• 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
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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-utah-housing-first-20150524-story.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:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
so? the population needs to be reduced by 90%. If we horsehipped them instead of wasting $ on jail space, it would cost much less, and they'd pay a LOT more attention to the rules.
 
And guess what, guy - with all the thousands of "Christian" churches in America, we still have a severe homelessness problem. Even in the deepest parts of the Bible Belt where I come from, there's still lots of homeless.

Sorry, but charity only goes so far. It's nice to think that charity can solve it...but in real life, no. Never has, not in all human history.
Since when has government solved any problem completely? What makes you think it will be different in this case?
 
So many different perspectives. "Cheaper" is relative. If done right it is certainly more cost effective in the long run but also much more effectvie for the individuals. That SHOULD be the goal.
Utah's chronic homeless numbers drop from 1,932 to 178 in 10 years | The Salt Lake Tribune

If you want to talk just $$$, then look at the case of Million Dollar Murray. Its cost MILLIONS of dollars to do nothing and in the end, the man died, and society just ended up with another body to bury and bill to pay.
Million-Dollar Murray

A program that JUST keeps people tucked into a room somewhere cheaper isnt very effective or humane. A program that helps people get their feet under them, make new beginnings, and maybe even change their future for the better and be productive members of society...thats well worth it.
 
You didn't answer my question about why you feel the need to make idiotic blanket statements besmirching all Christians.

He said neither I nor he was obligated to help anyone, which is true - not in any legal sense. He also said it wasn't government's role to provide any help. So if people aren't morally or ethically obligated (he says no) and government shouldn't help, then what is the other option except be fine with them rotting in the streets? I didn't see another option. If we as individuals turn our heads, and government does, how do these people get help?

And that's beside the point. I was "besmirching" one comment by a person who made claims about Christianity and Christian morality and appropriate behavior and who apparently (he later said) isn't a Christian. Or, to put it another way, I was mocking his statement about the "Christian" thing to do. As I said, I volunteer my time and money for a Christian charity. I donate money to other faith based (in my area that means Christian) charities. I don't believe his views represent 'the' Christian view at all and it absolutely do not represent mine.
 
Valid point about representation, butut we are taxed enough already. What's wrong with people deciding for themselves?

I'll point back to representation. We are taxed the amount those we as a community decide to tax us.

And I wish people would decide for themselves to fund programs adequate to serve this population. In my area, that has not happened. Again, 100s on the waiting list, could be longer.... So WHEN voluntary charity fails, then what? I'm just answering a practical question with an IMO practical answer - public services provide some of the help.
 
Since when has government solved any problem completely? What makes you think it will be different in this case?

Never, but "completely" is an unrealistic burden. When has private charity solved any problem completely? Also never.
 
So many different perspectives. "Cheaper" is relative. If done right it is certainly more cost effective in the long run but also much more effectvie for the individuals. That SHOULD be the goal.
Utah's chronic homeless numbers drop from 1,932 to 178 in 10 years | The Salt Lake Tribune

If you want to talk just $$$, then look at the case of Million Dollar Murray. Its cost MILLIONS of dollars to do nothing and in the end, the man died, and society just ended up with another body to bury and bill to pay.
Million-Dollar Murray

A program that JUST keeps people tucked into a room somewhere cheaper isnt very effective or humane. A program that helps people get their feet under them, make new beginnings, and maybe even change their future for the better and be productive members of society...thats well worth it.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was troubled by the direction of the conversation - reducing problems involving human beings to dollars because there is always a cheaper, and horrifically cruel way to deal with any problem involving people with no power.
 
I'll point back to representation. We are taxed the amount those we as a community decide to tax us.

And I wish people would decide for themselves to fund programs adequate to serve this population. In my area, that has not happened. Again, 100s on the waiting list, could be longer.... So WHEN voluntary charity fails, then what? I'm just answering a practical question with an IMO practical answer - public services provide some of the help.

So how is that any different than you being forced to pay for wars, or a military you disagree with (other than one is constitutional)?
 
If it is shown that it costs less in taxpayer dollars to provide apartments for the homeless than it would be to just let them remain homeless in the streets, would you support using taxpayer dollars to pay for apartments for the homeless?

Why or why not?

If it's actually cheaper then yes but I wouldn't trust the numbers because liberals will skew them to fit their agenda of wealth redistribution and so I would probably vote against it unless the study were done by some group I trust
 
If it's actually cheaper then yes but I wouldn't trust the numbers because liberals will skew them to fit their agenda of wealth redistribution and so I would probably vote against it unless the study were done by some group I trust

I finally looked at the article. It claims that government spends twenty grand for every homeless person because they give them temporary housing, medical care, psychiatric care and drug treatment. This may be true for homeless who participate in the system and use the government for services. The majority of homeless avoid the government preferring to sleep under bridges, in camps and in doorways in down town areas. If you compare the cost of apartmented homeless in Utah against those who use the system, I'd guess apartments may be cheaper. If you compare the cost of apartmented homeless to the costs incurred by all the homeless in Utah regardless of participation or avoidance of government programs, my guess is that apartments are not cheaper.
 
No I do not support providing apartments for the homeless through taxpayer dollars.

I do however, am a strong believer in local and state governments working with local charities to provide shelter for those in need. Shelters staffed with folks that can help those who truly want to find work, an addict who wants to come clean, or anyone else who needs a helping hand in picking up the pieces and starting over.

Folks need to stop looking to Mama government for solutions to all problems. Things like homelessness need to be addressed locally. It takes folks that are willing to give of themselves in the communities in which they live to make a difference.
 
If it's actually cheaper then yes but I wouldn't trust the numbers because liberals will skew them to fit their agenda of wealth redistribution and so I would probably vote against it unless the study were done by some group I trust

Ah. If it were true, THEN you'd support it. But you know how those doggone lib'ruls are, y'know, 'cause they're just a-gonna skew the numbers just 'cause they hate 'Merica, y'know...'cause you know them lib'ruls ain't never honest, and all them studies are all part of one big left-wing conspiracy.

An' we all know it too, don' we? We couldn't prove it, but we just knows how the got every single one of the world's major scientific institutions (an' almost all the scientists) to all agree about global warming - but we just can't show how they went about doin' it. Not only that, but them lib'ruls also got millions - an' I mean MILLIONS - of fraudulent votes out there. We haven't been able to prove more than about twenty of them since the turn of the century, but you know them lib'ruls - they're awful sneaky, gettin' millions an' millions of them illegal im-grants to risk arrest and deportation to cast that there vote! An' I bet it's that there George Soros who directs all this from his ivory castle somewhere, even though we haven't caught him doin' it yet....

....

In other words, guy, has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe we DON'T 'skew the numbers', that maybe, just maybe those studies might be exactly what they say they are?
 
Since when has government solved any problem completely? What makes you think it will be different in this case?

Y'know, that's something I've noticed about conservatives - if a solution doesn't COMPLETELY, 100% solve a problem, then that solution is worthless. "We can't get ALL the homeless off the streets, so why bother to get any of them off the streets!"

And if you really knew your history, you'd know that there's a heck of a lot of things our government has done and continues to do right. Ah, but I forget - the government's all incompetent all the time...except when the president's got an (R) behind his name....
 
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.

And that's the problem. You're standing on your assumptions. Oh, you'll deny that you're assuming anything whatsoever, but you certainly are. If you weren't, then you would certainly spend even a few minutes researching the group, checking on the validity of the study, or seeing if there are any other studies that back up or disprove what that one study found.
 
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.

A lot of them are mentally ill or suffer from addiction...but a lot of them aren't. There's lots of other reasons that people become homeless, such as those fleeing abusive households, those who lost their jobs or were laid off, those who became bankrupt due to medical costs.
 
Back
Top Bottom