4 ms·
The article I'm remembering actually addressed that. The program was limited to a very small number of people--tens, or fewer. They actually had one that wrecke
by fusiongyro 14y ago
The article I'm remembering actually addressed that. The program was limited to a very small number of people--tens, or fewer. They actually had one that wrecked his apartment every week, and still it was cheaper to fix it back up than to let this guy back on the street, where he would incur about $1M a year in ER bills. One of the big objections to this program came from the fact that the scale was so limited.
- MartinCron 14y agoOne of the big objections to this program came from the fact that the scale was so limited. You would think that this kind of operation would get cheaper at scale. You might not need 2X wrecked-apartment-repairmen for 2X people housed.
- philh 14y agoThe fraud that jumps to my mind is a hypothetical person taking a free apartment, when they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves and would do so if the alternative was homelessness. That's certainly not cheaper. I make no claims about how common this kind of fraud would actually be.