Post: #1

Not really making a case for this approach, but I find it very interesting and worthy of intelligent discussion.

Quote:In eight years, Utah has quietly reduced homelessness by 78 percent, and is on track to end homelessness by 2015.

How did Utah accomplish this? Simple. Utah solved homelessness by giving people homes. In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker. So, the state began giving away apartments, with no strings attached. Each participant in Utah’s Housing First program also gets a caseworker to help them become self-sufficient, but they keep the apartment even if they fail. The program has been so successful that other states are hoping to achieve similar results with programs modeled on Utah’s.

It sounds like Utah borrowed a page from Homes Not Handcuffs, the 2009 report by The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and The National Coalition for the Homeless. Using a 2004 survey and anecdotal evidence from activists, the report concluded that permanent housing for the homeless is cheaper than criminalization. Housing is not only more human, it’s economical.

http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-endin...1390056183

Post: #2

read something about this too. pretty interesting stuff, it sort of goes with the "broken window" theory. if memory serves, even giving a homeless person with a criminal history a house makes him less likely to reoffend just because he has a house

Post: #3

Malcolm Gladwell did an article on this:

http://gladwell.com/million-dollar-murray/

Quote:Why problems like homelessness may be easier to solve than to manage.

Post: #4

Putting my tinfoil hat on.

I wonder what what would happen if the government started handing out free houses to all homeless people?

I sometimes wonder if the government needs homeless people as a way of keeping everybody else in line? Since the prime motivation for people not to fuck up and go bankrupt is the fear of being homeless.

Post: #5

Problem is, you start giving away free shit there's going to be a whole lot of people who will try to become eligible. This shit isn't static. Behavior changes in response to incentives. Unintended consequences.

How many people with shitty jobs will realize they don't have to work and then the gubmint will give them a free place?

Post: #6

It's also an unlikely solution for any city with high property values, NYC being the prime example. Still, if in certain cities it costs taxpayers less and improves the situation then it's surely good policy.

cardguy Wrote:I sometimes wonder if the government needs homeless people as a way of keeping everybody else in line. Since the prime motiviation for people not to fuck up and go bankrupt is the fear of being homeless.

There might be something to that, but at the same time there are countries with fewer homeless than the US and people are still motivated to work and be responsible...Germany for instance.

Post: #7

Why build houses? Just move them all to Detroit where you can buy a house for the price of a cheeseburger.

It's great that they have somewhere to live but what do they do for work and income?

Post: #8

(01-27-2014 06:15 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  Why build houses? Just move them all to Detroit where you can buy a house for the price of a cheeseburger.

It's great that they have somewhere to live but what do they do for work and income?

The same thing they do in my neighborhood.

Hobo Market on Sundays. Scavenge, rob, steal, hussle during the week.

Post: #9

Quote:In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker.

Does this mean that they've lost their healthcare cover from the state in return for the home?

Post: #10

(01-28-2014 12:12 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

Quote:In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker.

Does this mean that they've lost their healthcare cover from the state in return for the home?

No, but that people in a 11,000 house will require less visits to a jail or hospital, so that 11,000 + jail and hospital stays < 16,670

Post: #11

They tried doing this in my country.

Within 3 months the homeless were back on the streets again, exactly as before, except that they were now receiving passive income from renting their apartments.

Post: #12

Because section 8 housing is so renowned for it's ability to reduce crime...

Post: #13

(01-28-2014 01:31 AM)Sharkie Wrote:  They tried doing this in my country.

Within 3 months the homeless were back on the streets again, exactly as before, except that they were now receiving passive income from renting their apartments.

I wonder what it would be like to have a homeless bum as your landlord?

Can you imagine the arguments!?

Tenant : "Hey man, I need you to fix the leaky taps."
Homeless Bum owner of the apartment, chilling in a garbage bin : "What are you complaining for? At least you have a roof over your head!"

Post: #14

Ask the people who have to work to pay rent and live next to these homeless people feel about their new neighbors.

Post: #15

(01-28-2014 04:06 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  Ask the people who have to work to pay rent and live next to these homeless people feel about their new neighbors.

You describe my hood. Ask away.

All the construction around here is low income Gov subsidized housing. On top of already having a lot. Yet its not enough, they still have to protest any new store that is beyond the financial reach of the impoverished.

In Canada, there is no reason to be hungry and homeless. You do, however, need to stand in line to get these basics. Most of these people do not even have the time and patience to wait for traffic lights, so how can they be expected to wait in line for free food, and wait in line for a free bed.

The parallels with feminism are staggering.

Instead of keeping people from running into the street and being hit by cars, lower the speed limit for cars to walking speeds (on a major road). Sound familiar? School kids and homeless people and feminists can not be responsible for their own well being so we must take care of them.

Post: #16

America generally has its head in the sand about cost/benefit.

Our health care system costs so much more than any other wealthy country, yet we can not just remake it in a way that would be more cost effective.

Prison of course costs tax payers tons yet we maintain the largest percentage of our population locked up of any society in the entire world.

Investing more in education would pay off in spades, especially as Americas quality of education is dropping drastically. Yet no one wants to throw more money in to education for better results in the future.

No military will ever threaten us yet we spend spend spend on the military like the Soviet Union is out to get us.

Generally in all these cases its "fiscal conservatives" fighting for the more wasteful and expensive policy.

As with hmelessness in Utah, you imagine that fiscal conservatives would view it as a waste of taxpayer money. Yet its an investment that pays off and ends up being less costly in the end...

As with many things that fiscal conservatives protest against, it seems that the real reason for their opposition isnt fiscal conservatism, but just a desire to see people suffer for their bad behavior. They think homeless people are scum who got what they had coming to them. They think the injustice isnt the spending of public funds, but the fact that someone fucked up and now they arent suffering for it. Its just vindictivness really, a desire to see people who are already down and out suffer even more. Its really a disgusting instinct.

Post: #17

delete

Post: #18

I dont know where these people live but there are many newly built modern apts thats low income housing in utah. They get tax credits for doing this. It sucks if you like such places and want to live there even offering more money. You cant
The common sense is if its low income apt, it shouldnt be in popular area and shouldnt be a nice looking apt.
How would other people feel when they are paying regular rate and they live in a shttier area and shitter apt?

I shared this opinion with some studying architect well dressed white girl. She kind of got offended by saying poopr people has rights to live in good places.......lol