[NDJeff]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

You're preaching to the choir. (Ha!)

But seriously, eventually even the sanctimonious prudes of the world will do the right thing if it's good for their bank balance.

The only optimism I have is the knowledge that the human race trends toward decency and intelligence. Programs like Housing First have to be shown to be effective and save real money before dumb-ass communities like Las Vegas get with the program.

We could legalize marijuana. We could abolish the mandatory minimums associated with marijuana. And we could parole everyone in jail on simple possession, cultivation and distribution. That would save us a lot of money. But we're not going to do that until most of our neighbors already have, and casinos realize it's bad for their bottom line. It wouldn't cost us anything -- in fact it would generate revenue. And think of what we'd save by paroling all those non-violent prisoners. Get them off the public support system and back into the work force. Let them run the growing operations. Win win.

There's a lot of smart things we could do. We could extend the monorail to the airport and make it useful. We could time our traffic lights to the speed limits. We could make our public transportation system more efficient. The lights and public transportation wouldn't cost us a dime to fix.

But we don't do it. Why? A lazy, apathetic, ignorant electorate. Look at the turnout in the last election. That says everything that needs to be said about the average Las Vegan.

People want someone worse off than them that they can look down on and spit upon. The want that way more than they want to save money or help their fellow man. It's a depressing facet of human nature that people want to dehumanize anyone who doesn't belong to their specific tribe.

[NaturalBowler]

Do the calculation: Beggars/streetcorner. They do compete for the higher quality sites. You won't find more than one per corner.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker

Republicans do not care if housing first actually saves money.

Keep in mind that this program started in Utah. There is no more solid red state than Utah. So it isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue.

I think it has much more to do with NDJeff's point that people want someone they can look down upon. Gore Vidal's quote, "It's not enough merely to win; others must lose," seems apt.

That's why Utah tried something new. And Las Vegas is still continuing the status quo. We're spending the money anyway. Anyone who thinks the homeless aren't costing us plenty is part of the societal problem. The question becomes, "What kind of expectations do we have for all this money we're spending."

We spend money right now, today, and receive ambulance rides for the homeless; indigent emergency room care; law enforcement, court appearances, and prison terms. Anyone against a program like Housing First is basically saying, "I love the status quo."

If Housing First created a dystopian "Hobo Happy Hunting Ground," Utah (and the other states which have adopted the program) would have seen a spike in homeless transients moving in. It didn't happen.

[EA]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

If Housing First created a dystopian "Hobo Happy Hunting Ground," Utah (and the other states which have adopted the program) would have seen a spike in homeless transients moving in. It didn't happen.

I am sure a hobo hunting ground would quickly decrease the population, unless we're all a really bad shot.

[clutchcargo777]

Why is the answer always "take from those who work and give to those that wont"?
'

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by clutchcargo777

Why is the answer always "take from those who work and give to those that wont"?
'

Again, we're spending the money anyway. Do you want to spend more? Or less?

Are you more happy with the results of our spending? Or Utah's?



And this is why Housing First isn't going to happen in Southern Nevada. Not until it's been shown to work everywhere nearby first. We have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, toward progress.

[BBMW]

The operative assumption is that if we give these people apartments, they're not going to end up in the hospital and/or jail. Given that housing them doesn't deal with their addictions an/or mental illness, I don't know why that assumption would hold. Crack/Meth/Heroin are expensive habits. They're still likely going to need to do illegal stuff to feed those habits, and have the health issues related to them.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Again, we're spending the money anyway. Do you want to spend more? Or less?

Are you more happy with the results of our spending? Or Utah's?



And this is why Housing First isn't going to happen in Southern Nevada. Not until it's been shown to work everywhere nearby first. We have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, toward progress.

[ScoopLV]

We already have the data from the other states which are doing this -- they have the same drug problems that we have.


I stand by my assertion that Las Vegas is going to be one of the last places to implement such a program. We're so adamant to see the homeless marginalized that we're not willing to divert (not expand) funds to actually fix the problem. Just like we'll never have an intelligent traffic light system -- same reason.

[BBMW]

In the article, they're saying that it's cheaper to house them than to jail/hospitalize them. I can believe that. But they don't say anywhere that by housing them, their incarceration or hospitalization rates are being reduced. I get the feeling the author is trying to imply that. But he doesn't come out and say it. I have a feeling if he could, he would.

If there's fire data for this, please post it.

[ScoopLV]

I have been linking Housing First studies since Utah adopted this program. Just search the forum for "Housing First." The data is already there to study. Other states have blazed this trail. All we need is a smidge of political courage -- not happening.