Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What your not seeing is the flaws in the original study, like the fact that the police officers who are making the arrest are not going to be laid off, and the jail is still going to be there.
"the salaries of law-enforcement officers to arrest and transport homeless individuals — largely for nonviolent offenses such as trespassing, public intoxication or sleeping in parks — as well as the cost of jail stays, emergency-room visits and hospitalization for medical and psychiatric issues"
It sounds like they're referring to the monetary costs of dealing with the homeless via the police force. If they go this route, housing them, less money would have to be spent on them. The one officer who dealt with the homeless won't be needed, or the medical costs and the cost of imprisoning them would mitigated as well (to an extent for the former.
Quote:
There is also the issue of where all this new housing is going to come from, the study is most likely using existing housing to come up with its $10,000 number but is not taking into account the cost of building new housing.
This is still saving nonetheless. If it significantly cheaper to house homeless, then it should cover the long term costs.
Quote:
Most studies are full of BS and lies much like statistics of which 82% are made up on the spot.
This study have citations though. Where did you get 82% from?
So homeless bums get free houses, while the hard working middle class families struggle to save for a down payment to a house of their own.....Is there something wrong with this picture?
Yes. Savings=less taxes= more money you can spend on down payments, yet you don't want this. You want to spite the hard-working people to spite the homeless. There is something definitely wrong with this picture indeed.
Actually the vast majority do choose it. The ones that do not choose homelessness have such a wide and varied amount of programs to help them that its almost comical.
Housing them does not change the behavoir that got them there. The ones that can be helped are being helped.
So homeless bums get free houses, while the hard working middle class families struggle to save for a down payment to a house of their own.....Is there something wrong with this picture?
Homeless people should be rounded up, forced into detox programs, taught a trade or a skill set, and be required to work for the state and be productive citizens to society. No you don't get to be a drunken drugged out bum and mooch off society's compassion....and then get a free house for you and your other druggie friends to turn into a drug den.
All this is state funded as well, and more expensive than just giving them a home. Takes away jobs from people who actually want them as well. Also encourages an already greedy for profit criminal justice system thats out of control.
I can't find a exact number for people who choose to live alone. However, no website site homelessness as a choice.
I am not talking about people who choose to be homeless, I'm talking about the people who constantly make horrible choices that lead to them being homeless.
Meanwhile, rent costs for people that actually work continues to rise. . . . .
While the 'homeless' and single moms that didn't keep daddy around get free housing.
Regarding housing the homeless. Have the government buy a few hundred thousand used vans (cargo, mini, whatever style) and put them in the middle of the desert in Arizona after transporting in any homeless person that doesn't want to work, to that location. Have the ignition systems ripped out so they don't try to leave and air drop surplus MREs into that area once a week.
Last edited by Skydive Outlaw; 08-17-2015 at 12:46 PM..
First of all, ER and hospitalization costs for medical and psychiatric care are not going to be significantly reduced by housing them, those costs will still exist.
.
Fair.
Quote:
Second, a very real difference exists between the short term and long term homeless individuals. It is estimated around 56% of the homeless are long-term homeless, and they are not very easy to help. This is a result not so much of refusing help as it is an inability to adhere to requirements associated with that help, like curfews and abstaining from use of intoxicants.
I concede that you're knowledgeable about this than me. I'm just a messenger, and the message is the article. It states that it has found a cheaper solution for the homeless problem, that is humane, and they have the citations to back their claims. I don't know how difficult it is to help the homeless, but that isn't my concern. All that matters is that they found a cheaper alternative to do it. If you find something wrong with the methodology, or the data, then take it up with the article.
Quote:
Third, you can not force people to get help and for some it is their preferred lifestyle.
The primary causes are mental illnesses and economic problems. Many homeless are children. I'm going to need a source that asserts that enough people perfer being homeless for this to matter. For the first part... don't we force people to get help anyway?
Quote:
Fourth, many are incapable of living with others and unless you are planning on renting studio apartments for them they have to be able to get along with other humans.
Misanthropy isn't known as a good trait, but closer to a mental disorder. Some people are just naturally introverted, I know, but lets not confused introversion with misanthropy.
Quote:
I know this is hard to grasp, but not everyone wants to live like the rest of society. Your values and dreams, are not theirs.
At this point, I don't think the willful homeless should be apart of this discussion. They're an entirely different subject.
Quote:
Some programs for the short term homeless are worth discussing and yes, we ought to explore some targeted, time limited assistance, and in many communities they already exist. But, unless you are proposing locking up those determined to be homeless there will always be a homeless population. Society can not fix everyone, many of whom think they need no fixing.
If we are talking about reducing costs to the taxpayers then here is my suggestion. We do not spend 1 dime on the homeless, no food, no housing or shelters, NOTHING. I suspect the problem will resolve itself in 30-60 days
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
