5 ms·

Clearly you don't have any experience with people you know struggling with mental illness ( which by the is very prevalent amongst the homeless ). It's not a ch

by olefoo 11y ago

Clearly you don't have any experience with people you know struggling with mental illness ( which by the is very prevalent amongst the homeless ). It's not a choice to be so depressed you can't show up for work; or so manic you can't deal with coworkers. But if we're going to talk about choices and homelessness; let's talk about what we can do as a society to minimize it and it's harms. Utah has proven that a "housing-first" approach to dealing with the homeless works. We are the richest and most powerful society that has ever been, yet we choose not solve this problem; and it does reflect badly on us.

ams6110 11y ago
My town tried something like this. Built apartments for the "chronically homeless" on the idea that, provided with decent homes, they could focus on getting jobs and putting other areas of their lives in order. What's happening? The tenants are trashing the apartments, selling the appliances, and not working. Enabling poor life choices generally doesn't stop those who are making them.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- SilasX 11y ago
  That sounds closer to what I would expect of such a program, but it apparently works in Utah. Is there something that story leaves out? Are the approaches different?
  - scarmig 11y ago
    "Works" is a tricky word, but consider: What is cheaper, having to replace a microwave once a month, or sending a homeless person to a hospital once a month? And once a month is probably an underestimate, if anything. How we currently treat the homeless is a disaster, both in terms of outcomes and cost. "On a monthly basis she does hundreds of dollars worth of property damage, shoots up heroin once per week, has ten times the chance of the general population of being raped, and costs the government thousands of dollars" is genuinely a massive improvement over the status quo: people just don't realize how shitty and expensive the status quo actually is. One of the benefits of starting from really low is that things that otherwise are shitty end up looking like sunshine in comparison. San Francisco spends something like $150 million a year in direct tax expenditures on solving its homelessness problem, to no observable benefit. It seems obvious choice to me that it'd be better to totally disregard any rights of the homeless, offer Stockton or Kansas $100 million a year just for the right to set up a staffed homeless complex within its borders, and call it a day.
  - shoegumfoot 11y ago
    Keep in mind that the Mormon church funds about half of the homeless program in Salt Lake City. They also donate free food to anyone in need. I would argue that the outcomes (for both homeless and non-homeless residents) are better in SLC than SF, but the total amount spent per homeless person is not radically different between the two cities. When the above is combined with the fact that SLC has fewer homeless per capita, it's easy to see why the SLC method looks like the easy way out.
    - joshdance 11y ago
      Good point, and I agree, but is there a source or link for the amount the LDS Church spends?

by olefoo 11y ago

ams6110 11y ago

My town tried something like this. Built apartments for the "chronically homeless" on the idea that, provided with decent homes, they could focus on getting jobs and putting other areas of their lives in order. What's happening? The tenants are trashing the apartments, selling the appliances, and not working. Enabling poor life choices generally doesn't stop those who are making them.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
SilasX 11y ago
That sounds closer to what I would expect of such a program, but it apparently works in Utah. Is there something that story leaves out? Are the approaches different?
- scarmig 11y ago
  "Works" is a tricky word, but consider: What is cheaper, having to replace a microwave once a month, or sending a homeless person to a hospital once a month? And once a month is probably an underestimate, if anything. How we currently treat the homeless is a disaster, both in terms of outcomes and cost. "On a monthly basis she does hundreds of dollars worth of property damage, shoots up heroin once per week, has ten times the chance of the general population of being raped, and costs the government thousands of dollars" is genuinely a massive improvement over the status quo: people just don't realize how shitty and expensive the status quo actually is. One of the benefits of starting from really low is that things that otherwise are shitty end up looking like sunshine in comparison. San Francisco spends something like $150 million a year in direct tax expenditures on solving its homelessness problem, to no observable benefit. It seems obvious choice to me that it'd be better to totally disregard any rights of the homeless, offer Stockton or Kansas $100 million a year just for the right to set up a staffed homeless complex within its borders, and call it a day.
- shoegumfoot 11y ago
  Keep in mind that the Mormon church funds about half of the homeless program in Salt Lake City. They also donate free food to anyone in need. I would argue that the outcomes (for both homeless and non-homeless residents) are better in SLC than SF, but the total amount spent per homeless person is not radically different between the two cities. When the above is combined with the fact that SLC has fewer homeless per capita, it's easy to see why the SLC method looks like the easy way out.
  - joshdance 11y ago
    Good point, and I agree, but is there a source or link for the amount the LDS Church spends?