Utah Ending Homelessness by ... Giving People Homes

It sounds pretty no nonsense.
People won't be homeless if they have a home.
How difficult is that to fathom?

Utah Ending Homelessness by Giving People Homes

How did Utah accomplish this? Simple. Utah solved homelessness by giving people homes. In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker. So, the state began giving away apartments, with no strings attached. Each participant in Utah’s Housing First program also gets a caseworker to help them become self-sufficient, but they keep the apartment even if they fail. The program has been so successful that other states are hoping to achieve similar results with programs modeled on Utah’s.

It's a fun article that details many others' attempt to "combat" the homeless PROBLEMS in their cities as opposed to actually treating it.

Next step, establish a living wage, regardless employment, to banish poverty to history as well.

Good for Utah and their residents, I wish all other states do the same..

Time to take care of people “for real”…!



S&F for you and your post..

A very "practical approach".................bout time the governments did the math before leaping into some stupid pointless knee jerk to a social problem.....

This is great. Unfortunately i think the federal government will screw this up somehow. So sort of IRS bs i presume.
s n f

What exactly does "no strings attached" mean? They get full ownership of the apartment? That seems quite unfair imo, considering there are plenty of people who can barely afford to pay the rent of their apartments. Why should those essentially poor people continue paying rent when these other people get a whole apartment for free with "no strings attached"? This would be much fairer imo if they did have to pay rent, but it was greatly reduced until they started making a decent income, and if they didn't start making an income within a certain period then they wouldn't be able to keep the apartment. Sorry to be "that guy", but as great as this idea seems, it's completely unfair to the people who actually work hard to have a home.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Yeah, its important for things to be fair for all. One good way to do that, is you charge some money as basically a mortgage payment, ( a low price) instead of rent. So they get out of the rent cycle, build home equity, and the good works program behind it gets at least some funding so it can actually expand.

One thing I know for sure is that there's no reason for homelessness. There are current 5 vacant foreclosed homes for every homeless person in the US:
www.truthdig.com...

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Consider this: What kind of apartment in what kind of neighborhood do you think someone gets for ...

compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker.

That's including electricity, water, and possibly gas as well.
Let's also not forget a cut out of that to pay for the Social Worker's salary.

$11,000 including all bills paid sounds like a 400 sq/ft or less used and moldy shoebox.

In some municipalities where cost of living is higher, $11,000/year wouldn't secure space larger than a jail cell or the equivalent square footage one would park their car.

It's a much better system than this representative in Waikiki Hawaii (from the link posted in OP):

Earlier this month, Hawaii State representative Tom Bower (D) began walking the streets of his Waikiki district with a sledgehammer, and smashing shopping carts used by homeless people. “Disgusted” by the city’s chronic homelessness problem, Bower decided to take matters into his own hands — literally. He also took to rousing homeless people if he saw them sleeping at bus stops during the day.

In Portland ...
Angry Residents Wave Pitchforks, Torches In Protest Of Mayor's Crackdown On Homelessness


Something else to also consider is the Health and Mental Health of the Homeless.

Without shelter, or reliable, dependable, secure shelter, much of their time is spent seeking shelter as well as food while their health and mental health goes untreated, and often deteriorates to the point of intervention by either emergency personnel (more cost to the taxpayer), and/or Law Enforcement (theft/violence, trespassing, and more cost to taxpayer as well as risk of homeless-activated crime on taxpayers).

Allowing these people the dignity of having a secure, reliable, and safe place they can always depend on gives them liberty to attend their health, and mental health, as well as well as attending any other issues while also reducing many of the tertiary activities that often result from widespread homelessness.

There's also those who are essentially lost causes.
Would you rather these people have a safe, predictable place their own to die in whatever wretched state they're in, with at least a modicum of dignity above a used condom in the gutter, or would you rather them raving about the streets, fouling alleyways with human waste, and getting up to any number of all sorts of troubles that could endanger others because they have nowhere else to go?



Everyone should have a home.



Edit:
On a conspiracy note ... if municipalities buy up entire deteriorating apartment complexes just above code and delegate these places for the homeless, insure them substantially, and some irresponsible tenant(s) "accidentally" (predictably) set the whole complex on fire (full of indigent would-be homeless), the municipality would then reap the rewards of the insurance, as well as be rid of any X number of homeless that just happened to have been quite conveniently all in one place when one of their less mentally stable compatriots burned everything down to ash.

That, of course, is a conspiracy angle.

Lure them all into one convenient place where an accident that could be profited from quite conveniently conveniently happens.

Could be?

This is not sustainable.

This is only set up to disappoint and make more slaves.

OrphanApology
This is not sustainable.

This is only set up to disappoint and make more slaves.

It'd be nice were you to expound on the above statement of certitude.

Why do you think this is not sustainable?
What evidence do you have that this will make more slaves?
Further, what are you basing your definition of "slave" on?

OrphanApology
This is not sustainable.

This is only set up to disappoint and make more slaves.

What is non sustainable is the wealth increasing disparity that is creating these problems in the first place. What is non sustainable is the dehumanisation of people. Every human being should be allowed somewhere to stay. A society can be measured on how we treat are lowest..

tridentblue
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Yeah, its important for things to be fair for all. One good way to do that, is you charge some money as basically a mortgage payment, ( a low price) instead of rent. So they get out of the rent cycle, build home equity, and the good works program behind it gets at least some funding so it can actually expand.

One thing I know for sure is that there's no reason for homelessness. There are current 5 vacant foreclosed homes for every homeless person in the US:
www.truthdig.com...

So, for every five homes, there is one person waiting for one that is homeless, 4 homes built and there is no one to buy them? the math seems a bit odd to me, unless the other four buyers emigrated? what is going on?

ChaoticOrder
What exactly does "no strings attached" mean? They get full ownership of the apartment? That seems quite unfair imo, considering there are plenty of people who can barely afford to pay the rent of their apartments. Why should those essentially poor people continue paying rent when these other people get a whole apartment for free with "no strings attached"? This would be much fairer imo if they did have to pay rent, but it was greatly reduced until they started making a decent income, and if they didn't start making an income within a certain period then they wouldn't be able to keep the apartment. Sorry to be "that guy", but as great as this idea seems, it's completely unfair to the people who actually work hard to have a home.

edit on 16/2/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

So you would rather work harder and pay more, just so the homeless dont get free homes??

I will bet that, at some point in your life, someone gave you some help to make things easier for you, and i will bet you where happy they did

Edit: the money saved could be used to help the next in line, you know, the hard working people, cant quarantie they will though
Peace

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


I love this Alice - was the first story I opened this morning and I'm glad I did

It's a crime to have shelter standing empty while people are living out in the open - a crime

I've read through a few posts...it's inevitable I guess that people will see problems with this (or create them if they have to). There probably will be some problems - since we're not in heaven

But, for the time being, however it works - some people will now have a roof over their head and shot at improving their situation. Very cool

Well...Utah can afford it. They also have less homeless people. I can see this working in Utah. Not sure about it working everywhere.

Whats certain is that we all need to try new approaches toward solving homelessness.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Whats certain is that we all need to try new approaches toward solving homelessness.

Amen Sky

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I like this too, though it could very well have some worrisome conspiracy angles to it as mentioned, at the end of one of my posts.

Everyone, I think, should have a home.

Something I'm thinking about regarding this project by Utah are Trophic Cascades.

Please, read How Wolves Change the Course of Rivers, and then consider various Trophic cascade events that could result from projects like these.

What would the world look like if everyone had a home, got fed, received a basic living stipend with or without a job, had free access to accredited University educations as well as trade schools whichever one preferred, and also had access to a cost free standard of health care?

Would it make society as a whole Richer? ... or, as the less charitable, or even charity-hostile folks seem to think; will it just bloat society with a new class of parasite?

What programs can we engineer which could very well have similar effect as a Trophic Cascade that benefits all social strata, everyone?

That's it I am quitting my job and moving to Utah. Given my occupation I am not likely to find a job there. But hey, as long as I have a roof I can eek out an existence on my SNAP benefits and dedicate my life to what I love the most. Video gaming.

Anyone else see the problem here?


On the other hand it's a great idea in that it should really help out those that can not help themselves. Sadly scumbags will be selling drug in those apartment complexes and quite a few opportunistic scumbags will find ways to get free rent that they could otherwise afford. IMO the only way this should happen is if each person that wants an apartment also gets a mandatory job. Even if it is just licking stamps there is no better path to well being than feeling productive.

Can't remember where it was and it was deemed unconstitutional but there was a housing project that had a rule about living there rent free. If you did not have a job you had to work at the local screen door factory. People learned how to go to work and It worked so well most moved out of the projects after finding better jobs.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

Everyone, I think, should have a home.

I agree. It's not easy to be an idealist I know - there are a thousand reasons and even more excuses for why we don't take better care of each other

Please, read How Wolves Change the Course of Rivers, and then consider various Trophic cascade events that could result from projects like these.

I meant to read that last night then forgot to get back to it - thanks :-)

Yes - exactly - a beautiful analogy. Society benefits from the ground up - making lives better for people who are struggling makes it possible for them to improve their lives even more - then it touches even more people and spreads

What would the world look like if everyone had a home, got fed, received a basic living stipend with or without a job, had free access to accredited University educations as well as trade schools whichever one preferred, and also had access to a cost free standard of health care?

:-) I wonder

I posted this in another thread recently: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

Would it make society as a whole Richer? ... or, as the less charitable, or even charity-hostile folks seem to think; will it just bloat society with a new class of parasite?

What programs can we engineer which could very well have similar effect as a Trophic Cascade that benefits all social strata, everyone?

There are obstacles, of course. Jobs would be a real good start - people need to work (and for more than one reason - money isn't everything)

People are so afraid of parasites that they pick apart the programs designed to help the poor to the point where they get cobbled back together in ways that are inefficient and counter productive. If everyone were to agree to a plan and then actually support it we might have avoided some of the unfortunate situations we're living with today

Half-assed is not the way to solve a problem

The charity-hostile folks don't often see that they themselves are sometimes a kind of parasite on society. We don't always notice because they can afford the very best camouflage that money can buy

Anyhow Alice - onward and upwards

You made my day

:-)

Already multiple threads previously posted about this including the last thread which got pretty heated.

Will post them in a bit.

This thread got pretty heated in discussing this approach to homelessness.


www.abovetopsecret.com...