9 ms·

Utah had a similar outcome; house the homeless, and improve 80% of cases. I still bristle at the description “virtually end homelessness” - you buy them free h

by ip26 3y ago

Utah had a similar outcome; house the homeless, and improve 80% of cases. I still bristle at the description “virtually end homelessness” - you buy them free housing and 20% still remain unhoused, is that “solved”? What happens next? What more can you do?

kqr 3y ago
It's a bit unclear exactly what the 80 % figure measures, but according to TFA it's the lower bound of the fraction of people who got housing fully subsidised and is now pays their rent independently. Given that the homeless include people with serious problems, that only at most 20 % need ongoing subsidising sounds like a huge win to me.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  The 80% seems to exclude people who need subsidies, but also those who moved out of the rental market entirely.
Puts 3y ago
It's not fully clear from the article if that 20% didn't manage to keep the housing at all or if it was just that they didn't manage to pay their own rent. To me 80% sounds awesome. There are some people in this world that just wasn't built to cope with life. But they are still part of society and there needs to be a place for them too.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
The Utah success article was written in 2017, in 2022 its like that never happened. https://www.kuer.org/business-economy/2022-10-12/salt-lake-citys-2-year-increase-in-homeless-is-reflected-across-the-west https://www.kuer.org/business-economy/2022-10-12/salt-lake-c... and they have a plan to take it serious again https://www.ksl.com/article/50599199/utah-unveils-aggressive-plan-to-address-homelessness-statewide https://www.ksl.com/article/50599199/utah-unveils-aggressive...
eyelidlessness 3y ago
First article I found said the SLC program was successful for 95% of those placed in a home. IIRC, the housing first program in Seattle was similarly effective. I agree that it’s not as exhaustive as some of the more boastful claims, but I think the better question to ask is why these programs have been cut in favor of far less effective and far more expensive ones.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  Effective at what? I lived near a motel that was part of a “housing first” initiative in SF. People treated the hotel like home base, and still spent their nights howling. I had to move the screaming was so loud. Not to mention the drugs, human trafficking, etc. In terms of environment, it didn’t deduce things like human feces on the street. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the neighborhood was mostly unlivable. That’s not a real solution.
  - tfourb 3y ago
    Good housing first programs do not cluster beneficiaries but try to integrate them into "normal" neighborhoods and provide them with ongoing support by social workers, medical attention, etc. Just dumping a couple of dozen homeless people in a motel is not a great way to approach this, I agree.
    - pyuser583 3y ago
      NY requires low income housing to be distributed among middle-class neighborhoods. It’s helpful, but creates massive backlogs. Plenty of homeless people are on waiting lists. It makes it impossible to convert money into housing. You have to wait until you find a vacancy in middle class neighborhood. They can’t just buy a place and put people there - which is how housing usually works.
      - tfourb 3y ago
        Why can't they? Municipality-owned housing is a thing in many places around the world and is generally cost-covering even when rented out to low-income housesholds. In many places (i.e. Germany and Austria), even some of the most desirable middle-income housing is owned by local governments so it's nothing that has to come with stigma attached to it. Housing always needs planning permission and that is something local governments have huge sway over. You can easily imagine that to get planning permission, developers have to cede 15% of the land to the local municipality or have to construct housing that has 25 years of priority for municipality-nominated tenants. It has been done.

by ip26 3y ago

kqr 3y ago

It's a bit unclear exactly what the 80 % figure measures, but according to TFA it's the lower bound of the fraction of people who got housing fully subsidised and is now pays their rent independently. Given that the homeless include people with serious problems, that only at most 20 % need ongoing subsidising sounds like a huge win to me.

HWR_14 3y ago
The 80% seems to exclude people who need subsidies, but also those who moved out of the rental market entirely.

Puts 3y ago

It's not fully clear from the article if that 20% didn't manage to keep the housing at all or if it was just that they didn't manage to pay their own rent. To me 80% sounds awesome. There are some people in this world that just wasn't built to cope with life. But they are still part of society and there needs to be a place for them too.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

The Utah success article was written in 2017, in 2022 its like that never happened. https://www.kuer.org/business-economy/2022-10-12/salt-lake-citys-2-year-increase-in-homeless-is-reflected-across-the-west https://www.kuer.org/business-economy/2022-10-12/salt-lake-c... and they have a plan to take it serious again https://www.ksl.com/article/50599199/utah-unveils-aggressive-plan-to-address-homelessness-statewide https://www.ksl.com/article/50599199/utah-unveils-aggressive...

eyelidlessness 3y ago

First article I found said the SLC program was successful for 95% of those placed in a home. IIRC, the housing first program in Seattle was similarly effective. I agree that it’s not as exhaustive as some of the more boastful claims, but I think the better question to ask is why these programs have been cut in favor of far less effective and far more expensive ones.

pyuser583 3y ago
Effective at what? I lived near a motel that was part of a “housing first” initiative in SF. People treated the hotel like home base, and still spent their nights howling. I had to move the screaming was so loud. Not to mention the drugs, human trafficking, etc. In terms of environment, it didn’t deduce things like human feces on the street. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the neighborhood was mostly unlivable. That’s not a real solution.
- tfourb 3y ago
  Good housing first programs do not cluster beneficiaries but try to integrate them into "normal" neighborhoods and provide them with ongoing support by social workers, medical attention, etc. Just dumping a couple of dozen homeless people in a motel is not a great way to approach this, I agree.
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    NY requires low income housing to be distributed among middle-class neighborhoods. It’s helpful, but creates massive backlogs. Plenty of homeless people are on waiting lists. It makes it impossible to convert money into housing. You have to wait until you find a vacancy in middle class neighborhood. They can’t just buy a place and put people there - which is how housing usually works.
    - tfourb 3y ago
      Why can't they? Municipality-owned housing is a thing in many places around the world and is generally cost-covering even when rented out to low-income housesholds. In many places (i.e. Germany and Austria), even some of the most desirable middle-income housing is owned by local governments so it's nothing that has to come with stigma attached to it. Housing always needs planning permission and that is something local governments have huge sway over. You can easily imagine that to get planning permission, developers have to cede 15% of the land to the local municipality or have to construct housing that has 25 years of priority for municipality-nominated tenants. It has been done.