Homes for the homeless
6/7/14 19:37![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsMuch in line with the monthly topic, comes this:
Giving apartments to the chronically homeless can save taxpayer dollars, advocates say
Sometimes you have to spend money in order to save money and get the job done, as any progressive would tell you...
"Giving apartments to homeless people who've been on the streets for years before they've received treatment for drug or alcohol problems or mental illness may not sound like a wise idea. But that's what's being done in cities across America in an approach that targets those who've been homeless the longest and are believed to be at greatest risk of dying. They're people who once might have been viewed as unreachable. But cities and counties affiliated with a movement known as the 100,000 Homes Campaign announced this past week that they had gotten more than 100,000 of these people off the streets and into permanent housing. We first told you about this initiative earlier this year. Local governments and non-profit groups do most of the work. The money comes mostly from existing federal programs and private donations, and there's evidence that this approach saves taxpayers' money."
At least from a first reading, this sounds like a nice response to a serious problem that affects millions of people in America, particularly veterans, pensioners and handicapped. In fact this has already been done by Utah, and has shown some promising results while saving a lot of money:
Utah Solves Homelessness by Giving Away Homes
Utah Is on Track to End Homelessness by 2015 With This One Simple Idea
"The state is giving away apartments, no strings attached. In 2005, Utah calculated the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for an average homeless person was $16,670, while the cost of providing an apartment and social worker would be $11,000. Each participant works with a caseworker to become self-sufficient, but if they fail, they still get to keep their apartment".
Of course, there are caveats. First off, they'd probably need to expand a bit more on what "existing federal programs" exactly means. Because, the way it's formulated right now, it could mean practically anything involving tax money - therefore by definition it's not saving taxpayer money, but is rather spending taxpayer money. On the other hand, if it were all private donations there'd be no controversy, but that's apparently not exactly the case, is it.
Some'd also argue that the only reason it saves money is because entitling penniless people to medical care just for showing up at the ER door is much more expensive in comparison. Homeless are known to abuse that practice because they have nothing else, but the ER providers get to bill the taxpayers for the time they "waste" tending to these people, anyway. In a sense, it's not that housing everyone on taxpayer funds is intrinsically frugal, but it's that the entitlement to infinite health-care in its current form is so stunningly wasteful that housing the homeless only saves money by comparison. In other words, housing the homeless has a potential to modestly curtail the immense waste caused by other inefficient social policies, and it's mild financial damage control at best.
On the other hand, you just don't deny medical care to a group of people, especially when a high share of them have mental and physical illnesses. It may be economically expedient from a business point of view, but it's not moral, not Christian, and ultimately, detrimental to society at large. It's exactly because the health-care and insurance system is now being designed and operated as if it were a mere for-profit business as opposed to a fundamentally significant aspect of society, that it has reached its disastrous current predicament.
Meanwhile, such a policy would also require proper enforcement and oversight. Because otherwise there'd be a risk of teenagers getting a free party pad at the taxpayer's expense by just calling the government and claiming they're homeless with a heroin addiction and asking for a free apartment, while remaining totally clean and living in their parents' house, and then renting out their free apartment to friends and making money out of it.
I'm sure those among our more conservative pals who are somewhat prone to hyperbolic talking-point FOX-style vomiting would imminently argue that there's no stopping at merely giving apartments for free, and what's next is free food, free cars, free drugs, and, - gasp! - even free health-care and education! (OMGs and FFSs are in order). And, ya know, other such un-American stuff. (Well, free guns are probably a completely different story).
There's also the more rational counter-point to such a proposal, in that the more the root problem remains hidden from the public, the more it'll be ignored and its real solution delayed. We all know the reasoning behind the opposition to entitlement programs like these: they tend to create a culture of dependency, remove any incentive for personal development, hide away a whole segment of society in crappy, federally funded subdivisions and make it harder for society to garner support for addressing the root cause of these people's homelessness.
That said, the matter is not so black-and-white as some might be trying to portray it. Some homeless people are stable enough to live in a home without screwing up. All they need is a chance. They should be identified and given housing ASAP, so they could kick off from a way better position and possibly improve their life. Others need supervision. The most successful programs are the ones that have services AND monitoring. Not saying that there should necessarily be requirements to homeless people to become clean and sober before getting housing, as there's ample evidence suggesting that having a home in fact does make it far more likely that an addict would look after the place and clean up.
Personally, I don't support giving anyone free housing indefinitely, i.e. for life. Ultimately, the goal of this policy should be to stabilize the homeless so they could get a job, or at least social security, and pay for their housing within a certain period, eventually. That should be the whole idea of welfare: to provide a security net so that peope don't crash down on the ground; and then offer a launching pad from which people could start anew on their own, with their own efforts. The more people are helped that way, the better for society overall, no?
Social programs like these are not harmful per se - the ones that are wasteful and promote abuse of the system are the truly problematic ones. Sadly, those are not going away any time soon, because as long as there are politicians trying to buy votes, and perpetuate social problems for the sake of continuously exploiting them without finding a solution, to justify a few more votes on each election cycle, the problem is not going anywhere.
That said, it sounds like a good idea to see major cities building large living areas with residential quarters of various size depending on their needs, with food warehouses that carry all anyone would need to survive. After all, with what's being wasted on excessive programs of incredibly low efficacy, we could provide much better for those who truly need help.
Plus, the other thing that this needs to be coupled with, is rehabilitation. In America, drug problems are also swept under the rug by mostly jailing humongous swaths of people for petty crimes, stuffing the bloated jail system with cheap labor, again all at the taxpayer's back and for the profit of the private companies operating those jails. And let's face it, a large part of the problem with the homeless is directly intertwined with the problem of drug addiction.
Giving apartments to the chronically homeless can save taxpayer dollars, advocates say
Sometimes you have to spend money in order to save money and get the job done, as any progressive would tell you...
"Giving apartments to homeless people who've been on the streets for years before they've received treatment for drug or alcohol problems or mental illness may not sound like a wise idea. But that's what's being done in cities across America in an approach that targets those who've been homeless the longest and are believed to be at greatest risk of dying. They're people who once might have been viewed as unreachable. But cities and counties affiliated with a movement known as the 100,000 Homes Campaign announced this past week that they had gotten more than 100,000 of these people off the streets and into permanent housing. We first told you about this initiative earlier this year. Local governments and non-profit groups do most of the work. The money comes mostly from existing federal programs and private donations, and there's evidence that this approach saves taxpayers' money."
At least from a first reading, this sounds like a nice response to a serious problem that affects millions of people in America, particularly veterans, pensioners and handicapped. In fact this has already been done by Utah, and has shown some promising results while saving a lot of money:
Utah Solves Homelessness by Giving Away Homes
Utah Is on Track to End Homelessness by 2015 With This One Simple Idea
"The state is giving away apartments, no strings attached. In 2005, Utah calculated the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for an average homeless person was $16,670, while the cost of providing an apartment and social worker would be $11,000. Each participant works with a caseworker to become self-sufficient, but if they fail, they still get to keep their apartment".
Of course, there are caveats. First off, they'd probably need to expand a bit more on what "existing federal programs" exactly means. Because, the way it's formulated right now, it could mean practically anything involving tax money - therefore by definition it's not saving taxpayer money, but is rather spending taxpayer money. On the other hand, if it were all private donations there'd be no controversy, but that's apparently not exactly the case, is it.
Some'd also argue that the only reason it saves money is because entitling penniless people to medical care just for showing up at the ER door is much more expensive in comparison. Homeless are known to abuse that practice because they have nothing else, but the ER providers get to bill the taxpayers for the time they "waste" tending to these people, anyway. In a sense, it's not that housing everyone on taxpayer funds is intrinsically frugal, but it's that the entitlement to infinite health-care in its current form is so stunningly wasteful that housing the homeless only saves money by comparison. In other words, housing the homeless has a potential to modestly curtail the immense waste caused by other inefficient social policies, and it's mild financial damage control at best.
On the other hand, you just don't deny medical care to a group of people, especially when a high share of them have mental and physical illnesses. It may be economically expedient from a business point of view, but it's not moral, not Christian, and ultimately, detrimental to society at large. It's exactly because the health-care and insurance system is now being designed and operated as if it were a mere for-profit business as opposed to a fundamentally significant aspect of society, that it has reached its disastrous current predicament.
Meanwhile, such a policy would also require proper enforcement and oversight. Because otherwise there'd be a risk of teenagers getting a free party pad at the taxpayer's expense by just calling the government and claiming they're homeless with a heroin addiction and asking for a free apartment, while remaining totally clean and living in their parents' house, and then renting out their free apartment to friends and making money out of it.
I'm sure those among our more conservative pals who are somewhat prone to hyperbolic talking-point FOX-style vomiting would imminently argue that there's no stopping at merely giving apartments for free, and what's next is free food, free cars, free drugs, and, - gasp! - even free health-care and education! (OMGs and FFSs are in order). And, ya know, other such un-American stuff. (Well, free guns are probably a completely different story).
There's also the more rational counter-point to such a proposal, in that the more the root problem remains hidden from the public, the more it'll be ignored and its real solution delayed. We all know the reasoning behind the opposition to entitlement programs like these: they tend to create a culture of dependency, remove any incentive for personal development, hide away a whole segment of society in crappy, federally funded subdivisions and make it harder for society to garner support for addressing the root cause of these people's homelessness.
That said, the matter is not so black-and-white as some might be trying to portray it. Some homeless people are stable enough to live in a home without screwing up. All they need is a chance. They should be identified and given housing ASAP, so they could kick off from a way better position and possibly improve their life. Others need supervision. The most successful programs are the ones that have services AND monitoring. Not saying that there should necessarily be requirements to homeless people to become clean and sober before getting housing, as there's ample evidence suggesting that having a home in fact does make it far more likely that an addict would look after the place and clean up.
Personally, I don't support giving anyone free housing indefinitely, i.e. for life. Ultimately, the goal of this policy should be to stabilize the homeless so they could get a job, or at least social security, and pay for their housing within a certain period, eventually. That should be the whole idea of welfare: to provide a security net so that peope don't crash down on the ground; and then offer a launching pad from which people could start anew on their own, with their own efforts. The more people are helped that way, the better for society overall, no?
Social programs like these are not harmful per se - the ones that are wasteful and promote abuse of the system are the truly problematic ones. Sadly, those are not going away any time soon, because as long as there are politicians trying to buy votes, and perpetuate social problems for the sake of continuously exploiting them without finding a solution, to justify a few more votes on each election cycle, the problem is not going anywhere.
That said, it sounds like a good idea to see major cities building large living areas with residential quarters of various size depending on their needs, with food warehouses that carry all anyone would need to survive. After all, with what's being wasted on excessive programs of incredibly low efficacy, we could provide much better for those who truly need help.
Plus, the other thing that this needs to be coupled with, is rehabilitation. In America, drug problems are also swept under the rug by mostly jailing humongous swaths of people for petty crimes, stuffing the bloated jail system with cheap labor, again all at the taxpayer's back and for the profit of the private companies operating those jails. And let's face it, a large part of the problem with the homeless is directly intertwined with the problem of drug addiction.
(no subject)
Date: 6/7/14 21:37 (UTC)The real value of charity, individual charity, is the human connection made between the giver and those given to. Seeing the need in our daily lives and addressing it as we can, person to person. Applying for aid and getting aid from programs, and even at times, impersonal representation from institutional charities is nice, but it's often a case of a band-aid over an infected wound. It's not the source of a lasting solution, or even the basis for it.
If we want societies that matter, that actually function like strong societies where these ills are minimized (as well as the tangential issues that arise around them), you need neighbors that look out for one another personally, and often enough, that means giving freely and directly.
That's a cultural issue. It's answer is not conservative or progressive (i.e. It's not the 'fault' of the poor or homeless nor the lack of instituting just the right program).
(no subject)
Date: 6/7/14 22:14 (UTC)Likewise if we're going with amorphisms : then any society's values are reflected on the macro level by it's governmental policies, either federal, state and local.
That's a cultural issue. It's answer is not conservative or progressive (i.e. It's not the 'fault' of the poor or homeless nor the lack of instituting just the right program).
Bragging rights goes to Western European countries that with their "cultural" background and governmental policies which gives them a much lower homelessness rate (e.g. the United States has about 3.5 million, Western Europe counts 6,500).
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 01:41 (UTC)To some degree, yes. With each there are varying degrees of filters those values necessarily end up passing through.
How many filters do those values have to pass through at the federal level? At the State level? Local? What about the interpersonal level? It's not intuitive to think that the more averaging out over a larger and larger scales doesn't have a significant (and most probable detrimental) impact on just how representative the sausage is that comes out the other side of the process ends up being.
You can forge a community between members that interact and assist because of their desire to do so. It's less evident how programs and even institutional charities do that.
Bragging rights goes to Western European countries that with their "cultural" background and governmental policies which gives them a much lower homelessness rate (e.g. the United States has about 3.5 million, Western Europe counts 6,500).
Bragging rights and rankings are only for those who see this as some kind of competition. Several of those countries, however, are about on average the scale of a number of our own States. Yet I am continually told that the State institutions are too small or somehow otherwise deficient in the ability to do likewise (still lacking in all of those, however, is any concrete reasons why that is necessarily so). I'm told the only way to go is to centralize.
I'm not arguing against the safety net. I'm saying it's not going to solve problems which have their roots elsewhere, in the culture. Putting the emphasis on programs as solutions is missing the point of what any program should aim to do.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 06:11 (UTC)No, despite that sounding like another amorphism, that's not the only way to see comparisions and outcomes.
Several of those countries, however, are about on average the scale of a number of our own States.
Like there's no statistical tools to adjust for comparing different things?
Yet I am continually told that the State institutions are too small or somehow otherwise deficient in the ability to do likewise.
That's certainly not the case with the program cited in the OP.
I'm told the only way to go is to centralize.
Basically you're suggesting that
You can forge a community between members that interact and assist because of their desire to do so.
That's essentially a rehash of Ron Paul's Libertarian argument for health care reform: our churches and family and friends took care of one another.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 00:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 01:21 (UTC)But besides that, and considering I'm talking about interpersonal community charity, I don't see how what you're saying matters. If I have need because I don't have resources someone else in my community does, and he or she has more than enough to assist me, and does, why on earth am I going to care about that as much as the fact that my neighbor did not have to help me yet did so anyway? Something like that would carry no significance to you, if it was you in that scenario?
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 03:55 (UTC)I agree with you 100% that social bonds are very important, but charity doesn't do that.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 04:39 (UTC)That's essentially my point. Solving problems of this nature requires communities to be closer-knit. I think it's foolish to expect anything more than band-aid treatment on the part of a program. That's not to say it doesn't have a place and a role, but that role is not in solving problems.
but charity doesn't do that.
If it doesn't than nothing can, as I see it. I mean, we're talking about interpersonal charity (self-sacrificing love of neighbor, without any intermediaries). If that doesn't do it, I can't think of anything else that substitute.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 13:34 (UTC)If it doesn't than nothing can. That's not true in the slightest. Handing a person something doesn't make you their friend and it doesn't make you closer to them. Having people work together, have common goals to work towards, etc, bring people together.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 16:49 (UTC)It's not the handing the person something, it's what's behind it. Empathy. And they don't have to become my friend for it either in order for it to be successful at generating that. Giving something freely when there is no material gain to be had, to someone who genuinely is in need of it, speaks volumes in the language of empathy. Same can be said for changing your plans so you can talk to them about a problem they're having. Same can be said for helping out a neighbor assemble a shed even when it's not 'your shared goal' or something you would have been inclined to do that day.
I've had a couple of instances in my own life quite recently that verified this.
People can connect with (get closer to) film characters often in spite of the fact that their goals are completely alien to them. Why? Because empathy connects people in ways that goals do not. And empathy is generated from showing our humanity.
Even though it's fiction, it taps into basic human psychology. Psychology which has real world application.
There are plenty of people who may share my own goals but for whom I would have a much harder time working with and may choose not to work with towards that goal, if they're behaving like a dick.
What you're telling me is that people value a shared goal more than empathy, and that's not what I see, tangibly.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 21:02 (UTC)The power and authority "gap" between the beneficiary a local volunteer and is much narrower than the gap between the beneficiary and a government official or bureaucrat.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 06:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 17:11 (UTC)Again, I'm not against safety nets. I just don't view them as solutions as much
And I don't see much viability in pursuing them as solutions in themselves. A change in culture is more apt to produce lasting results, and that's not going to be something politics and policy is going to have a controlling effect enough to 'solve'.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 21:24 (UTC)They're a good start.
Too vague, no specifics.
Not really, but nice attempt at mind-reading. Still no cake.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 22:08 (UTC)And yes, speaking in terms of specifics, statistics, data, programs and policy are all fairly mechanical and procedural in nature, especially when what I'm comparing it against is organic development of cultural, human-to-human interaction. Observing that isn't the work of a mind reader, it's just looking at the characteristics of those things which were already under discussion.
Programs, policy and the kinds of specifics you're looking for can mitigate these problems, and that is good, but solving problems entirely is another matter entirely.
Keep your cake, I'm going out for pie.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 23:06 (UTC)Programs, policy and the kinds of specifics you're looking for can mitigate these problems, and that is good, but solving problems entirely is another matter entirely.
Well yes, solving problems like alcoholism, drug addiction, disability, mental illness, these are social problems that can't be written away with legislation. But the effects of these things we can mitigate with legislation.
I'm not sure what you want. What we can deal with through politics, we are.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 23:29 (UTC)Just what you said there.
My contention is with those who see solutions where problems are solved as opposed to mitigated with the understanding that unless a culture is inclined, won't ever be 'fixed' per-se.
I do believe actual solutions are possible, but as you said, and I agree, it's out of the hands of the politicians and policymakers, and in our own.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/14 04:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/14 17:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/14 21:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/14 06:33 (UTC)That's what you think. It's a convenient cop-out amidst a stream of general platitudes. I've been hearing people talking about "we need change", but as soon as I ask for something even remotely resembling specifics, they instantly backpedal like you just did.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/14 14:53 (UTC)I don't see how I backpedaled either, in as far as 'solutions' go, I've been fairly consistent. It has to come not from policy but from the community directly. I still maintain that.
Often enough solutions don't involve changing policies, or policies in general.
As mentioned in my response to kylinrouge, that doesn't mean mitigation via policy isn't possible. In fact, mitigation is what I think any policy on the matter should aim for.
As for what policy is best at mitigating the problem, I don't know. I would encourage each state or municipality to each independently see what works for themselves, and be encouraged to share those results with other municipalities. Let them look over each other's proverbial shoulder, and crib the parts the think are successful from one another and adapt the policy as they move forward.