Housing the Homeless

[onawah]

What Sounds Like A Great Idea, Is Actually Working, And Will Give 100,000 Homeless A Place To Live?
http://www.upworthy.com/what-sounds-like-a-great-idea-is-actually-working-and-will-give-100000-homeless-a-place-to-live?c=cp2
C5nAyl-jZ_4

It actually costs taxpayers more to let homeless people stay on the streets than it does to get them into housing and help keep them from having to go to the emergency room when they're ill.

Read that again: It costs U.S. taxpayers more to let these people live in the streets than to give them housing.At 02:53, I can’t imagine what it felt like for him to get his own apartment after three years on the street. At 04:25 — totally the opposite of what you’d expect. And the guy at 08:02 could be a great example for those who have actually succeeded in life.This clip is from "60 Minutes" by CBS News. At the end, there is a segment mentioned wherein Anderson Cooper has a bit of a revelation about interacting with homeless people. 100,000 Homes is located on the web, Facebook, and Twitter.

[sdv]

I live in a country where everyone has a constitutional right to have a home, water and electricity, so the government builds homes for the unemployed and provides free electricity, water (plus other services) and grants (uneducated, unproductive people earn more from grants than they would from working, especially if they have a lot of children). There are problems with this approach, but I don't know if there is any other place in the world where a house, water, electricity, education, healthcare, and so on are constitutional rights (e.g. countries in Europe may provide this, but I don't think it is a constitutional right so indigent people can just turn up in a city and demand that they get given a house, and so on).

Problems?

The number of indigent people living off the state exceeds the number of employed people contributing taxes to pay for this.
Population growth is highest among these indigent people.
Especially with people flooding into cities, it is a problem to find available land and build fast enough to meet ever-increasing need so informal settlements (overcrowded squatter camps) flourish in and around cities.
There are plenty of immigrants who turn up and demand the same rights, and a liberal constitution means they get refugee status or are waiting for refugee status and so they are entitled to these rights.
The country is wracked with violent protests (in some areas where, because of incompetence, corruption or, government is unable to cope with the demand, five a day).
In a culture of entitlement, when something goes wrong, you demand that others fix it instead of fixing it yourself.
When indigent people do not have a sense of ownership, they do not look after infrastructure, so a lot of money is spent fixing things (and then fixing infrastructure that gets destroyed in violent protests).
Children get locked into a cycle of poverty.
Crime still flourishes in these areas where people live on grants (and no one wants such a housing development near them because of it!)
Teenage pregnancy is very high (can't remember the statistic but perhaps over 20% of schoolgirls are pregnant), even though contraception and abortion are free.

However, despite the problems, I think society should look after those who, for various reasons, will never be able to take care of themselves, and it is sustainable as long as those who can't, or won't ever, take care of themselves remains a low percentage.

What do others here think?

[robertr2m]

I think when someone needs a helping hand, we need to to extend it but it is a fine line between helping and creating an atmosphere of dependency. When a group gets the mindset they not only cannot rise to a higher standard, they feel they don't need to it can (in my opinion) cause a culture to stagnate. Children learn not only how to act but what's expected and if you have two or three generations that feel they have achieved all they can, even if not spoken verbally, it's passed on to the chilldren that this how it is and it's ok.

[Pam]

Thank you SDV and robertr2m for your insightful comments regarding the issue of the homelessness. Once again it reminds me that we cannot legislate, order or demand decency and common respect from one human to another. There will never be any form of equality on this planet until our consciousness evolves. At this point I think everything, no matter how good and true it starts out to be will fall victim to some degree to the human ego and self gratification.In fact we live in a world of great ideas turned to self promotion and greed. We also have organizations that do great things with only minimal corrosion. My observation is over time that the corrosion will tend to grow rather than diminish. I truly don't see permanent solutions on this planet that will work without consciousness evolution or intervention and not of the human sort. As far as current solutions go, perhaps providing housing and requiring contribution from the recipients at whatever degree they are able to is the best solution.

The good news is that there is evidence of this consciousness evolution. Many of us on this forum are proof of this. Consciousness will expand naturally and easily when we follow its gentle lead..Consciousness wants to expand in fact it must, one way or the other.

Anyway, I do not want to be a stick in the mud here but I wanted to express what I see as the bigger picture..much love to all...

[GreenGuy]

despite the problems, I think society should look after those who, for various reasons, will never be able to take care of themselves, and it is sustainable as long as those who can't, or won't ever, take care of themselves remains a low percentage.

I agree that it is a mark of nobility to extend help to those who need it. For a wealthy country to have homeless people living on the streets and in parks is a sign of degeneracy. That said, I do not believe in entitlements. I believe that virtually everyone can do something to contribute to a just society, and that should be a requirement. The trouble with great masses of Americans is that they feel entitled to the fruits of prosperity without having to work for it. If we had a just society, nobody would ever need to go hungry or homeless. On the other hand, if someone really wants to live outdoors, why shouldn't they? A guy who lives under bridges is a bum. A guy who lives in the forest gets a reality TV show.


I think when someone needs a helping hand, we need to to extend it but it is a fine line between helping and creating an atmosphere of dependency. When a group gets the mindset they not only cannot rise to a higher standard, they feel they don't need to it can (in my opinion) cause a culture to stagnate.

The biblical rule that the early European colonists in North America applied was, if you work, you eat. If you don't, you don't. It made sense in that situation where survival was not a given. Today we are wealthy beyond compare, and don't appreciate it. We have crazy people wandering around the streets talking to themselves and picking at their sores. Partly it's because of drugs, but it's also because our society is stressful and demanding, and some folks really can't cut it. I can sympathize. We've been hunter-gatherers and farmers for so long it's in our DNA, and in an industrial society for just a couple centuries. Our societal constructs are unnatural.

We have the resources to create a society that works for everyone. We just don't have the will.

[Milneman]

3M2j5SIPC6U

[outerheaven]

Bump for an old thread.

I don't read much or post here at Avalon anymore, but I was going through some old files on my PC and found a reply I wrote for this thread back in Feb 2014. Ultimately I never posted this reply, because I was afraid it might somehow come back to burn me. But I think it has some valuable insight and wish to share it rather than let my words go to waste.

P.S. The video to that 60 Minutes piece still works at the linked article: http://www.upworthy.com/what-sounds-like-a-great-idea-is-actually-working-and-will-give-100000-homeless-a-place-to-live?c=cp2

***

This is a tough subject. There's a lot I want to say, but I have a lot of conflicting thoughts and feelings about this.

First of all, this is literally my job. When they mention that this idea was pioneered in NYC -- that's me and my job. I've been working in this capacity since 2010. I've got one more month left before I move half-way across the country, hoping to start a simpler life ;)! That said, I don't want to burn any bridges before I'm out -- so without getting too much into specifics, let me just say, I find this video quite misleading in how optimistic and simple their solution is. I feel an agenda is being pushed here.

I really hope that the video has just been edited to make it appear as though they're meeting people on the street for the first time, administering a survey, and putting them in an apartment 4 days later. That scene with the man drinking from the bottle the next morning? Yeah, that scene was very familiar to me, and much more along the lines of what you're going to get if that's your shotgun strategy to solving homelessness.

There's a phrase in the industry that I've always used as my moral compass before putting anyone anywhere -- it's "setting someone up for failure." There are people in the industry that are driven by "numbers." And they don't care how many people they set up for failure, because they want the numbers. And that, I guess, makes you look good. These people are pros at sweeping the problem under the rug and vacuuming up the funding. (Always look at non-profit agencies' board of directors: see the family names. You'll get the idea.)

I've never cared for the numbers. I've always said, **** the numbers, I will not put someone in a situation that they are not ready for. But my view is becoming increasingly uncommon, largely because of the ever-increasing push by administrators at the top, who deal solely with numbers, not people, to win private contracts and government funding. (Just for the record, no, as caseworkers we don't get paid commission or anything. And I have a good boss; he would never look at my numbers and ask me to do more. His type is rare -- rare in our agency. The culture here dictates that people feel the need to "impress" the chain of command. And then there the bad bosses ... believe me, they can do a lot of damage.)

I hope that was just convenient editing on the part of 60 Minutes, making this process look so very quick and simple. If this agency is truly doing that, they are irresponsible beyond belief. Putting a man in his own apartment after 4 days is setting him up to fail, especially if his drinking is wildly out of control. And when you've set someone up to fail, you've broken their trust. When you've broken their trust, they're resistant to help in the future. It's a bad idea, and it's a waste of everyone's time, energy, and money.

I find that there's a sentiment that "homeless people just need a roof over their heads" by people who don't have experience working with them. I used to think that before I worked in the field. I've since realized that many of the homeless have serious issues that led to them becoming homeless in the first place, that have only worsened exponentially since being undomiciled. And for many, living on the streets has had the profound effect of developing those issues!

For many, after living out on the streets for so long, the way of life becomes a thing of comfort, as unintuitive as that sounds. They're no longer used to doing what is required to maintain their apartments ... and to lose it? It means very little. You go back to status quo. It is, after all, what you've known for so long. Not a big deal.

I'm not saying every homeless person is like that, of course. There are many, many people who would take full advantage of an opportunity like this, get their lives in order, and never look back. Especially those who haven't been out in the streets for long. But I get the feeling that this piece is suggesting this as the end-all be-all solution to homelessness.

I also question the logic that it is cheaper to house people than for them to be out in the streets. Really? I'd love to see their math on that. What, exactly, are the taxpayers funding that is so expensive? Food Stamps max out at $189/month. For a single adult, Public Assistance pays out $247/mo, and requires a back-to-work component (M-F 9-5, unless they are disabled [in which case they're usually on SSI/SSD]), so most, understandably, aren't even on it!

So I'm left to assume it's the ER visits costing the taxpayers so much money. The idea is laughable to me. The homeless are not constantly going to the ER, as we are seemingly led to believe. Generally, there's a mistrust for doctors ... because the level of care they get is so poor. Work in the field and you'll realize how many homeless people are just existing day-to-day with serious medical issues. They live with these issues -- they aren't constantly going to the hospital.

Contrast that to paying for an apartment for the homeless ... plus their utility bills ... plus full-time caseworkers to check in on them so they don't decompensate in their apartments. This is supposed to be cheaper than the odd ER visit, which oftentimes results in them being quickly bandaged and tossed back out on the street? Laughable. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying they don't deserve help. I am just seriously questioning their math, lest we be fooled and end up with a much larger bill than promised.

I got into this line of work because I was tired of working jobs that made the world a worse place. I didn't want to churn out cheap crap for the mindless masses. I wanted to help people. I saw the system as a merciless, lifeless machine, chomping up the poor and uneducated. It was a system that had to be stopped at all costs.

I've since learned that it's not that cut and dry. The system isn't a cold, lifeless machine; it's more like a bio-machine. It's made up of us. We are what keeps it running. You don't change the machine externally, you change the machine by changing yourself internally. We can't just put all the homeless in their apartments and voila, they are magically better! There are serious systemic and personal issues that need to be addressed.

Of course, I'm talking about a paradigm shift that would take who-knows how long to set in. And I'm not suggesting we just let people die in the meantime. Truth is, I don't know what the answer is ... but be wary of these "simple solutions."

[CD7]

This is why ALL HOUSING IS TO BE FREE. In a world full of WOOD theres no reason for someone NOT TO HAVE SHELTER....I am sickened by all the abandoned spaces I see around me FOR YEARS while many go without shelter...I don't care if someone doesn't seem mentally stable enough...with the MESS we have created we have to start somewhere and having people rotting in the street and get murdered without anyone giving thought to their exit should not be tolerated ONE MORE MINUTE...

OUR SYSTEM is the reason for this problem IT CERTAINLY WILL NOT BE THE SYSTEM TO FIX IT.

I have been a social worker and I have experienced homelessness.......I do not share your perspective at all in that trying to find a solution here in this current system is a moot point---you will not find one. This is why....EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE CHANGED FROM THE GROUND UP......and it seems to be working its Way there :)

[outerheaven]

That wasn't my point at all.

[CD7]

I do not share your perspective at all in that trying to find a solution here in this current system is a moot point---you will not find one.


That wasn't my point at all.


Point well taken...however it seems in your post you are looking for solutions here in this current system, but then i read
"Truth is, I don't know what the answer is ... but be wary of these "simple solutions."


I know there are Simple Solutions...they will not be found in this current system...they were never meant too

[outerheaven]

Sorry, I posted that this morning as I was rushing out the door. I should have waited to post until I could expand.

I think we agree more than we disagree, for what it's worth, and our apparent disagreement comes down to either semantics or a slight misunderstanding.

When I say "be wary of simple solutions," I was thinking of Anderson Cooper on your TV screen telling you how amazing this simple idea is, as if it is the "ONE WEIRD TRICK to solve homelessness!"

Now -- I totally agree with you about there being simple solutions in nature that don't necessarily help the existing system profit or gain power. That's what I was referring to when I said, "You don't change the machine externally, you change the machine by changing yourself internally." But we aren't going to learn about those things on MSM, and people certainly won't think those solutions are so simple when they're still addicted to TV, junkfood and fear.

I guess you could amend my initial statement to say, "be wary of simple solutions being trumpeted by MSM parrots, politicians, etc"

[CD7]

Outheaven I totally get you and this 2nd post is music to my natural ears hehe...

Happens Alot tht posts are misconstrued....perspectives become scewed by wording..and biases people have...interesting topic for sure. One tht I am passionate about :)

[Mike Gorman]

I live in a country where everyone has a constitutional right to have a home, water and electricity, so the government builds homes for the unemployed and provides free electricity, water (plus other services) and grants (uneducated, unproductive people earn more from grants than they would from working, especially if they have a lot of children). There are problems with this approach, but I don't know if there is any other place in the world where a house, water, electricity, education, healthcare, and so on are constitutional rights (e.g. countries in Europe may provide this, but I don't think it is a constitutional right so indigent people can just turn up in a city and demand that they get given a house, and so on).

Problems?

The number of indigent people living off the state exceeds the number of employed people contributing taxes to pay for this.
Population growth is highest among these indigent people.
Especially with people flooding into cities, it is a problem to find available land and build fast enough to meet ever-increasing need so informal settlements (overcrowded squatter camps) flourish in and around cities.
There are plenty of immigrants who turn up and demand the same rights, and a liberal constitution means they get refugee status or are waiting for refugee status and so they are entitled to these rights.
The country is wracked with violent protests (in some areas where, because of incompetence, corruption or, government is unable to cope with the demand, five a day).
In a culture of entitlement, when something goes wrong, you demand that others fix it instead of fixing it yourself.
When indigent people do not have a sense of ownership, they do not look after infrastructure, so a lot of money is spent fixing things (and then fixing infrastructure that gets destroyed in violent protests).
Children get locked into a cycle of poverty.
Crime still flourishes in these areas where people live on grants (and no one wants such a housing development near them because of it!)
Teenage pregnancy is very high (can't remember the statistic but perhaps over 20% of schoolgirls are pregnant), even though contraception and abortion are free.

However, despite the problems, I think society should look after those who, for various reasons, will never be able to take care of themselves, and it is sustainable as long as those who can't, or won't ever, take care of themselves remains a low percentage.

What do others here think?

I think what you are saying is very reasonable - obviously from the real experiences of your country it is clear that people will always take advantage of a system if they are able to - it can't be helped, people don't like to work if they can help it, especially in jobs that are soul-destroying and repetitive (tell that to the strong women that work in fish canning factories to help their families!) - it seems we must strike a balance between helping those who cannot help themselves, and assisting the disabled and incompetent (through misfortune) and those who would simply not bother because they do not have to - we have the situation in Australia of people being given housing, for peppercorn rents and a lot of them trash their houses, then move on to the next place - or living 'wild'. I don't know what the answer is. It would be fantastic to live in a world where energy was not an issue, and we could all pursue our true callings, be housed, clothed and fed for little expense, I beleive we could do this today if not for the 'oil cabal', so perhaps the situation is yet another symptom of our corrupt civilization, it casts it's shadow over even well-meaning people.

[Dennis Leahy]

You have to meet and talk with homeless people to have a clue. Once someone becomes homeless, most opportunities vanish, and it is extremely difficult to rise out of it. Most homeless people are also improperly nourished, many are ill - some mentally - and the hopelessness and despair and fear is a heavy constant burden grinding their spirits down.

The statistic I saw a while ago said that the majority of homeless people had a financial catastrophe (typically, medical), that wiped them out. Hardy a bunch of lazy slobs with hands out for freebies.

The banks foreclosed on MILLIONS of families and there are now more vacant homes than there are homeless people.

I am convinced that one of the most evil notions perpetuated in society comes directly from the rich (who, ironically, typically have "old" money, not earned money - and if it was "earned", chances are that a hell of a lot of people were exploited for that one guy to end up with the pile of cash.) That notion is that no one "deserves" anything, no one is "entitled" to anything. Ha! We are the only species on the planet that pays for land, housing, food, and water. Whose planet is it anyway? Some goddamned reptilians? Or some goddamned exploitative sociopaths that have multi-generational empires?

The day I was born, the entire planet was already parceled-out, boundary lines drawn, and I owned nothing at all. Rights to "resources" were also already parceled-out. I can't even fish or hunt (if I wanted to) or camp without buying a license. The vast VAST majority of humans on this planet were born into poverty or at best modest means. So, they don't deserve to eat unless they pick master's cotton? They don't deserve housing unless they break their backs doing labor for minimum wage for dozens of years?

The day some multimillionaire's son was born, he had ACCESS to everything, privilege, money, land, inheritance, and was preordained to have wealth and eventually (at least part of) the family empire. So, this rich kid that probably will only bring negativity and suffering to the world (through those that will be exploited) somehow deserves wealth while most others deserve poverty?

Allow non-essentials to have "monetary value" and to be something that some people strive for (and work for, if they want that "stuff"), but provide at least the essentials for anyone who needs them. The US government spends enough on surveillance to give every homeless person a house and a garden and water and electricity.

We will all be amazed when we as a society facilitate the introduction of (formerly) homeless and poverty-stricken people into society, and watch them blossom and grow. How many incredible and wonderful and talented and bright and loving and compassionate people are are homeless? You really think they won't make the world a better place once they can move beyond 7/24/365 survival?

[CD7]

Cyber hugs Dennis ((((.....<3.....))). Many different flowers All are we Designed to Grow as Tall as the Trees...Perhaps one of these days we may actually Sees :)

[Wind]

AUBTAdI7zuY
Unfortunately the man in the video has passed away since then.

[sdv]

I live in a country where everyone has a constitutional right to have a home, water and electricity, so the government builds homes for the unemployed and provides free electricity, water (plus other services) and grants (uneducated, unproductive people earn more from grants than they would from working, especially if they have a lot of children). There are problems with this approach, but I don't know if there is any other place in the world where a house, water, electricity, education, healthcare, and so on are constitutional rights (e.g. countries in Europe may provide this, but I don't think it is a constitutional right so indigent people can just turn up in a city and demand that they get given a house, and so on).

Problems?

The number of indigent people living off the state exceeds the number of employed people contributing taxes to pay for this.
Population growth is highest among these indigent people.
Especially with people flooding into cities, it is a problem to find available land and build fast enough to meet ever-increasing need so informal settlements (overcrowded squatter camps) flourish in and around cities.
There are plenty of immigrants who turn up and demand the same rights, and a liberal constitution means they get refugee status or are waiting for refugee status and so they are entitled to these rights.
The country is wracked with violent protests (in some areas where, because of incompetence, corruption or, government is unable to cope with the demand, five a day).
In a culture of entitlement, when something goes wrong, you demand that others fix it instead of fixing it yourself.
When indigent people do not have a sense of ownership, they do not look after infrastructure, so a lot of money is spent fixing things (and then fixing infrastructure that gets destroyed in violent protests).
Children get locked into a cycle of poverty.
Crime still flourishes in these areas where people live on grants (and no one wants such a housing development near them because of it!)
Teenage pregnancy is very high (can't remember the statistic but perhaps over 20% of schoolgirls are pregnant), even though contraception and abortion are free.

However, despite the problems, I think society should look after those who, for various reasons, will never be able to take care of themselves, and it is sustainable as long as those who can't, or won't ever, take care of themselves remains a low percentage.

What do others here think?

I think what you are saying is very reasonable - obviously from the real experiences of your country it is clear that people will always take advantage of a system if they are able to - it can't be helped, people don't like to work if they can help it, especially in jobs that are soul-destroying and repetitive (tell that to the strong women that work in fish canning factories to help their families!) - it seems we must strike a balance between helping those who cannot help themselves, and assisting the disabled and incompetent (through misfortune) and those who would simply not bother because they do not have to - we have the situation in Australia of people being given housing, for peppercorn rents and a lot of them trash their houses, then move on to the next place - or living 'wild'. I don't know what the answer is. It would be fantastic to live in a world where energy was not an issue, and we could all pursue our true callings, be housed, clothed and fed for little expense, I beleive we could do this today if not for the 'oil cabal', so perhaps the situation is yet another symptom of our corrupt civilization, it casts it's shadow over even well-meaning people.

Yes, I agree that the balance is the key. At present, the balance is all wrong in the world with 1 per cent owning the majority of resources. I reckon about 20 per cent of the population (excluding children) will struggle to take care of themselves but the rest of the 80 per cent can easily afford to support them.