4 ms·

100k/per year for homeless person? Do you realize that by giving that amount to most of them would get them OUT of the homelessness by next year (or sooner)? Ye

by soco 3y ago

100k/per year for homeless person? Do you realize that by giving that amount to most of them would get them OUT of the homelessness by next year (or sooner)? Yes there are the ones unable to get out of the pit, but most would. I would think if the measure of your services is how many homeless you support, then you'd increase the number of homeless,right? It's all KPIs and perfectly in the spirit of the OC.

beaeglebeached 3y ago
I would pass law, average public spend per homeless can't exceed average public spend per public school student without annual public vote. Let them explain, ever year, why your child is less deserving of the public investment.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
That isn't true. The really bad cases will trash/burn down their housing in a few months of obtaining it without lots of live in resources to make that not happen (or renovate/rebuild after it does happen). If it were just housing, we could solve this problem more easily, but we have decided as a society to combine it with our drug abuse problem and have decided for some odd reason to treat the harder cases first and wait for the easier cases (just need housing) become hard cases (now addicted to drugs) before doing anything about it.
- soco 3y ago
  Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    > Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly. You are ignoring the 9 people they did help that way, but they didn't stay homeless for very long and aren't counted as chronically homeless. The one person that did burn down their hotel room is chronically homeless and very difficult to help...well, they are chronically homeless after all. Not really exaggerated at all, I'm guessing you live in a nice suburb or somewhere without a chronic homelessness problem? Or you are just trying to gaslight us into thinking our property crime/drug problems aren't as extreme as we see them to be?
fragmede 3y ago
It would, but the homeless-industrial complex couldn't stand for that.

by soco 3y ago

beaeglebeached 3y ago

I would pass law, average public spend per homeless can't exceed average public spend per public school student without annual public vote. Let them explain, ever year, why your child is less deserving of the public investment.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

That isn't true. The really bad cases will trash/burn down their housing in a few months of obtaining it without lots of live in resources to make that not happen (or renovate/rebuild after it does happen). If it were just housing, we could solve this problem more easily, but we have decided as a society to combine it with our drug abuse problem and have decided for some odd reason to treat the harder cases first and wait for the easier cases (just need housing) become hard cases (now addicted to drugs) before doing anything about it.

soco 3y ago
Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  > Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly. You are ignoring the 9 people they did help that way, but they didn't stay homeless for very long and aren't counted as chronically homeless. The one person that did burn down their hotel room is chronically homeless and very difficult to help...well, they are chronically homeless after all. Not really exaggerated at all, I'm guessing you live in a nice suburb or somewhere without a chronic homelessness problem? Or you are just trying to gaslight us into thinking our property crime/drug problems aren't as extreme as we see them to be?

fragmede 3y ago

It would, but the homeless-industrial complex couldn't stand for that.