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

Glen Contrarian said:

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....

Click to expand...

Again with the false narratives. You just can't help yourself, can you?

radcen said:

Your premise presumes that we put them in apartments, all issues are solved, everybody lives happily ever after, and it ends there.

Click to expand...

No, I never even implied that. Would it be messy? Sure - anything having to deal with humans, and especially the poorer humans, usually is. But would it be better than putting them into the streets-to-prisons-to-streets-to prisons cycle? Yes.

countryboy said:

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)?

Click to expand...

Not a bit. I know you haven't read all the posts, but I make that very point. We ALL fund stuff we don't like. I accept that as the cost of living in a diverse, first world, representative democracy, and think it's well worth it.

Salt Lake City, Utah is not what one would think of as a liberal sort of town. However, their experience over the past ten years has found that providing housing for the homeless ends up costing less plus it gets people off the street.

Salt Lake City has cut its chronic homelessness rate dramatically during the last 10 years by giving homeless people nice, permanent places to live with lots of counseling on-site. Its experience offers valuable lessons.

This city has all but ended chronic homelessness, and San Francisco could learn a lot from how that happened.
What Salt Lake City did was simple: It created attractive housing that street people actually longed to live in, provided the new residents with plenty of on-site counseling to help them with problems such as drug abuse and unemployment, and put one person in charge who could get government and nonprofit agencies to work together.

The result is that in the decade since Salt Lake and San Francisco launched campaigns to end chronic homelessness, Salt Lake's hard-core street population shrank so drastically it is expected to be statistically gone by next year - but San Francisco still struggles mightily. And Salt Lake did this by spending $20 million a year in a million-resident metropolitan area. San Francisco spends $165 million.

San Francisco has challenges Salt Lake City doesn't - real estate prices and the cost of living are more than twice as high in the Bay Area, and far more homeless people move to San Francisco than head to Salt Lake. And that $20 million in Salt Lake is bolstered by more than $20 million in additional donations from the Mormon Church and other nonprofit groups.
<snip>
When Salt Lake and San Francisco began their 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness in 2005 and 2004, respectively, each had about 3,000 people who lived full time on their streets. Today, San Francisco has about 2,000 - and Salt Lake has about 400.

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

No, I never even implied that. Would it be messy? Sure - anything having to deal with humans, and especially the poorer humans, usually is. But would it be better than putting them into the streets-to-prisons-to-streets-to prisons cycle? Yes.

Click to expand...

Ok. Realistically, what would be some of the downsides and/or challenges that would come up?

Glen Contrarian said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree and wasn't trying to imply otherwise.

My perspective is a little biased because the charity I'm involved with provides a lot of addiction treatment, so we get mostly addicts and dual diagnoses people - mentally ill primary, substance abuse secondary. We accept civilian and VA patients, and for the VA population, where the only "qualification" (as it were) is homelessness, I'm guessing on average about 80% have some form of mental illness or addiction issue. Most of the others have physical problems. But these are mostly older, Vietnam era folks.

I am a social democrat, and even if it is cheaper, it is still not acceptable to provide apartments for homeless people. Shelters yes, provide affordable living (as in private rooms in a sort of half way house to homeless people yes. To all of these things yes, but there are thousands of people working their behinds off for even meager accommodations. You can help homeless people by giving them a leg up but that is it. Providing apartments is not acceptable IMHO when one looks at all the people who do work their behinds off to have a roof over their head and who also do not get free apartments.

Glen Contrarian said:

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?

Click to expand...

Take a deep breath.

Glen Contrarian said:

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.

Click to expand...

I didn't comment on the study until I read the article. You have a problem with that?

Chomsky said:

Your solution sounds like the slums of Rio ...

Click to expand...

Actually if "City of God" was any indicator, the slums of Rio are far worse...


... and there are slums in Africa I've seen videos on, which make Rio's worst look like paradise. Everything is kind of relative....

upsideguy said:

".... are there no prisons? are there no workhouses?..." .... are there no Christians amongst us?

Click to expand...

I said feed them and house them. I said keep them warm, make sure they have water and blankets.

Those are the necessities of life. For much of human history just having dependable shelter, clean water and a reliable source of food was a struggle for most of humanity... it STILL is, half the people on the "bottom billion" in the world today would kill to get that deal. I mean damn have you ever seen what a slum in Africa looks like? Horrors beyond horrors....

This covers the basic necessities of life adequately, and I'm saying fine, give it to 'em for free and bill me on my taxes.



So why are you making me out to be Scrooge here? Because I'm not advocating giving them a nice house with all the amenities for nothing? Steak dinners every Thursday no charge? Big screen TV and broadband internet and cable no charge? what exactly do you expect here?

azgreg said:

That's what we did. We waited until both of us were going well in our career, had a house, and our student loans were paid off before we had our first child when I was 33.

Click to expand...

Same here. I was a little younger but we waited until we were ready.

Cephus said:

Same here. I was a little younger but we waited until we were ready.

Click to expand...

I think we got it wrong though. They could have been out of the house a long time ago. :mrgreen:

azgreg said:

I think we got it wrong though. They could have been out of the house a long time ago. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

My oldest graduates from high school tomorrow and goes away to college in the fall. She's not quite on the 18/30 plan, but it's pretty close.

Cephus said:

My oldest graduates from high school tomorrow and goes away to college in the fall. She's not quite on the 18/30 plan, but it's pretty close.

Click to expand...

My boys are 15 and 18. I've got a while to go myself.

JasperL said:

Not a bit. I know you haven't read all the posts, but I make that very point. We ALL fund stuff we don't like. I accept that as the cost of living in a diverse, first world, representative democracy, and think it's well worth it.

Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough. I don't agree with you but at least you are being fair about it.

BTW, I am not necessarily against providing shelter for the homeless, just not full blown apartments. I thought the shipping container shelters someone posted earlier looked like a viable alternative. Heck, some people who aren't homeless are living in those things and other small domiciles to minimize living expenses. I believe there's a whole "micro-shelter" or some such movement. It's not a bad idea if you don't require a lot of space.

radcen said:

Ok. Realistically, what would be some of the downsides and/or challenges that would come up?

Click to expand...

Realistically, almost anything you can think of. I could write a book on the downsides and/or challenges. But the point is, those downsides and challenges don't go away if they're out on the streets 24/7 - if anything, the public is a heck of a lot more affected. If you're a store owner, what would you think if every single morning you have to move the homeless away from your storefront because you've got an awning that protects them from the rain? Not to mention the human waste (natural and litter) that they leave strewn about, which absolutely has an effect on your ability to attract customers. You know you can call the cops on them, but the very next day, even the next few hours, there they are again. How much does this kind of problem cost business owners? LOTS...and that's before we get to the problems of mental disorders, unidentified sex predators, addiction, and addiction-related crime.

But if they are housed, then they aren't out on the street ruining your business, are they? At least not nearly so much. Not only does the taxpayer save money on less of a police presence, less court and lawyer costs, less prison costs, and less ER costs, but the business climate becomes more welcoming...and that's nothing but good for business.

countryboy said:

Okay, fair enough. I don't agree with you but at least you are being fair about it.

BTW, I am not necessarily against providing shelter for the homeless, just not full blown apartments. I thought the shipping container shelters someone posted earlier looked like a viable alternative. Heck, some people who aren't homeless are living in those things and other small domiciles to minimize living expenses. I believe there's a whole "micro-shelter" or some such movement. It's not a bad idea if you don't require a lot of space.

Click to expand...

And I'm not opposed to micro-shelters, as long as they are secure and provide sanitary facilities so that the individual has the opportunity to clean up and keep their clothes in a condition that they can get and keep a job.

countryboy said:

Again with the false narratives. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Click to expand...

Hm. Let me see here. You posted, "Since when has government solved any problem completely? What makes you think it will be different in this case?"...which is clearly a false narrative itself. But instead, it's you accusing me of such.

I would, but I see it as a band-aid solution. A disproportionate percentage of people who are chronically homeless suffer from mental illness or some type of drug addiction or substance abuse problem. These issues need to be addressed, and throwing people in public housing is not an adequate solution to resolving them.

As to people who are homeless for a brief period, often the cause is bad economic policy. Others may be pushed into streets due to rents rising beyond what is affordable, which is often a function of bad housing and development policy.

Sure, putting homeless individuals in apartments is better than doing nothing. But if we throw them in apartments and then turn a blind eye to the above issues, we aren't solving anything.

countryboy said:

Okay, fair enough. I don't agree with you but at least you are being fair about it.

BTW, I am not necessarily against providing shelter for the homeless, just not full blown apartments. I thought the shipping container shelters someone posted earlier looked like a viable alternative. Heck, some people who aren't homeless are living in those things and other small domiciles to minimize living expenses. I believe there's a whole "micro-shelter" or some such movement. It's not a bad idea if you don't require a lot of space.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I went to the study, and they were provided one bedroom "efficiency" apartment, which I understand has a separate bathroom. Each person has his own apartment. One online site said an "efficiency" is less than 350sq ft, but I didn't see that in the study itself. Based on some comments, they get a small frig, and maybe a microwave, but there is no kitchen. Looks like another charity fed them for the most part.

Other observations - 88% homeless 3+ years and about 40% 6+ years.

They defined 5 disabling conditions - physical disability, HIV, other chronic illness, substance abuse, mental illness. About 2/3 were chronically ill, 2/3 substance abuse, 2/3 mental illness. 1/3 had a physical disability. 100% had at least one condition, 75% had two of those 5 conditions and 40% had 3 of those.

Substance use was a less than I expected. Just a few days per month on average (mean) for drugs (about 4 days/mo, SD 16 which is high). So many used not at all it looks like, and some probably used drugs every day. Alcohol use to "intoxication" was mean 4 days/mo, SD 8, so less than drugs.

Only surprise is this place is intended to be indefinite. If a tenant stayed at the place for the 3 years of the study, that was a success. I'd have thought the goal was to get them into self supported living, but apparently for these folks that wasn't seen as a reasonable goal.

One part of the cost savings is a bit fishy - they used hospital billing, before and after, and that's an inflated number as they point out in the study. No insurer, anyway, pays the sticker. But the number of days hospitalized, billing, 911 calls, ER visits, etc were all WAY down. So the medical savings are real, just not as big as the study reports.

Anyway, link here: Housing for Homeless in Charlotte, NC | Volunteer Opportunities

The link to pdf is on that page. Pretty interesting although I just skimmed it.

vesper said:

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.

Click to expand...

So what does that mean? It either means you have some type of Polyanna view that a government can call up a local church to take care of the problem, leaving it up to the goodwill of that churches members to pay the freight OR you are talking about a real private-public partnership, a faith-based initiative, where the church runs the program but the government pays (with taxes)...

So, tell us, are you advocating you want someone else to make this not a problem for you or are you actually willing to share in the solution?

Goshin said:

I said feed them and house them. I said keep them warm, make sure they have water and blankets.

Those are the necessities of life. For much of human history just having dependable shelter, clean water and a reliable source of food was a struggle for most of humanity... it STILL is, half the people on the "bottom billion" in the world today would kill to get that deal. I mean damn have you ever seen what a slum in Africa looks like? Horrors beyond horrors....

This covers the basic necessities of life adequately, and I'm saying fine, give it to 'em for free and bill me on my taxes.



So why are you making me out to be Scrooge here? Because I'm not advocating giving them a nice house with all the amenities for nothing? Steak dinners every Thursday no charge? Big screen TV and broadband internet and cable no charge? what exactly do you expect here?

Click to expand...

You said "feed them and house them" behind fences and keep them away from the public.... you know, a prison. Obviously your reference made me think of scrooge. It certainly doesn't make me think of Christ. Speaking of which, Matthew 25: 42-45 gives us some guidance here...

for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

So, by extension, this is the type of housing you propose for Christ on his return?

As to the slums of Africa, that is a silly comparison. It would be like comparing our healthcare to the healthcare of Africa. Central Africa is not a part of our peer group. We are suppose be a first world country; you don't compare us to a third world country and say "see how good you have it". In that regard, I have traveled reasonably extensively to other first world countries in the Americas, Europe and Asia. You do not see the signs of abject poverty in other first world countries that you see in the United States.

upsideguy said:

You said "feed them and house them" behind fences and keep them away from the public.... you know, a prison. Obviously your reference made me think of scrooge. It certainly doesn't make me think of Christ. Speaking of which, Matthew 25: 42-45 gives us some guidance here...

for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

So, by extension, this is the type of housing you propose for Christ on his return?

As to the slums of Africa, that is a silly comparison. It would be like comparing our healthcare to the healthcare of Africa. Central Africa is not a part of our peer group. We are suppose be a first world country; you don't compare us to a third world country and say "see how good you have it". In that regard, I have traveled reasonably extensively to other first world countries in the Americas, Europe and Asia. You do not see the signs of abject poverty in other first world countries that you see in the United States.

Click to expand...

Holey flaming succotash, Batman... what exactly do you WANT? Shall we pay to house them in $100k condos with all the amenities and steak dinners?

How are we going to pay for that again? Given that our budget is already nearly half deficit.

And where is the incentive to get a job and be self-supporting? Heck let me hurry and be homeless so **I** can get a free 100k condo with all the amenities and free steak dinners too! Screw working!



And I love this criticism you're leveling. You don't know me.


You know WHY you don't know what I've done for the poor and downtrodden? Because I normally don't talk about it much, because I don't want to brag. God knows and that's enough for me.


But not for you I guess... ok then...


I've actually reallio trulio spent time with the homeless. I've gotten some of them jobs. I've talked to many about how they became homeless and what if anything I could do to help them get on their feet. I've given them food and money, directed them to shelters and aid orgs, and sometimes just provided a willing ear to hear their troubles.

BTW, most of them aren't simply "average people lacking jobs and money". For the majority, you can't just "add money and job" and they'll be fine... most have addictions and/or psychological problems, or just plain would rather be homeless than work a job.

I've got a woman and her two kids in my house right now, been here for most of a year since she ran away from her abusive druggie ex. He doesn't come around here because he knows me and he knows better. She doesn't bring in much money so my dependents went from 1 to 4 all the sudden, and I'm not exactly well-off. Lucky me. Oh well it needed done.




That's not the half, but it is all I'm telling here. So, bud, you can take your unjustified self-righteous dander, fold it until it is all sharp corners, and stick it somewhere uncomfortable. :mrgreen:

upsideguy said:

So what does that mean? It either means you have some type of Polyanna view that a government can call up a local church to take care of the problem, leaving it up to the goodwill of that churches members to pay the freight OR you are talking about a real private-public partnership, a faith-based initiative, where the church runs the program but the government pays (with taxes)...

So, tell us, are you advocating you want someone else to make this not a problem for you or are you actually willing to share in the solution?

Click to expand...

The only thing the local governments would be involved in is directing people in need to the charities that could help them. In my community most of the churches pull together and give a percentage of their tithes and offerings to help those in need in the area. For example the Lutheran church operates the food pantry out of their church where one can go three times a week for goods. The food is stocked with money from all the churches. Several churches own homes that were willed to them that they use to house those who are temporarily without shelter. They are also used to house missionaries upon return from their missions until they can settle in their own places. Business men/women who are members of these churches are involved in helping those who are out of work find a job. There are doctors, dentists, nurses in these congregations that dedicate time to free clinics for those who have no way to pay or will see someone in need in their private practice. The churches with their pulled funds will help the one who can't pay the electric bill or their house payment due to a crisis. Or if a person has no way to get to work because of a broken down car they help with the repairs. There are those who minister to drug addicts others to battered women etc. There are drives for clothing and household goods. But there is a significant number of homeless who choose to be homeless. They want to live under bridges, beg for money, and pick through trash. There's little you can do for them other than drop off blankets, coats, food etc. where they will find them.