clean, stay sober, get treatment. Theft is permanent dismissal with no chance of return. Getting high gets you kicked out, but when sober can return. Etc. Those are our rules, but if different rules work better, OK.
    As long as your charity is a charity and not a government program, help all you want however you want. As a government program, I consider whether that money could be better spent somewhere else with better results for other people.

  4. #154
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,055

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by logansrun View Post
    I have a different view of human nature, at least when it comes to thieves.
    Right, throw them in jail. That costs us, you, something like $30,000 per year to provide free housing, food, etc.

    Or maybe you think once a thief, always a thief? Sometimes, but often those people are just doing what they have to do to survive. When they do, they pay a penalty and I support that - jail is necessary. I'd rather give them an option that doesn't require theft and maybe that works better than kicking them to the streets. But the prison industry thanks you for your support!

    Okay. I don't really concern myself with preventing other people's ailments.
    You should, we all end up paying for it, either through medical costs, Medicaid, disability, food stamps, etc. for someone chronically ill, too sick to work. Even worse is that people with untreated communicable diseases spread them to others, and we pay for that one way or the other. Better hope that sick cook with Hep C doesn't nick his finger while preparing your dinner....

    As long as your charity is a charity and not a government program, help all you want however you want. As a government program, I consider whether that money could be better spent somewhere else with better results for other people.
    I think the point is the money IS better spent on apartments than prison, etc. Cheaper, freeing up money for better uses. So your objection appears to be on principle and not on what works. My point has been that I'm judging it like you - "whether money could be better spent somewhere else" than prisons, cops, etc. And the studies show it can be - a housing first approach to long term homeless.

  5. #155
    #NeverHillary
    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,655
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Right, throw them in jail. That costs us, you, something like $30,000 per year to provide free housing, food, etc.

    Or maybe you think once a thief, always a thief? Sometimes, but often those people are just doing what they have to do to survive. When they do, they pay a penalty and I support that - jail is necessary. I'd rather give them an option that doesn't require theft and maybe that works better than kicking them to the streets. But the prison industry thanks you for your support!



    You should, we all end up paying for it, either through medical costs, Medicaid, disability, food stamps, etc. for someone chronically ill, too sick to work. Even worse is that people with untreated communicable diseases spread them to others, and we pay for that one way or the other. Better hope that sick cook with Hep C doesn't nick his finger while preparing your dinner....



    I think the point is the money IS better spent on apartments than prison, etc. Cheaper, freeing up money for better uses. So your objection appears to be on principle and not on what works. My point has been that I'm judging it like you - "whether money could be better spent somewhere else" than prisons, cops, etc. And the studies show it can be - a housing first approach to long term homeless.
    How quickly do you think these apartments are going to require repair and how much do you think it'll cost?

    I think the fallacy here is that you believe that the homeless people come with the same value system, the same work ethic, the same respect for themselves, for others and for property, that you have, and that you falsely assume that everyone else has the same. I hate to break it to you, but they don't. Case in point are the low income housing developments and how they are hates and slowly but surely destroyed, bit by bit, broken window by broken window. Destroyed by the occupants which paid nothing for them, which I think would be a more accurate model and expected outcome than whatever fallacies you have in your head there.

    Give away something for free, and it's not valued. Make someone pay, even a little bit for it, and it'll have a greater chance to be respected and cared for. This is the basis for a low income housing project I heard about on NPR (sorry can't find it on Google), and since the residents are in fact paying for it (even if it's just a little bit), it gives them a stake in what goes on there and what is allowed to go on there. The residents administer the development for themselves with an elected board, with some help, and their own rules are from more stringent, and far more observed and far more peer-enforced than any others.

    One example is no illegal drug use tolerated. Anyone in the family caught abusing, either the abuser is evicted, or the entire family is evicted, by their own rules and their own enforcement. There's no drug, drug gang, or property destruction problem here.

    Clearly, giving it away isn't the best course nor the best choice, nor the only choice available.
    Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it.” A Doctor called to a radio show & said: "That's the definition of a stool sample"
    It's a global Jihad, stupid. Allowing that poison into the country is only going to increase the damage it inflicts on others.

  6. #156
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Seen
    08-14-15 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    428

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Right, throw them in jail. That costs us, you, something like $30,000 per year to provide free housing, food, etc.

    Or maybe you think once a thief, always a thief? Sometimes, but often those people are just doing what they have to do to survive. When they do, they pay a penalty and I support that - jail is necessary. I'd rather give them an option that doesn't require theft and maybe that works better than kicking them to the streets. But the prison industry thanks you for your support!



    You should, we all end up paying for it, either through medical costs, Medicaid, disability, food stamps, etc. for someone chronically ill, too sick to work. Even worse is that people with untreated communicable diseases spread them to others, and we pay for that one way or the other. Better hope that sick cook with Hep C doesn't nick his finger while preparing your dinner....



    I think the point is the money IS better spent on apartments than prison, etc. Cheaper, freeing up money for better uses. So your objection appears to be on principle and not on what works. My point has been that I'm judging it like you - "whether money could be better spent somewhere else" than prisons, cops, etc. And the studies show it can be - a housing first approach to long term homeless.
    The money can be spent elsewhere that has nothing to do with homeless people. I don't care what it costs to put someone in prison or jail. I think they deserve to be there or I do not. You see these people as victims. I see a woman with an abusive husband as a victim. I do not see someone who likes to stick needles in their arm a victim. I would rather we gave the money to a woman who needs a new car to get to work so she can keep her job and not become homeless than to spend it on someone who likes to lay around getting high because it helps them "cope" or whatever excuse they want to come up with. My priority is to want to have the government help the people that I think most deserve the help first. People who are out there working and trying will always be a bigger priority for me than people who are not.

  7. #157
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,518

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, I'm asking where this supposed savings is that people are claiming exists. If you can't demonstrate it, it doesn't exist. If you're spending exactly the same money on everything else, plus $20k for each apartment, that's not savings, that's losing money.
    It used to cost on average $20,000 annually per homeless person. Providing housing for the chronically homeless has reduced that cost to $8,000 a year. That's a savings of about $12,000 a year per homeless person. That's nothing to sneeze at considering there are nearly 2,000 chronic homeless in Utah.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...ry.html#page=1


    When people aren't living on the streets they're less inclined to use social services such police and emergency rooms because they got beat up or ate rotten food or OD'd. And too, the mentally ill are more inclined to take their medication on regular basis which also translates into less medical care and less crime. Surely even you can see the savings in both lives and cost in that.
    Last edited by Moot; 06-09-15 at 03:36 PM.

  8. #158
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,920

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. We as citizens vote for public officials who make these decisions and levy the taxes and spend the money. It's how this thing works, and if you don't like it, vote in people who agree with you, and I'll vote for people who share my views. Thankfully, the clear majority favors public spending on social services.

    And, sure, we aren't obligated to help ANYONE. Kids die because they can't get an infection treated and mom can't afford the doctor bills? We CAN say - well too bad, freedom! But then don't preach to me about religion and Christianity and assert that those who do want to help don't understand their religion. Just say you don't give one damn about them, and if they die in the streets, f'em because liberty or something demands suffering.
    Valid point about representation, butut we are taxed enough already. What's wrong with people deciding for themselves?

  9. #159
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,920

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Because if we as society or Christians aren't obligated to help them, that is the alternative in real life, in our communities, to people we pass every day on the streets. The charitable resources just are not there to serve the population as we speak. It's easy to say, "Well, charities SHOULD address these problems" but when they do not (i.e. in real life) address them because they don't have the resources, it's just fact that people will in fact die on the streets.

    If you don't favor that or accept it as the acceptable price of freedom and liberty, and don't favor public efforts, then what is your suggestion?

    BTW, if we are honest we all accept that to some degree. There are millions or billions of starving, destitute people worldwide, and unless we give away all our possessions and live in poverty and move to some poor area to devote our lives to help them out as much as is humanly possible, we do accept that state of affairs. That's just the reality. But then let's be honest and say that instead of pretending we're doing something else.
    You didn't answer my question about why you feel the need to make idiotic blanket statements besmirching all Christians.

  10. #160
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,055

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by logansrun View Post
    The money can be spent elsewhere that has nothing to do with homeless people. 1) I don't care what it costs to put someone in prison or jail. 2) I think they deserve to be there or I do not.
    1) I care greatly what it costs and what the alternatives are because every jail inmate costs us something like $30,000. It's a huge burden on taxpayers, and I'm willing to look at any method to get that down.
    2) OK, and I've agreed that thieves should go to jail.

    You see these people as victims.
    Sometimes they are. If you heard some of their stories, you'd agree. Raped regularly by family from a young age, beaten, abused, etc. Lots of veterans with PTSD, asked to do things by our government most humans cannot do, and not able to cope. Sure they're victims - no one would wish their lives on anyone. Others made their own beds and aren't victims in that sense. And I don't actually care. If it costs me and you $10,000 versus $30,000, I'll go with the $10k victim or not.

    I see a woman with an abusive husband as a victim. I do not see someone who likes to stick needles in their arm a victim. I would rather we gave the money to a woman who needs a new car to get to work so she can keep her job and not become homeless than to spend it on someone who likes to lay around getting high because it helps them "cope" or whatever excuse they want to come up with. My priority is to want to have the government help the people that I think most deserve the help first. People who are out there working and trying will always be a bigger priority for me than people who are not.
    OK, but again, that guy sticking needles in his arm costs you and me a lot of money, like it or not. I'd rather get him clean and producing instead of warehouse that guy in 5 stints in jail at $100k/round trip.

    And the point is if you save $20k on that junkie, you'd have $20k more to spend on maybe 5 women who need help buying a car. I'm all for that! IF the junkie gets a good deal out of it, so what? I'd rather save the tax money or spend it on women like you mention.

Page 16 of 26 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •