|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.144.45.241
In Reply to: RE: Why we'll never be able to house the homeless... posted by dark_dave56 on September 07, 2024 at 01:55:59
When we house the homeless:
1. Emergency room visits plummet
2. Police interventions decrease dramatically
3. Communities become safer and cleaner
We're already paying for homelessness through increased healthcare costs and policing. Those services are extraordinarily expensive. Housing the homeless often turns out to be cheaper than leaving them on the streets.
Leaving someone homeless costs taxpayers about $35,000 a year in emergency services. Housing them? Only around $13,000. That's $22,000 saved per person, every year. It's not just humane—it's smart money management. We're already paying for homelessness, just in the most expensive way possible.
Wouldn't you rather see your tax dollars go towards solving the problem instead of endlessly managing it?
Follow Ups:
The American begrudging are particularly good at finding them.
Dmitri Shostakovich
You nailed that!!!!!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
And that is stop the flow of the drugs entering our country. At the southern border.
Eradicate the cartels on our southern border. Declare war on these cartels and put them out of business with or without the help of Mexico.
Pass and enforce vagrancy laws. Give the homeless 2 options. Jail or help recovering. Each individual case will be different, but many feel totally hopeless. Restore that hopelessness with hope and teach them how to do it with the support and holding them accountable for their choices and action.
I encourage those interested in the solution to the problem to watch this video. As someone in recovery I think this is fantastic and would help millions of people living with a hopeless condition.
RFK Jr's video is excellent. What's amazing is that not only do their fix homelessness, these groups also deal with their addictions and teach the people to learn a trade in a holistic way.
On top of it, the groups don't need grants or government money because the trades generate profits that make the groups self sustaining.
-Rod
This is the 2nd time I posted the video. It is BY FAR the best solution to the homeless/addiction problem I have seen or heard. RFK Jr seeks out solutions to problems and thinks outside the box. It's a shame some people just don't care.
...homeless people/families housed at a reasonable price (for all of the rest of us paying for it). I am absolutely certain that I could house more than 115 people for a year for less than $2.4M--and that is just the annual "operational" expenses--not even including the other $1.35M in capital expenditures/improvements.
For that kind of money, there should be a room-service menu and a fully stocked mini-bar (unless it's in SF, LA, or NYC).
I just want to know how many gov't employees' pockets/pensions are being lined with all of this money, before a single bed becomes available to those in need?
"And today is for sale and it's all you can afford. Buy your own admission. The whole things got you bored. Well the Lord chooses the good ones, and the bad ones use the Lord"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
And it's not just the government administrators and politicians, it's also the contractors who are "awarded" these lucrative projects.
People who "go on about" Vietnam, Israel, Ukraine, the MIC, the so-called "one percent", income inequality, etc., etc., are living in a fantasy world - a world which they wish for, but isn't the real world in which we live.
And it's long past time to stop blaming Gov. Reagan for California's homeless woes. Reagan hasn't been California Governor since 1975, 50 years ago! The libs have had plenty of time and opportunities to change the mental health services that they continue to whine about.
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
Reagan hasn't been California Governor since 1975, 50 years ago!
More empty rationalizations.
I guess that the most charitable way to understand those who appear to be selfish and full of it when they whine about helping the homeless is to realize that they are merely ignorant of the actual economics and are easily swayed by other ignorant haters in the media.They flatter themselves that they've "learned from history", but they haven't learned sh--t.
Of course, the homeless problem is much more than simply finding a place to live for these people. It's known that a fairly large percentage of them have serious mental problems and drug problems and should also receive some help along those lines. In California, we were able to provide exactly this kind of help (e.g., in the 60's) until St. Ronnie became governor and closed down the state-run mental health facilities. How did we ever have the money to build and operate these facilities until he became governor? The fact is, back in those days, we had the WILL to do it and we weren't wasting the obscene amounts of money on military adventures (even with Viet Nam!) as we are now, preparing for WW3, with (sorry, vacuous!) Russia in Nazi-laced Bandera-kraine and Israel committing genocide against the Palestinians (not to mention our upcoming military adventure in China).
Yes, it's very embarrassing that California (and, really, the rest of the country) can't solve its own homeless problem, while parts of Mississippi, using a system originally developed in Finland as a model, do far, far better in caring for their homeless.
"those who appear to be selfish and full of it"
You're speculating.
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
Yes, it's very embarrassing that California (and, really, the rest of the country) can't solve its own homeless problem
history?
Too f...ing funny!
We're clueless as to solutions. But I'd like to try this: "Let us cultivate our own garden." ― Voltaire, Candide.
"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. "
― W.C. Fields
"Wouldn't you rather see your tax dollars go towards solving the problem instead of endlessly managing it? "
Our tax dollars have been endlessly managing it for as long as I can remember, and I don't see that ever changing.
When somebody creates a program to "solve" it, do get back to us!
And by the way, there are motels which are much cheaper than 3.6 million dollars a year.
Meanwhile, employers are looking for people to hire.
And what the heck is economicrt.org? I'm not clicking on it. Have you got a U.S. dot gov link?
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
LA's situation is far worse.
Some people (like DarkDave!) think that spending money on the homeless is utterly futile. But that's a poorly informed opinion. The real black hole that sucks in taxpayer's dollars is not homeless shelters, but rather the associated police services, court costs, incarceration, and hospitalization that happens when homeless are left on the streets to rot.Police Response Costs: The average cost of a police response that results in a custodial arrest is approximately $178.92. This includes the time and resources spent by officers on the scene.
Booking and Processing Costs at Police Stations: Cost just over $100 dollars.
Court Processing Costs: Each arrest incurs court costs related to staff time for preparation and hearings, averaging $636.12 per booking. This does not account for cases that go to trial, which can significantly increase costs.
Trial Costs: Misdemeanor and general sessions cases that go to trial average about $7,831.18. Felony cases can exceed $24,000 on average when they go to trial.
Jail Costs: Incarceration significantly adds to taxpayer expenses. The average cost to house an inmate in jail, including medical services, is about $160 per night. This can accumulate quickly for individuals who may be incarcerated for extended periods.
Hospitalization Cost: The average cost per emergency room visit for homeless individuals is $3,700 dollars. The average cost for hospitalization is significantly higher at $13,516 dollars, because the homeless have more serious health conditions which require longer hospital stays.
These are average expenses for the ongoing management of homeless populations. Policing, court appearances, incarceration, and hospitalization are all very expensive services. Housing the homeless changes this calculus rather dramatically. A study at UCLA demonstrates that provision of housing assistance dramatically undercuts these expenses. Hospital emergency room visits decline by 80%. Jail time is reduced dramatically as well. A study by the University of Colorado established that arrest rates of homeless populations also dropped by over 50% once these people were housed.
Investing in housing for the homeless is not just a compassionate choice. It's a smarter way to use taxpayer money.
LA county has already housed 80,000 peoole in 5 years. That's not just a statistic - that's 80,000 lives changed. Real people off the streets. More recently, LA voters approved proposition HHH, providing 1.6 billion dollars to build housing for the homeless. 13,999 supportive housing units are slated for construction, with 6,187 completed and 7,115 in design and development phases. The brain trust of Los Angeles County has figured out that it is more expensive to arrest, book, drag into court, incarcerate, and hospitalize the homeless than it is to provide them with simple shelter.
Edits: 09/07/24 09/07/24
Data source?
People here love to cite stats, and don't show the source, which automatically invalidates the "data". Any jackass can make up numbers. Some of them even run "dot orgs".
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
using historical data.
C'mon E-Stat! Rub a few neurons together. I know you are capable of intelligent dialog!
they do.
So, providing "free housing" prevents people from committing crimes? Are you serious?
Throwing money at a complex problem has NEVER worked. Johnson's Great Society only served to institutionalize multi-generational dependence.
Maybe you should throw all your money in that direction. Best of luck!
Choice 1: Continue to spend astronomical amounts of money on policing the homeless, arresting them, dragging them into court, incarcerating them, and providing hospital services for them. The total cost of all that is approximately $35,000 per year according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness.Choice 2: Supportive housing for the homeless costs approximately $13,000 per year, from the same source.
Now, which would you rather spend as a taxpayer? The $35,000 a year that keeps homeless people on the streets with all the attendant problems?
Or the $13,000 per year that keeps most of these homeless people housed and mostly out of trouble?
Gee! The $13,000 expense looks a lot better! Saves taxpayer's money!! And actually helps solve the homeless problem more permanently!
E-Stat, you just don't understand the economics of homelessness. The drain on emergency services for the homeless is simply bigger than the cost of housing these people.
Edits: 09/07/24 09/07/24 09/07/24 09/08/24
Why not lobby your "progressive" Governor who recently failed at the whole legal hard drugs debacle and had to reverse course!
So if you ran a bureaucratic type budgeted department and you had a choice between a way that justified more every year or one that didn't, with your gov administrative hat on, which way to go?
In any situation like that, Would you be the only school/ local/ state/ federal manager in history that chose to shrink your own budget and staff on purpose because there was a simpler more efficient but different solution ?
One could argue that there needs to be a way to separate those who are unable to share the burden and those who are able but don't.
Just the past 25 years.
Likely even the source for new 'houseless,' 'unhoused' and 'unsheltered' terms used.
Initially a LOT of well intentioned folk trying to do right and morphing into a LOT of fairly well
paid/well financed non profits that are well supported by an entrenched government bureaucracy
that has become very adept at keeping that budget plump. It's a fairly big business in these parts.
Actual homeless that truly want to be helped can be. Yet there's a great system here for supporting
those that are homeless but AREN'T sure they want to be helped beyond playing the system
for what they can get out of it. I was friends with one such person for years. So many opportunities
for him were botched just by his being his own worse enemy.
It's also a situation where each INDIVIDUAL case is different, so one answer fits all doesn't.
Your
"One could argue that there needs to be a way to separate those who are unable to share the burden and those who are able but don't."
sums it up.
It's a problem that is not going away any time soon in this country.
The fact that it is a humanitarian issue that has been politically weaponized
sure doesn't help.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I thought we were talking about solutions to the problem of homelessness. Instead you vault off on a rant about me being an administrator in control of a budget. WTF is that about?
Get relevant man! Do you have something to say about homelessness? And how to fix it? Or not?
If you think spending public money on social services for the homeless is a bad idea, then you'll need to take a stand.
1. Do you support existing social services for homeless populations involving policing, court costs, incarceration, and hospitalization? Even though all that is extraordinarily expensive?
2. Or do you support housing the homeless, which has been proven to be considerably less expensive?
3. Or do you think we should retract all social services for the homeless, spend as little money as possible, and let these people rot and cause continuing social problems?
C'mon Tom. Speak! Do you have any sort of opinion about homelessness at all? What's your solution?
"One could argue that there needs to be a way to separate those who are unable to share the burden and those who are able but don't."
I think we used to hold people more responsible for their own actions than we do now days.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Tom asked a question about administrators who only know how to spend, and would never voluntarily reduce their budgets. Implying that they are grossly irresponsible in their actions with public money. But not a single word was said by Tom about homelessness. Which is the topic of this thread.Somehow you and Tom are trying to tie in the topic of administrative abuse onto the topic of homelessness. You feel there is a connection there, right? But just don't bother to say so. Okay, I'll try to guess my way through your thought process.
You think money spent on programs for the homeless is wasted. But where should we slash the budget? Should we cut back on policing? Court costs? Incarceration costs? Hospital costs? Or stop building homeless shelters? Or maybe shut down soup kitchens? And most important of all, we need to investigate, fire, or criminally prosecute the administrators who enable homeless programs? Right?
Is that what you are on about Tre? Evil administrators perpetuating a colossal waste of public funds on futile programs for the homeless?
Edits: 09/07/24 09/07/24 09/07/24 09/08/24
I just said that we used to hold people more accountable for the choices they made. Period. And I thought that is what Tom said.
This is how I read what Tom said but I could be wrong.
"One could argue that there needs to be a way to separate those who are unable to share the burden [of taking care of themselves and providing their own housing] and those who are able [to] but don't [bother to take care of their own affairs]." and I agree with him.
Is there some reason why you didn't understand that?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Go back and read his post. Administrators and public money was the topic he launched into. Had nothing to do with homelessness that I could see. And I told him so. What we are disagreeing about now is the meaning of Tom's last sentence, so I'll quote it."One could argue that there needs to be a way to separate those who are unable to share the burden and those who are able but don't."
Who is Tom talking about? His aforementioned administrators? The public in general? Or the homeless? And sharing what burden? The public burden of taking care of the homeless, and maybe how our taxes are spent? Or the burden of the homeless being unable to take care of themselves? I find Tom's entire post to be exceptionally convoluted and lacking all specificity. Mostly because Tom never bothered to directly reference the homeless, which is after all, the proper topic of this thread.
I could not decipher what Tom wrote. You made a good guess at his meaning. But does Tom himself have any clarity about what he wrote? Maybe Tom will pile back into this thread to enlighten us, so that we no longer have to parse our way through his language.
Edits: 09/08/24
I took his last sentence to be about the homeless. My comment was about that last sentence.
"Administrators and public money..."
On that subject, my mother worked for, and later because the director of, the Ventura County Criminal Justice Planning Board. A federally funded agency who's primary task was to improve communication between law enforcement agencies within the county.
If she were still alive she would tell you straight up that they accomplished very little and spend most of their time each year developing the proposal to secure the next years funding.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: