Utah on track to end homelessness...

reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33


Very nice, bout time someone does what we are supposed to do in first place.

The Bot

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.

ya but they only help you if you agree to join the Morons.

tebyen


Or, we can do like Jesus taught us to do. Help those who are less fortunate than us.

When did you meet Jesus? I thought that person died a long time ago?

Are you saying its not possible to help those less fortunate unless Jesus is the one teaching it?

This is nice but what happens when other states start buying their homeless bus tickets to Utah?

Sal

I still have not been able to find out what the plan is to get these homeless people back on their feet and contributing.

An unlimited free ride fixes nothing and is not sustainable.

reply to post by opethPA


Remember that they did the numbers and they are actually saving money. Homeless people are going to cost the state money, no matter what (jail stays and ER visits).

At least this way some (hopefully the majority) will get back on their feet and start again. Some of them will not improve their situation, but honestly I'd rather see them with a roof over their head.

Just because the program is not 100% guaranteed is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

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

The American dream is to be disabled?
Then to scrape by on $1,000/mo from social security?
They're really living large on the taxpayer dime I tell ya.

intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by opethPA

 

Remember that they did the numbers and they are actually saving money. Homeless people are going to cost the state money, no matter what (jail stays and ER visits).

At least this way some (hopefully the majority) will get back on their feet and start again. Some of them will not improve their situation, but honestly I'd rather see them with a roof over their head.

Just because the program is not 100% guaranteed is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Don't get me wrong..Giving them a home is a great thing but without assisting in some other way to better their lives you really aren't doing anything but allowing whatever cycle a person is in to continue.

It should be a requirement of living in this housing that you have to attend classes, training, mentoring, something and if you can't do those things then free housing shouldn't be offered because their is another person down on their luck that would use that setting to really rebound in life.

reply to post by opethPA


What I said before still stands. Utah hopes to eradicate homelessness in their state. Each person will be paired with a case worker, but of course that isn't guaranteed to make them change their situation.

Also, as I stated before, the state will actually be saving money by doing the right thing. One homeless person with a bad case of pneumonia can run up a hospital bill of $100,000 easily...only to be put back out on the cold streets so it can happen again.

While not perfect, this is a great idea.

intelligenthoodlum33
What I said before still stands. Utah hopes to eradicate homelessness in their state.
While not perfect, this is a great idea.

It's basically playing a shell game though..

You really aren't fixing the problem of someone without a meaningful way to provide for themselves or to contribute to society by giving them free housing and washing your hands. Sure they get a case worker and that case worker needs to be focused on getting them enrolled in classes or rebuilding themselves in someway.

It's naive to think that a model like this is sustainable if you aren't doing something to fix the overall problem vs just masking it.

Again I am not in anyway saying this is a bad move and hopefully it makes a difference but just moving a homeless person off the street into a free house and washing your hands of them does nothing to help that person in the long run.

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?

DP

intelligenthoodlum33
Is the fact that their is no plan to kick out the people who are lazy bugging you?

No, it's the fact that unless you give that person some way to empower or better themselves you really aren't fixing the problem .

Free housing should come with the expectation that you warrant it not that you now have a free warm and dry spot to get drunk/high/whatever.

Again I think this is a great idea it just needs to have expectations with it.

intelligenthoodlum33

Over the past 8 years they have already reduced homelessness by 78% in their state. They did the numbers and realized that it is cheaper to help them to become self sufficient than pay for their ER visits and jail stays.

So the reasoning for doing this is because its cheap, and not because its the right thing to do? Not out of compassion, but out of the love of money?

Call me unimpressed.

reply to post by opethPA



And if those expectations aren't met, then what? Consequences?

I really think it is bugging you that there isn't a provision for kicking people out of the program as punishment. Not trying to start a fight with you, but this is the impression I am getting.

What about A, B and C discussed?

intelligenthoodlum33
And if those expectations aren't met, then what? Consequences?

I really think it is bugging you that there isn't a provision for kicking people out of the program as punishment. Not trying to start a fight with you, but this is the impression I am getting.

What about A, B and C discussed?

If those expectations are not met then they should be removed and someone else, some other family, some other vet, someone struggling that will take advantage of an opportunity like this to it's fullest should get the chance at free housing.

It's all well and good that you listed those 3 items..They are great and should make an obvious change but if you take a homeless person that drinks, gets high, doesn't do anything and stick them in a free house without expectations now you have a person with a home that drinks, gets high and doesn't do anything.

What will help a person find their self worth again more? Hey homeless guy go in that house , it's free now you are out of sight/out of mind or..hey homless guy, here is a free house as long as you are willing to go to school/classes/training/treatment.

Good to know though now that you get someone in a house they can't get sick anymore so medical bills wont be a problem.

KingIcarus
I read about this the other day. It's a simply incredible story!

I'm a Brit, and am sometimes critical of America on here - but stories like this that remind me that American generosity and determination can achieve almost anything!

I've no idea how practical this approach is for nationwide use - or indeed here in the UK - but any Western country, state, city that isn't seriously looking at Utah to see if this could work for their homeless community is quite simply doing it's taxpayers and voters a serious disservice.

Well done, Utah!

On a national scale corporations would come in and pay off politicians to privatize it. They would make a boat load of money then after it failed would blame the government for over regulating it.

reply to post by CaticusMaximus


Come on now. Not many politicians are going to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing. The saving money aspect was brought up to counter the, "We don't have the money" argument.

Politicians have conditioned us to hate anyone who needs help. They coined all kinds of newspeak phrases like, handouts, free rides, entitlements etc. to keep us distracted with pointing at each other in low places instead of protesting the bailouts of for their friends in high places.

It's no way this idea could have flown if not for the saving money aspect......Mr. Unimpressed. Kidding

reply to post by opethPA


I do understand where you are coming from. Thanks for contributing.