Fighting homelessness by giving homeless people houses

This seems to me like a really good idea. Sometimes a little forward thinking is needed to deal with a problem.

A program in Salt Lake City decided that it would be smarter — and more humane – to spend $11K/year each to house 17 chronically homeless people and provide them with social workers than it would be to waste the average of $16,670/year per person to imprison them and treat them at emergency rooms. As Nation of Change points out, this commonsense, humane and economically sound way of dealing with homelessness works, unlike the savage approaches taken by other cities (like the Waikiki rep Tom Bowker who smashed homeless peoples’ carts with a sledgehammer, or cities like Tampa, which banned feeding homeless people).

themindunleashed.org...



These people have spent an average of 25 years on the street. Each is given a house with no strings attached and assigned a care worker to help them.

Really though I find it a bit sad that the motive behind this is economics. Maybe it is about time we started measuring our values a little differently. If we did we would see some very different effects..

reply to post by purplemer


I see this as a tentative good idea on a small scale.

But tackle the homeless in New York, Chicago, L.A. with the same program?

It'd be a nightmare. And with housing at a premium in many locations, I could envision people deliberately going homeless just to enjoy this type of program.

Either way, it's nice to read a story about something good coming from taxes.

reply to post by purplemer


It certainly is a good idea. It's just a pity that it's done out of saving the government money, Than actual humane decency. Or this probably would never have happened at all. At least they will be off the streets though

Curious then...if this will become contagious...I don't think it a far reach to assume that when homeless people live better lives than those slaving away at a job it would convince one to ditch the job and the self responsibility.

I don't have any problems with the homeless...its a legitimate lifestyle that they CHOOSE to lead...Maybe that 11k a year would be better invested in providing skills and knowledge to the homeless instead of a free ticket...

Whats that saying? You GIVE a man a fish you feed him for a day...you TEACH a man how to fish you feed him for life?

edit to add
Maybe they could develop a program for homeless people to learn how to be property managers, upkeep and maintain the housing they are given...at some point this may create a future self reliant real-estate developer/investor....

I agree with the compassion but sometimes that compassion really hinders the person more than helps them.

I don't care wtf it says. If someone doesn't get these people off the street there they will stay and thats not acceptable.

reply to post by Sly1one


I think that a bit harsh. A lot of people do not choose to be homeless. Have all the homeless veterans choosen to be homeless... No there are reasons for it.

Regardless of what is given to people for free it will not remove my own personal self responsibility. I think most people if given the chance what to be self responsible.

in america the empty homes outnumber the homeless it would be better for the goverment to take over empty motels/ hotels factorys and make them livable for the down and outs who could work at some social programme to do up empty or abandoned homes .

but that is way to sensible for our leaders to do

reply to post by purplemer


This is okay for the short term but will not be feasible in the long-term.

I would bet money on this if I could.

What cities need to do that would not solve the homeless problem but would greatly improve homeless' people's ability to get back on their feet would be to designate tent cities with shower facilities and a place to get mail. Also have a guard stationed 24/7.

It would not be that expensive and would be a far more long term feasible solution to help homelessness. If tomorrow a person found themselves without a home, they would know exactly where to go to sleep for the night. No government paperwork to sign, just a place to go NOW. They would be able to take showers and get mail(both necessary to get jobs).

This would also mean that many homeless would be in one area which would mean that volunteers from various organizations could come out to help and have easier access to these vulnerable groups. Kitchens, clothes, healthcare etc.

I'm going to have to agree here. The cost of jailing people is going up. The cost of medical care is EXPLODING. I say give them a place to live, food to eat, and put them to work. I don't care what they do for a living. Heck have them pick up trash and pay them to do that. If I was homeless and someone offered me a place to live, food to eat, and a job picking up trash I would be all over it like white on rice. Paying taxes, and rent are going to negate that 11k a year too.

999zxcv
in america the empty homes outnumber the homeless it would be better for the goverment to take over empty motels/ hotels factorys and make them livable for the down and outs who could work at some social programme to do up empty or abandoned homes .

but that is way to sensible for our leaders to do

I lke this idea. There is plenty to do.. they could put in their hrs a week for the city or in a trade internship for housing. There is a percentage that this would work perfectly for.

That other percentage.. and I know them.. WANT to be homeless. They really do... and its for many reasons. Here, since our idiot mayor shut down our homeless shelter ( he is a progressive and since they wouldnt turn over every person in the shelters personal information she closed it down!) we take these folks and give them the information on how to basically live on the street. Not just helpful numbers but how to use things to help them that they find or "acquire". Rocket stoves and etc. They were eating everything in the park. The cops found traps set to even catch turtles and critters. Its BAD in some places.. we need to do something and these wonderful people in city and county govt.. they dont give a damn.

I think it's a good idea that should catch on. Especially in colder climates and homeless that do not travel to warmer regions in the winter. They they should keep in mind some homeless will never change, they like the freedom of the streets or so some have told me. Also, that I don't think people will want to quit their jobs, etc., to take advantage of this program or similar. That is because rather than houses given to these people it will be apartments, such as, tenement-like housing with one room/ studio and or a room with shared facilities.

Unless people want to live like that in a small shared environment that may be in an area they are not used to, but can assure you from seeing these places, it's nothing you'd wish on yourself even if you want to quit working. OP article says they can stay in these places until they are ready, if even, to advance, such as working to move on to better.

"good stewards of their personal and shared housing areas and maintain good relations with other tenants, case managers, and property managers."

- Source

I think certain basics should be provided to every human in the world as the normal. Housing, food and water, clothing. Just simple not expensive. Provide the basics. Then if you want more comfort you can work for it.

reply to post by Pimpintology


It is much easier for a person to find a job when they have a place to bathe and keep fresh clothes.

There are more empty houses and apartments than there are homeless in the US. We can do more to help the homeless.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

One of the reasons New York went bankrupt. The free housing subsidies and welfare state. Here is the end result from the movie "Koyaanisqatsi":
Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of Balance

purplemer
reply to post by Sly1one

 

I think that a bit harsh. A lot of people do not choose to be homeless. Have all the homeless veterans choosen to be homeless... No there are reasons for it.

In their cases its usually disability that keeps them from work...but its not guaranteed to keep veterans from work...there are countless stories of disabled veterans providing for themselves quite effectively. I can't for the life of me find the story but there was a veteran who came back as a double amputee I believe and started his own custom gun manufacturing business...hes quite successfull in spite of almost ever reason not to be...

Being a disabled vet doesn't equate to homelessness...there are usually other factors that contribute to that are exacerbated by being disabled.

Here is a good read on other proposals for helping out veterans in particular
www.recapo.com...

Regardless of what is given to people for free it will not remove my own personal self responsibility. I think most people if given the chance what to be self responsibility.

Most people MAY indeed want to be self responsible...but the incentives aren't facilitating that avenue...they are facilitating dependence through free lunches...

I think if they added some responsibilities attached to attaining these houses for the homeless it would give them a great opportunity to start exercising that self responsibility muscle...

Unfortunately I can imagine that a LOT of the homeless have given up to a certain degree...their will on some level has been broken...

I personally think spending that 11k a year providing a JOB opportunities for the homeless would have a higher return on investment. Beautification jobs, roadside trash pickup, etc...its a twofer which is a sign of a good investment...it helps the homeless earn a wage and cleans up the city...

Again I have no ill will or judgement of the homeless they should be allowed to live the way they want to...

I simply just think there is a more efficient investment for that 11k a year than to just spend it on homeless housing without any potential of a return...

reply to post by dreamingawake


People absolutely would choose to quit jobs to get the housing.

You honestly think someone who is working two minimum wage jobs and working 10+ hours wouldn't choose to just quit to get the free apartment?

This solution is not going to last long. Like I said, it's a great idea but it is not feasible in the long term for a variety of reasons.

I just wish more cities had tent cities that people could go to without having to go through massive government bureaucracies.

OrphanApology
reply to post by dreamingawake

 

People absolutely would choose to quit jobs to get the housing.

You honestly think someone who is working two minimum wage jobs and working 10+ hours wouldn't choose to just quit to get the free apartment?

This solution is not going to last long. Like I said, it's a great idea but it is not feasible in the long term for a variety of reasons.

I just wish more cities had tent cities that people could go to without having to go through massive government bureaucracies.

We had a tent city.. a religious organization gave them brand new tents and really nice survival gear including a solar shower station... the mayor went berzerk and over 2 months time had the legal backing to remove EVERY person and their belongings... and BLOCK the project. Cant even be done on PRIVATE land that is given by the owner of the land.
Nice huh?

Doesn't matter, robots will do your jobs anyway.

reply to post by Advantage


What an evil man. I hope he falls down a well.

I have seen the same thing happen in pretty much every city.

People are evil and heartless even though they will say otherwise at dinner parties. They also have the reasoning capacity of an inch worm in regard to what is needed to really help people.

The tent city idea is the best one because it eliminates the moral hazard that would come along with just giving away free housing. It would also mean people could get back on their feet and have access to showers and mail. It would also mean that those who worked wouldn't be punished but actually rewarded for working(saving up is a reward). Meaning, even minimum wage workers(or anyone) could choose to rough it to get back on their feet and save money.

Perhaps the homeless could be given housing and rent could be the improvements....
or their contribution of labour towards repairs and maintenance, supervised by professionals in the building trades...
Certainly the pride of ownership would go some distance towards the up keep if they could actually own the housing after a period of time....
Warehousing the homeless is a failure.....pure and simple.....it demeans human dignity as well as causes the lack of respect given to the warehouses....welfare housing sucks in any city...
Vast tracts of empty livable land are in the hands of mega land owners....perhaps they could donate some to these unfortunates who could construct their own homes under supervision.....
What is NOT being done is the simple act of caring..............................................after all its the society which has created the homeless and its the system that breaks these people.