Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 WarOne wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
...as long as they are willing to work, not doing drugs/crime, sure its a great idea to spend 11grand to house them instead of 16g's to incarcerate them or deal with their vagrancy.

Okay, I can play devil's advocate. What about individuals who aren't willing to work? What about the drug addicts and criminals? What about the mentally ill homeless? Buy them a house? Okay, but what about their addiction, medical condition, or unemployment? And what about the non-homeless who are having their credit ruined because they defaulted on their mortgages? Obama supposedly put in a program for them and it wasn't "just buy them a house".

If you accept the cost benefit analysis where it is cheaper to house them rather than let them loose in the streets, then I would support such a program and see if it works.

Of course, the cost of doing this can vary on a case by case basis.

Id, really like to see the cost breakdown on this program. Does it include security and maintenance of said housing? Have any of you ever been to section 8 housing? The way many of them treat their subsidized housing is pretty appalling and the places tend to have a lot of criminal activity. Until I see some real data I just can't believe its actually cheaper to cover these costs.

Where does it stop? So we shelter, feed, provide medical and mental care, clothing, child care ...etc. What about when they need cars, cellphones or computers?

So many of our government programs are based on the theory that they are cheaper in the long run. I really believe that they rarely include all the factors. I'm not an elitist, I believe we should help the less fortunate in our societies, but the less fortunate also need to be held responsible while they are on these programs. I'm sure I'll get flamed for these comments, but I just see too much of people abusing the system.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Where does it stop? So we shelter, feed, provide medical and mental care, clothing, child care ...etc. What about when they need cars, cellphones or computers?

It stops when we say it stops. That's how liberal democracy works.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

So many of our government programs are based on the theory that they are cheaper in the long run. I really believe that they rarely include all the factors.

Your latter statement is correct, as doing so would take too much time and cost too much money. This is why policy analysts consider only the factors relevant to the policy they are analyzing, and why being able to discern the relevance of a factor is a marketable skill.

As to your former statement: which government programs are based on that rationale?

A lot of people seem to be missing the part of the article wher ethe people also get a case worker to help them with other "issues".

I guess it is more than just giving them a house; but still cheaper than not giving them a house and a case worker.

 Easy E wrote:
A lot of people seem to be missing the part of the article wher ethe people also get a case worker to help them with other "issues".

I guess it is more than just giving them a house; but still cheaper than not giving them a house and a case worker.

Exactly. Clearly it would be foolish to give someone who stands around muttering to themselves or crawls into a garbage can in 104 degree heat and pulls the lid back on over themselves a house or apartment and just leave them to it.
The case worker makes sure the homeless people are not being given more than they can handle.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Have any of you ever been to section 8 housing?

Yes, I lived in it for many years when I was growing up. I think you might be conflating "section 8" with "the projects", erroneously. In our case we lived on the second floor of a 3 family house, and section 8 covered covered whatever the percentage of allowable rent was for our area, and we paid the excess. My mother had been on a waiting list for many years to that, previously, and then at some point they decided to remove all convicted felons from the list and boom, we moved just outside of the Bronx to the aforementioned 3 family; which was inspected yearly to make sure the pipes and heating worked, there were no steps in disrepair, things like that. We could have lived in a much worse neighborhood and not paid rent at all I suppose; but we worked instead.

Not all section 8 is Queensbridge or Marcy though.

Utah 10 year plan to eliminate homelesness:


http://www.housingworks.utah.gov/documents/TEN-YEARPLAN.pdf

Impressive!

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/housing-first-good-news-for-the-homeless-this-christmas-9020934.html

A socialist program has been shown to work!? We can't have that! Sic the Calvinists on them!

Wow? So homelessness numbers drop when the government gives people homes? Sounds like really groundbreaking data to me.

I bet the % of people in the military with guns is pretty high too.

 Ouze wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Have any of you ever been to section 8 housing?

Yes, I lived in it for many years when I was growing up. I think you might be conflating "section 8" with "the projects", erroneously. In our case we lived on the second floor of a 3 family house, and section 8 covered covered whatever the percentage of allowable rent was for our area, and we paid the excess. My mother had been on a waiting list for many years to that, previously, and then at some point they decided to remove all convicted felons from the list and boom, we moved just outside of the Bronx to the aforementioned 3 family; which was inspected yearly to make sure the pipes and heating worked, there were no steps in disrepair, things like that. We could have lived in a much worse neighborhood and not paid rent at all I suppose; but we worked instead.

Not all section 8 is Queensbridge or Marcy though.

I'm just speaking from personal experience, I used to deliver pizza in high school to quite a bit of section 8 housing and apartment complexes in Euclid/Cleveland. They were usually pretty disheveled.

It shouldn't be surprising. People tend to have more respect for things they earned themselves than for things they were given.

Of course no one ever thinks about the people who have to live next to the homeless you just bought houses for. Nothing says feth YOU like putting homeless people in next to you.

 Reckoner wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Reckoner wrote:
I know the idea of providing some of your own resources to help the others in your community whom are less fortunate is quite a contested notion in the United States, but in Canada we have seen subsidized housing in some of our cities dramatically cut crime rates, delinquency, emergency health care expenditure, and poverty levels. Basically everything that your article is arguing.

Call me a bleeding heart liberal for supporting it, but there is mathematical proof that providing housing for the homeless is economically viable and in fact saves more money. Nice article OP.

See... this misconception is wrong. Providing our own resources is something we love to do. Being told we HAVE to provide our own resources, that is what we are resistant to.

Exactly... the US of A as whole is a very generous country.

We just don't like being told HOW.

Does that not basically summarize the entire partisanship issue with your Congress and other issues within your government? That you can't stand bipartisanship and that an idea is only good if you came up with it?

Partly... yeah. Right now, it's party loyalty/identity that's dominating the American political psyche...which neuters having an actual constructive debate a bit.

Frazzled wrote:Of course no one ever thinks about the people who have to live next to the homeless you just bought houses for. Nothing says feth YOU like putting homeless people in next to you.

This is what most people think whenever someone from Texas moves into their neighbourhood.

 Frazzled wrote:
Of course no one ever thinks about the people who have to live next to the homeless you just bought houses for. Nothing says feth YOU like putting homeless people in next to you.

God forbid we help people. ope we just stay in our castles ignoring the poor outside the gates.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Of course no one ever thinks about the people who have to live next to the homeless you just bought houses for. Nothing says feth YOU like putting homeless people in next to you.

This is what most people think whenever someone from Texas moves into their neighbourhood.

"What is that? Oh god! It's a flag pole!"

So, what exactly is the intensive to work again? I mean, if the government is going to house, feed and provide medical and mental support, well what intensive do the below average have to work? Right now if you work at lets say walmart, you have to pay for rent and insurance, utilities....all that stuff. Why would they even bother going to work anymore if they can get that all for free without haveing to go through the hassle of working, filing taxes, having to sign up for insurance.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
So, what exactly is the intensive to work again? I mean, if the government is going to house, feed and provide medical and mental support, well what intensive do the below average have to work? Right now if you work at lets say walmart, you have to pay for rent and insurance, utilities....all that stuff. Why would they even bother going to work anymore if they can get that all for free without haveing to go through the hassle of working, filing taxes, having to sign up for insurance.

1.) I think you must have autocorrect whupping up on your post.

2.) The same thing that keeps people from moving up from minimum wage teenage jobs. After all, many people flip burgers at some point, but they don't do it until they retire, right? People want a better life, they want more... stuff.

3.) Most of the social welfare programs, at least the ones I were in when I was a kid, aren't exactly paperwork and effort free either. I don't think most people avoid getting a job because they will have to sign up for insurance. But again, I think point 2 is critical here.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
So, what exactly is the intensive to work again? I mean, if the government is going to house, feed and provide medical and mental support, well what intensive do the below average have to work? Right now if you work at lets say walmart, you have to pay for rent and insurance, utilities....all that stuff. Why would they even bother going to work anymore if they can get that all for free without haveing to go through the hassle of working, filing taxes, having to sign up for insurance.

Theory: As much as we all hate work, no one genuinely likes to be utterly unproductive and worthless on a societal level.

 daedalus wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
So, what exactly is the intensive to work again? I mean, if the government is going to house, feed and provide medical and mental support, well what intensive do the below average have to work? Right now if you work at lets say walmart, you have to pay for rent and insurance, utilities....all that stuff. Why would they even bother going to work anymore if they can get that all for free without haveing to go through the hassle of working, filing taxes, having to sign up for insurance.

Theory: As much as we all hate work, no one genuinely likes to be utterly unproductive and worthless on a societal level.

I would say this theory is false.

But many people don't move up. Look at walmart. Most of the people there are not teenagers. Gas station attendants, most retail people, servers, janitorial staff, most people who do basic jobs all live paycheck to paycheck. They have to pay rent or a mortgage for shelter, grocery bills for food, and insurance for medical and mental care and survive on minimums, this is their reward for working 40-60 hours a week. Now, people want to give these same benefits to unproductive homeless people, I know people that would kill for a personal medical and mental health caseworker, but even with insurance they could never afford such a luxury.

Seams like it would be easier to just not work.

Many people are motivated by making a better life, but if your circumstances dictate that you end up doing menial work, well then you work to scrape by. Why work to scrape by if the government will just give you the same stuff.

Here's my thought on the matter that I came to believe while living in New Orleans and working across the street from the Iberville projects:

Give the apartments in public housing to the people living there or help them build their own homes, earning them through "sweat equity", like the programs already out there.
Experts train and help the people that are going to live there how to maintain their apartments as well as build homes. This serves to give pride of ownership, making people inclined to care for where they live as well as learning valuble skills along the way. There is no feeling like looking at a house you built or apartment you refurbished.
Other things happen like a strong sense of community and caring is established because people in the program are helping each other with their homes.

 djones520 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Theory: As much as we all hate work, no one genuinely likes to be utterly unproductive and worthless on a societal level.

I would say this theory is false.

I'll vouch for that. I don't particularly care about being productive, or giving back to society; I care about being able to buy and do things that I enjoy. It just so happens the latter requires the former.

Relapse wrote:
Here's my thought on the matter that I came to believe while living in New Orleans and working across the street from the Iberville projects:

Give the apartments in public housing to the people living there or help them build their own homes, earning them through "sweat equity", like the programs already out there.
Experts train and help the people that are going to live there how to maintain their apartments as well as build homes. This serves to give pride of ownership, making people inclined to care for where they live as well as learning valuble skills along the way. There is no feeling like looking at a house you built or apartment you refurbished.
Other things happen like a strong sense of community and caring is established because people in the program are helping each other with their homes.

I like this idea.

Of course, a case worker would also help a lot of these people too.

Andrew1975 wrote:But many people don't move up. Look at walmart. Most of the people there are not teenagers. Gas station attendants, most retail people, servers, janitorial staff, most people who do basic jobs all live paycheck to paycheck. They have to pay rent or a mortgage for shelter, grocery bills for food, and insurance for medical and mental care and survive on minimums, this is their reward for working 40-60 hours a week. Now, people want to give these same benefits to unproductive homeless people, I know people that would kill for a personal medical and mental health caseworker, but even with insurance they could never afford such a luxury.

Seams like it would be easier to just not work.

Many people are motivated by making a better life, but if your circumstances dictate that you end up doing menial work, well then you work to scrape by. Why work to scrape by if the government will just give you the same stuff.

I love how your Calvinism is so insurmountable that you are forced to call homeless people lazy, when I'm sure you absolutely have to know that a decent chunk of those homeless people are likely vets, whom I believe you generally respect.

 Easy E wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Here's my thought on the matter that I came to believe while living in New Orleans and working across the street from the Iberville projects:

Give the apartments in public housing to the people living there or help them build their own homes, earning them through "sweat equity", like the programs already out there.
Experts train and help the people that are going to live there how to maintain their apartments as well as build homes. This serves to give pride of ownership, making people inclined to care for where they live as well as learning valuble skills along the way. There is no feeling like looking at a house you built or apartment you refurbished.
Other things happen like a strong sense of community and caring is established because people in the program are helping each other with their homes.

I like this idea.

Of course, a case worker would also help a lot of these people too.

Yep, all the help they need comes as part of the package. I'd rather put my money into this than some of the stupid crap this government historically has done. That's why I'm excited to see what happens with this program here in Utah, with my fingers crossed to see it succeed.

 cincydooley wrote:
It shouldn't be surprising. People tend to have more respect for things they earned themselves than for things they were given.

People also tend to spend more on upkeep when they have more disposable income. If you don't have disposable income, you don't dispose of food and electricity to pay for repainting the house or buying a lawn mower or fixing the gate, or re-doing the roof...

 dogma wrote:

I'll vouch for that. I don't particularly care about being productive, or giving back to society; I care about being able to buy and do things that I enjoy. It just so happens the latter requires the former.

Aww gak, I just realized I was the sucker.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
It shouldn't be surprising. People tend to have more respect for things they earned themselves than for things they were given.

People also tend to spend more on upkeep when they have more disposable income. If you don't have disposable income, you don't dispose of food and electricity to pay for repainting the house or buying a lawn mower or fixing the gate, or re-doing the roof...

None of which would be the responsibility of a tenate in a situation like this.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:But many people don't move up. Look at walmart. Most of the people there are not teenagers. Gas station attendants, most retail people, servers, janitorial staff, most people who do basic jobs all live paycheck to paycheck. They have to pay rent or a mortgage for shelter, grocery bills for food, and insurance for medical and mental care and survive on minimums, this is their reward for working 40-60 hours a week. Now, people want to give these same benefits to unproductive homeless people, I know people that would kill for a personal medical and mental health caseworker, but even with insurance they could never afford such a luxury.

Seams like it would be easier to just not work.

Many people are motivated by making a better life, but if your circumstances dictate that you end up doing menial work, well then you work to scrape by. Why work to scrape by if the government will just give you the same stuff.

I love how your Calvinism is so insurmountable that you are forced to call homeless people lazy, when I'm sure you absolutely have to know that a decent chunk of those homeless people are likely vets, whom I believe you generally respect.

I'm sorry, where did I say they were lazy again? (rereads post) Nope, never said anyone was lazy. In fact I said a lot of people work very hard just to scrape by, and you want to make their efforts worthless, by basically giving away what they work so hard for.

And, yes I do believe that if anyone deserves medical and mental care from the government it would be vets. They have actually earned it.