It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Utah on track to end homelessness...

page: 3
36
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by opethPA
 



Not a perfect solution, but:

a. It gets people off the street.

b. It saves the state money.

c. It eliminates the red tape people have to go through to get help. Some will definitely improve their situation.

I don't know what else to tell you.


Is the fact that their is no plan to kick out the people who are lazy bugging you?
edit on 12/24/2013 by intelligenthoodlum33 because: sp


If you take the homeless off the streets, then it makes the downtown areas safer for everyone at all times, work days, evenings and weekends. Just by giving someone a roof over their head, takes away the stress and health problems of living outdoors.

The next thing to do is to find them some home study courses, something that would let them move forward.




posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I don't understand why the word "sustainable" keeps popping up in the thread, it must be the Buzz-Word for the day or some other nonsensical hoo hah.

The reason for so many people being unemployed, unemployable, homeless and destitute is precisely because the current system doesn't work and never has worked, and it was never meant to work.

The system itself was not designed to be sustainable, it was designed to do exactly what it does.

Destroy the lives of the many for the benefit of the few.

America is an immature country populated by immature people.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

MyHappyDogShiner
current system doesn't work and never has worked, and it was never meant to work.


Except for all the people that make it work.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


The intent is good. What's left out is when the word spreads, the "homeless" from other states will flood Utah. Heck, Nevada will probably give one way tickets to their homeless to get to Utah.

Free room and board??? Hey!! Why work??? It even beats doing time...for free! LOL. Now I can play with my I-pod, watch TV and demand MORE....



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   

badgerprints

theMediator

badgerprints
The American dream.
To have someone else take care of you because you can't or won't care for yourself.

It's not "working."


Oh well sorry, "Mr. I had life go so well for me that I don't understand the less fortunate".



I understand them all too well. I've been quite "unfortunate" in my time.
Have you ever slept under hedges next to an abandoned building full of very scary individuals, wrapped up in a scrap of old carpet and hoping nobody finds you or steals your stuff? I have.
I have been homeless and broke with no job and all of my possessions in a duffle bag.
I decided it wouldn't define me and my life.
Like I said, I don't judge the unfortunate. I judge the society that enables them.

It's amazing how everyone instantly connects my comments with success and an easy life.
Nobody seems to connect responsibility and accountability with the basic ability to provide for ones self.

This program is cheaper and gets rid of the visible symptoms of homelessness but that's about it.
Like putting a band aid on cancer.
Just cover it up so we can all feel good about ourselves.

Sorry I can't be on the cheer leading squad.
I'm not that guy.
edit on 22-12-2013 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)


I've been in that exact same spot. I was carrying a duffel bag along with a suitcase that had everything I owned plus medical supplies that couldn't be replaced and I was robbed on the street. I ended up in the hospital for ketoacidosis from diabetes without insulin! I had to go to the ER, and the costs for that trip alone were $12,835 for a 3 day stay. They gave me enough insulin for about a week to live on after treating me.

I think the root of this problem is the cost of medical care. Whether you have a chronic illness like type 1 diabetes, or you get in a horrible accident and don't have the medical coverage on your insurance-it can quickly put you into the poor zone without a house. The model of Canada's healthcare is what America should adopt. Let's face it, the governement is broke. If medical costs were not so bad in the USA for the INDIVIDUALS, it would give a chance for those who are disabled to get a chance at life. The government will never pay off the debt, so I think medical care should be a human right.

I also know that the city I live in here has thousands of empty apartments that have been sitting there since they were built 10 years ago! Nobody wants to pay as much as they want to charge for those places. I would like to see my community start a sort of step-up program where someone who is doing good as far as the shelter policies (no drugs, alcohol, show up at bedtime, etc.) should be given a chance to stay in an apartment that would be EMPTY anyway. Give them up to 2 years rent free to get a good enough job to be able to support themselves. Also, there is a medical outreach program in my community that doctors started here that is basically a "free clinic" for homeless or other people who are struggling.

Many people will disagree with me, but I think if every city in America that had 10,000 or more people did programs like this it would actually boost the economy in a great way. Let these people have a chance to provide for themselves down the road. Instead of a cost, turn them into something that can benefit themselves and the rest of the world.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


Nicely done, Utah - such a pragmatic approach to governance makes sense. Of course, they have the "built-in" benefit of a relatively stable population - Utah isn't a "destination" for many of the chronically hopeless, like San Francisco.

As such, these other cities have a tougher burden, as many of their homeless are mentally-ill who refuse any attempts to house them, Add to that the astronomical housing expenses in places like SF and NYC, combined with a shortage of housing stock, and the problem is much more difficult to deal with - it's hard, and expensive, to set aside housing for homeless when there's already a housing shortage.

Having been in the Army, I've certainly seen my share of high-density housing, and have gone to training centers with very small personal rooms. I doubt the cost of constructing and maintaining such facilities is the largest obstacle - the largest obstacle is finding anyone willing to have such a thing constructed in their neighborhoods, which could house hundreds or thousands of homeless - "Not In My BackYard", as the saying goes.

Which reminds me of another problem - that of overreach - many of the current housing assistance programs, like Section 8 / HCV's, want to do some social engineering in the process. The thought there is "Let's give people a really nice place to live, in a really nice suburb. These new residents will see how nice the suburbs are, and will want that for themselves, and will modify their behavior accordingly."

What actually happened in my neighborhood when HUD tried this notion out here is the transplants brought their drug-dealing boyfriends into these nice neighborhoods, which brought drug buyers, which led to open-air drug markets, shootings, a rash of break-in's and robberies, prostitution, and blight. Housing values plummeted, people left, unable to sell their properties, and landlords were unable to rent their properties, so vacants were taken over and became crash houses/crack houses. It took the better part of 3 years to undo most of the damage wrought by such ill-conceived social engineering.

Just a cautionary tale - don't try to solve every problem, keep it simple - providing shelter, food, healthcare in a direct and pragmatic way is something we can achieve and afford; it's when you try to solve every problem that unforeseen and undesirable consequences can occur.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by badgerprints
 



Maybe your experiences have made you bitter, but 78% less homeless people working.

You are right about one thing...they ARE being enabled.....enabled to an address, so they can get a job and not live on the street like animals.

Good for Utah.


I worked with homeless people locally. The jobs programs do what they can but they don't have the ability to give people the drive to get up in the morning and work.
You seem to think that homeless people all were working people who fell on hard times and just don't get a chance. Some of them were. Most of them are people who are have stayed homeless despite opportunities and attempts of others to help.

Lack of a job may cause temporary homelessness but it doesn't keep people down who will work to get themselves back up.

I don't have any problem with the idea of getting folks a place to stay. Shelters are expensive and not always safe. Welfare costs 50 grand a year per person. A homeless person is statistically more likely to eventually find a job and care for himself than an adult on welfare. Of course, once they get settled in a place they usually just go on welfare any way so it's not really a cheap solution.

But my point remains.
It's not a solution.
Our society creates these people because it has removed all incentive to be self sufficient and responsible.
It enables uselessness and encourages those who have potential to throw it away because it's not ever their fault.
They always have someone to blame for their situation but themselves.
Then they can comfortably give up responsibility for their own actions and blame the rest of the world.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


I know for a fact that Utah bussed some of the homeless into my town. When you do that, of course your homeless rate goes down. When you read a story, maybe that is really what it is. Maybe part of the story is true, but some of it is missing.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure that 'To Provide For The Common Defense' doesn't mean spending untold trillions on offensive weapons and overseas bases and maybe could instead mean, 'everyone is provided for as to their basic needs'.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


You're acting if allowing them to be homeless will make them more positive members of society and more useful to the economy. The fact is those living on the streets are more exposed to anti-social factors such as alcoholism and drug dependency than those in a more stable environment.

The program is showing results - it is reducing homelessness and actually providing the homeless with the tools they need to become self-sufficient (and therefore in your terms 'useful').

Regardless of your moronic beliefs, it is showing results - the homeless are being helped, debt is being reduced, the streets are being cleaned up and these people are becoming a benefit for the economy rather than a burden unto it.

Of course dim-witted social conservatives don't pay attention to facts - they prefer idealism.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


There is a program like this in Grand Rapids, MI as well.

communityrebuilders.org...

There is also a new program just for Vets called the Veteran Heights program.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

badgerprints


Just be glad you are privileged enough to say that. I'm going to point out that we are not technologically or civilly advanced enough as a society for ideals to function for everyone at this moment. NEVER FORGET that privilege allows you to sing about ideals.

If we all "chose" to be at the top as things are right now, you'd lose some of your square footage and some of your clean air when the hollowed out bottom of the structure caves in and rolls up into a ball of anarchy and bigoted turmoil. You'd have to wait forever for utility repairs or do it yourself IF there were parts enough nearby for you and if you knew how to also, the economy would collapse and feudalism would follow. At the moment, poverty ensures the middle and upper class are fed and warm and provided 24/7 service. The system is broken, it only works for a certain percentage and suppresses many. Sometimes when you are born on a hill you lose perspective.

Hard work doesn't always pay off for every one and it's not always because they didn't work "hard enough
". Someone may have been born or are stuck in a neighborhood that the neglect or wishes at the top helped to create, a neighborhood designed to be stagnant and for eternal service. We are well past the point when progress COULD be made, but science study grants are mostly given for profit inventions and studies so that people can play personal empire and money legacy.
edit on 25-12-2013 by BlubberyConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

BlubberyConspiracy
At the moment, poverty ensures the middle and upper class are fed and warm and provided 24/7 service.


No.
At the moment the middle class ensures that the system doesn't spin off of it's axis entirely.

Once the upper and lower classes actually get their way there will be no middle class and then there will be no way for the classes to actually better themselves.

Feudalism has no middle, but it ensures people a comfy seat right at the bottom. Usually for free.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

SpeachM1litant


Of course dim-witted social conservatives don't pay attention to facts - they prefer idealism.


I'm no social conservative. I'm an actual person who has been there.
You can ignore the fact that social idealism has created the biggest welfare state in the history of man but you can't change history.

The issue that needs to be addressed isn't homelessness. It's socially enabled uselessness.

Keep on digging that hole deeper.
At least you can feel superior while you do it.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


The extinction of a livable wage for all who work is what created your 'welfare state'...Badger, I see you have your way of thinking and that you will defend it tooth and nail, so I'll stop here.

But I will say that I am glad this way of thinking is losing ground in Utah.

Have a good one.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by badgerprints
 


The extinction of a livable wage for all who work is what created your 'welfare state'...Badger, I see you have your way of thinking and that you will defend it tooth and nail, so I'll stop here.

But I will say that I am glad this way of thinking is losing ground in Utah.

Have a good one.


Thank you.
I do have my way of thinking.
The welfare state has been built by generations of welfare recipients who are born on it, reproduce in great numbers and stay on it for generations. It is also added to in a smaller part by those who get onto welfare after coming to the US, leaving home and support or actually losing income to the point that they have no choice.

The lack of livable wages is more directly attributable to the export of jobs from the continental US to other countries and the return of those products to the US with expectations of sales to those who have fewer jobs.

The artificial production of trillions of false dollars in the stock markets (primarily from derivatives) and the continued borrowing and printing of money by the government has continuously reduced the value of dollars to the point that the wages available no longer support an income.

BUT
The continued failure of society to hold individuals (and big business, and government) accountable and responsible for their own care has contributed to the failure.

Most of the fault lies in the hands of the individuals who have put themselves into the situation and won't do what it takes to get out. This is the truth.

Like I said, I think it's fine to get a more efficient method of caring for them and getting them shelter.
Some will get a benefit and capitalize on the opportunity to rebuild, but it's unwise to see it as a solution and will not be effective for most aside from removing them from public view.

It still doesn't address the root causes and will mask the issue until it gets too big to pay for again.

You may think I'm heartless and evil. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the "solutions" offered today are all designed around actual remedy. I don't think it's a bad thing. It just masks the symptoms while the problem continues to grow.

I think the people doing this have the best intentions.

I myself have a very nice couple living in my spare bedroom who were living in a tent last month.
They have saved a bit of money and are renting a place come January first.

I'm a mean old bastard.







edit on 26-12-2013 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 

If you don't think corporations and banks benefit from that thing you call " The welfare state", you really should give it a bit more thought.

The banks and corporations benefit more than the so called "beneficiaries" by a very wide margin.

It isn't any one class of people who pays for it, it is however, one class that benefits.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

MyHappyDogShiner
reply to post by badgerprints
 

If you don't think corporations and banks benefit from that thing you call " The welfare state", you really should give it a bit more thought.

The banks and corporations benefit more than the so called "beneficiaries" by a very wide margin.

It isn't any one class of people who pays for it, it is however, one class that benefits.


I don't recall anywhere saying the banks and corporations don't benefit from the welfare state.

If I remember correctly, I noted where the corporations that export jobs actually contributed to the creation of the welfare state. I also noted that the creation of false money through derivatives has contributed to the reduction in value of a living wage.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SallieSunshine
 

They'll just bus them all to my town, and it'll be someone else's problem. Then they'll say Utah dealt with the homeless very well in a nice Mormon article in a Salt Lake City news flash, and too bad Mitt Romney isn't president, then we'd all be in a better Utah paradise. Either way, it ain't paradise kids! The media isn't your friend either.




top topics



 
36
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join