• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    44
Can't answer the poll because the questions are poorly worded.
 
I'm opposed to handing out anything to anyone for free. If they want it, they can work for it. I've seen some of the Section 8 housing they give out to the poor and without exception, they've all been graffiti-covered, drug-filled, crime-filled cesspools. Nobody there is getting any help, they're just being left to rot because they don't actually have to do anything for themselves. I did suggest years ago that some of the closed military bases ought to be opened to the homeless, they have shower facilities, they have addresses, they have kitchens designed to feed lots of people and can be opened to charities. Force all the homeless off the streets into these camps, get them the help they need and require them to get clean, get educated and get their lives together.

Of course, liberals hate that idea.
 
I wish someone would start a business where they had rows of washers and dryers and for quarters you could rent these machines and clean your clothes

For 20 dollars a month you can get a membership at a low end gym with showers and a locker room too.

If you live near a truck stop 10 bucks will get you a shower as well

Any able bodied person can shower and clean cloths if they want to
It's not helping anyone to create silly no win scenarios where people can't help themselves

Mm-hmm...walk down on Rainier Ave. and ask the homeless why they aren't doing those really simple things! Like where they can safely sleep without getting beat up and robbed or raped or worse. What you're requiring is that they find a safe place to sleep - wherever that might be - and then they have to travel to go take a shower, then travel to go wash their clothes - and it's not like they have anyplace to hang their clothes up to keep them from getting messed up from one day to the next.

Not only that, but when they fill out the job application, what's going to be their home address? The boss will ask for a physical address...and so should the homeless person lie? And then what's he going to say when the boss says, "that's where we'll send your W-2" and the homeless person says, no, that's not my mailing address. The boss is gonna be immediately suspicious when their mailing address is "General Delivery".

You see, that's just it - it's so easy for those of us who have never been homeless to really grasp the challenges they face. It's so easy for us to say, "well, just do this and do that"...but when it comes to the actual doing of that thing...it's not that it's not easy...but it's often flatly impossible.
 
Google and read the studies - they found that providing apartments for the homeless is actually cheaper than it is to pay for the increased police presence, the use of the court system, and the extra prison capacity that comes with having those people on the streets.

Yes, that's counterintuitive...but one is cheaper than the other. And there's the rub - you do pay. One way or another, you pay anyway. You can pay more for cops and courts and prisons...or you can pay somewhat less for apartments to give them a place where they can take a shower, wash and iron their clothes, and get a job.

But you pay anyway. Do you want to pay more for the stick...or less for the carrot?

What makes you think that these apartments wouldn't require additional police presence, the courts wouldn't have to be just as involved and the same people wouldn't go to prison? You think that giving people apartments is going to magically change their anti-social behavior?
 
I'm opposed to handing out anything to anyone for free. If they want it, they can work for it. I've seen some of the Section 8 housing they give out to the poor and without exception, they've all been graffiti-covered, drug-filled, crime-filled cesspools. Nobody there is getting any help, they're just being left to rot because they don't actually have to do anything for themselves. I did suggest years ago that some of the closed military bases ought to be opened to the homeless, they have shower facilities, they have addresses, they have kitchens designed to feed lots of people and can be opened to charities. Force all the homeless off the streets into these camps, get them the help they need and require them to get clean, get educated and get their lives together.

Of course, liberals hate that idea.

Section 8 housing is never nice...but at least most - yes, MOST - of the people there do go get jobs, even if they're just minimum wage. In fact, if you'll check, if you're working full time at minimum wage trying to support a family, Section 8 housing is about the best you can afford.
 
What makes you think that these apartments wouldn't require additional police presence, the courts wouldn't have to be just as involved and the same people wouldn't go to prison? You think that giving people apartments is going to magically change their anti-social behavior?

Here:

Living on the streets isn't cheap: Each chronically homeless person in Central Florida costs the community roughly $31,000 a year, a new analysis being released Thursday shows.

The price tag covers the salaries of law-enforcement officers to arrest and transport homeless individuals — largely for nonviolent offenses such as trespassing, public intoxication or sleeping in parks — as well as the cost of jail stays, emergency-room visits and hospitalization for medical and psychiatric issues.

In contrast, providing the chronically homeless with permanent housing and case managers to supervise them would run about $10,000 per person per year, saving taxpayers millions of dollars during the next decade, the report concludes.
 
sounds nice in theory...but in real life, not so much. Shelters only have so much capacity and turn people away on a regular basis. The others normally don't allow someone to sleep there. And how many of those places have facilities to allow the homeless person to wash, clean, and iron his or her clothes every single day so he or she can go to work?

I doubt any of them do.
So you're willing to have them remain as a permanent underclass. I have higher hopes for them, but the first step is for those who are homeless to not be okay with being homeless anymore. "Free" apartments won't provide that motivation. Not sure why you think it would be such a good idea to just warehouse people.
 
Here:

Living on the streets isn't cheap: Each chronically homeless person in Central Florida costs the community roughly $31,000 a year, a new analysis being released Thursday shows.

The price tag covers the salaries of law-enforcement officers to arrest and transport homeless individuals — largely for nonviolent offenses such as trespassing, public intoxication or sleeping in parks — as well as the cost of jail stays, emergency-room visits and hospitalization for medical and psychiatric issues.

In contrast, providing the chronically homeless with permanent housing and case managers to supervise them would run about $10,000 per person per year, saving taxpayers millions of dollars during the next decade, the report concludes.
How much cheaper would it be if they weren't being warehoused and had jobs instead?
 
Section 8 housing is never nice...but at least most - yes, MOST - of the people there do go get jobs, even if they're just minimum wage. In fact, if you'll check, if you're working full time at minimum wage trying to support a family, Section 8 housing is about the best you can afford.

That's because people working minimum wage jobs and trying to support families are idiots. If you cannot afford a family, you have no business trying to have one.
 
Here:

Living on the streets isn't cheap: Each chronically homeless person in Central Florida costs the community roughly $31,000 a year, a new analysis being released Thursday shows.

The price tag covers the salaries of law-enforcement officers to arrest and transport homeless individuals — largely for nonviolent offenses such as trespassing, public intoxication or sleeping in parks — as well as the cost of jail stays, emergency-room visits and hospitalization for medical and psychiatric issues.

In contrast, providing the chronically homeless with permanent housing and case managers to supervise them would run about $10,000 per person per year, saving taxpayers millions of dollars during the next decade, the report concludes.

And you're pretending that these people aren't going to be doing all of these same things in their new apartments. People keep pointing out how wrong you are, you just won't listen. Instead of costing $31k, it will cost $41k.
 
How much cheaper would it be if they weren't being warehoused and had jobs instead?

A lot of those people are not physically, socially or psychologically capable of having jobs. They will never be physically, socially or psychologically capable of having jobs. They are lost causes.
 
Since many chronic homeless people have mental health issues, I vote for getting them some kind of mental health treatment. Housing would also be provided.
I agree with this regarding the mentally ill.
 
Meh. Give 'em a 6x10' hut each with a futon, toilet and sink. No electricity, no comms, no A/C, but some kind of heat in the winter sure. Stack 'em ten stories high in a fenced complex and try to keep 'em away from the regular folks somewhat.

Give 'em a block of generic nutrient paste every day that will keep starvation at bay, a bar of soap once a month, and a couple blankets.


That's enough. For those with a speck of ambition, put a branch Employment Office nearby...

Brighton's Pioneer Shipping Container Development Houses the Homeless | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Richardsons-Yard-shipping-container-homes6-537x402.jpg
Richardsons-Yard-shipping-container-homes9-537x358.jpg
 
I"ve never ironed clothes in my life, not had them ironed, and I've always had a job. I guess you never heard of laundromats? You can clean a week's worth of clothes for $5, i do it every week. your arguments for being homeless might work if the person is completely inept, but otherwise, they are ridiculously feeble.
 
i"m willling to watch the able-bodied DIE, dude, no problem at all.
 
Oh wow, you mean, no police, no courts, no prisons?

You don't have to imagine what a place like that is like - we have it today - it's called, "Sudan".

Not what I said, I was referring towards taxpayer programs for the homeless.
 
Section 8 housing is never nice...but at least most - yes, MOST - of the people there do go get jobs, even if they're just minimum wage. In fact, if you'll check, if you're working full time at minimum wage trying to support a family, Section 8 housing is about the best you can afford.

Why would someone be working full time at a minimum wage job if they're trying to support a family?

As to giving the homeless free apartments, how on God's green earth can you believe free apartments for the homeless will be "cheaper" in the long run? Because some group of ideologues conducted a "study"? How many freeloaders do you think will suddenly become "homeless" when they start giving away free apartments? Did your "study" figure that in? :roll:
 
It is cheaper just to write people a check for $60,000 than to give them $25,000 and pay an officer $40,000 a year to track them.

So much money is wasted by the governemnt that it is disgusting...
 
As to giving the homeless free apartments, how on God's green earth can you believe free apartments for the homeless will be "cheaper" in the long run? Because some group of ideologues conducted a "study"? How many freeloaders do you think will suddenly become "homeless" when they start giving away free apartments? Did your "study" figure that in? :roll:

Build enough public housing. It doesn't have to be free but it can be affordable to those on minimum wage or on welfare. We have the resources. Let's end this scandal that in rich countries some people still have to live in the street.
 
And how do you feel it should be worded, hm?

The question "I would not support providing apartments to the homeless even if it is cheaper to the taxpayer.", presupposes that giving away apartments is cheaper than not supplying them infers that disagreeing with the question is unsound financially. The wording is prejudicial.
 
Build enough public housing. It doesn't have to be free but it can be affordable to those on minimum wage or on welfare. We have the resources. Let's end this scandal that in rich countries some people still have to live in the street.

Or we could simply foster an economic environment where more people are gainfully employed, and stop supporting generations of able bodied people.

We've tried your idea. Have you ever seen a housing project?
 
Back
Top Bottom