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.
OP, if you sit down and crunch the numbers, you'll realize there are not many municipalities that could afford to do such a thing.
For starters, you must acquire the land (unless you approve of them taking it via eminent domain), then you have to build the place. Next comes staffing the place. Then comes screening, leasing, maintenance (daily upkeep and regular repairs), and so on and so forth.
10-20 occupants at $100/month won't keep anything going. If you cheap out on labor, you'll have a terrible looking building. You can't even hire a good manager for $2,000/month. And you still haven't even addressed maintenance staff, repairs, power bills and other utilities. As an example, I manage a 24-unit apartment building where we take care of the water bill. Last month, our water bill was over $700. With $2,000 income each month, you have $1300 left. You have to have power to maintain hallway and staircase lighting. Even using LEDs, your power bill will eat into that substnatially. We haven't even got to climate control in common areas, assuming we are talking about an enclosed complex.
$100/month won't do anything other than get the building so far into the red that it isn't even feasible to go past this being an idea.
If you want it to work, it needs to be privately run, with a great incentive for the owners. But, if you do that, the government is still paying for it. Short of buying older motels and converting them into a halfway house, so to speak, there aren't too many financially sound ways to make something like this work.
After all of that, you run into the real problem when it comes to homelessness. NIMBY. Not In My Back Yard. Whether you'll admit it here or not, you know 99% of us don't want a homeless shelter in their neighborhood. I know I don't. Is it mean? Probably. But, I have an investment in my home and a facility like the OP wants would destroy property values. A perfect example is an old raggedy motel that was widely known for drugs and prostitution here in town. No one would build anything near it until it was torn down. It's not the same thing, but I think it kind of helps make the point.
Cliff's Notes: Too expensive, too unattractive in just about any area of most towns, a political hand grenade with the pin pulled.
What I had in mind originally was a townhouse-type deal where the upstairs, downstairs, and basement are divided into barracks or guest-house style bunks, maybe two bunks to a bedroom in a house with four bedrooms and a basement that can be converted into a bedroom. The residents would be sound homeless, so they would not be mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or a threat to society. They would live together in a group home style setting with a security guard taking residence as well to make sure the residence stayed safe. The home would be run by strict rules, curfews, guest restrictions, mandatory drug testing and psychological screening, etc., to keep the residents safe. If that isn't doable, pardon my naivety, but I frequently see houses advertised for rent for about $2000-$3000 per month, so I thought it might be feasible to house quite a few at that price.
As for the objection to the people not being there, why would anyone have to tell people that it's a group home? The city could silently purchase a suburban house and convert it into a group home while keeping the project secret, couldn't they? If that really would be a problem, they could probably purchase rural land and build something similar on it.
What I had in mind originally was a townhouse-type deal where the upstairs, downstairs, and basement are divided into barracks or guest-house style bunks, maybe two bunks to a bedroom in a house with four bedrooms and a basement that can be converted into a bedroom. The residents would be sound homeless, so they would not be mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or a threat to society. They would live together in a group home style setting with a security guard taking residence as well to make sure the residence stayed safe. The home would be run by strict rules, curfews, guest restrictions, mandatory drug testing and psychological screening, etc., to keep the residents safe. If that isn't doable, pardon my naivety, but I frequently see houses advertised for rent for about $2000-$3000 per month, so I thought it might be feasible to house quite a few at that price.
As for the objection to the people not being there, why would anyone have to tell people that it's a group home? The city could silently purchase a suburban house and convert it into a group home while keeping the project secret, couldn't they? If that really would be a problem, they could probably purchase rural land and build something similar on it.
And you don't think the suburban neighbors would not notice all those people coming and going? There would be some serious outrage once it was discovered..and yes, it would be discovered.
Rural land?
Rarely do suburbs, and never rural, have easily accessible public transportation. How, exactly, will the people get around? If they are homeless, they won't have cars. Now are you going to provide busing, too?
And you don't think the suburban neighbors would not notice all those people coming and going? There would be some serious outrage once it was discovered..and yes, it would be discovered.
Rural land?
Rarely do suburbs, and never rural, have easily accessible public transportation. How, exactly, will the people get around? If they are homeless, they won't have cars. Now are you going to provide busing, too?
I'm thinking the best place for a shelter like this would be in an "up and coming" neighborhood that's safe enough but not known for safety or beauty, not the suburbs. People wouldn't think a lot about a group home being on one of the lots in a neighborhood that's recently been cleaned up. It would just be part of the scenery. Moderately rural areas might work, too, but there would be an issue of transportation.
There are decent neighborhoods not too far from the bus lines, and there is at least one call-for-pickup shuttle that serves mainly people too young to drive and people with disabilities. We could probably afford one or two small shuttles if the houses are too far from the bus lines. We could also consider taking car, truck, and scooter donations and gifting some of the working ones to residents. A church bus or large van wouldn't cost that much to fuel and keep up if everyone were to pitch in, and it's assumed that the shelter would also receive donations, so it's not like the shelter would have to operate strictly off of out-of-pocket fees. Working residents should be able to afford to pay a modest transportation fee to fuel the buses or vans, if they need to, though. There may also be other reasonable ways to offset costs. Perhaps the shelter could invest in small electric carts or bicycles?
Then again, a rural area might work if the residence is self-sustaining. The residents could grow their own food and goods for personal use and trade at local farmer's markets. It's not the best option, but, again, taking care of cows and growing corn probably beats living out on the streets. If they lived and worked in the same place, the need for transportation would be minimal. Cost of utilities and other considerations could be taken care of by donations, and residents would be required to keep usage moderate. There are a few options to make money at home, too.
We could also consider taking car, truck, and scooter donations and gifting some of the working ones to residents. A church bus or large van wouldn't cost that much to fuel and keep up if everyone were to pitch in, and it's assumed that the shelter would also receive donations, so it's not like the shelter would have to operate strictly off of out-of-pocket fees. Working residents should be able to afford to pay a modest transportation fee to fuel the buses or vans, if they need to, though. There may also be other reasonable ways to offset costs. Perhaps the shelter could invest in small electric carts or bicycles?
It's not just getting the vehicle...it's the insurance, the maintenance, the license tabs. That can get expensive! And then there are the drivers licenses. Do they or can the residents all get one? Can they pass the test? Do they have all the required documentation? Fees? Even scooters need a license and tabs and insurance. Let's face it...donated vehicles are not in the best shape. If they were, the owners would be trading or selling them. So your maintenance bills are going to be fairly expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmb501
Then again, a rural area might work if the residence is self-sustaining. The residents could grow their own food and goods for personal use and trade at local farmer's markets. It's not the best option, but, again, taking care of cows and growing corn probably beats living out on the streets. If they lived and worked in the same place, the need for transportation would be minimal. Cost of utilities and other considerations could be taken care of by donations, and residents would be required to keep usage moderate. There are a few options to make money at home, too.
You've never lived on a farm, have you? Do you have ANY IDEA what is involved in "taking care of cows"? Quality feed, vet care (neither of which is cheap!), fencing (again, not cheap), clean water, tractors and equipment and diesel fuel to power that tractor (that manure won't scrape and haul itself out of the barn and cow yard!) Where is all of that going to come from?
And growing food? A bit more doable, as long as they are willing to work. Weed, water, etc. What happens when the weather turns against you? (frost, drought, hail, etc.?)
Idealist kids with no practical real world experience....
It's not just getting the vehicle...it's the insurance, the maintenance, the license tabs. That can get expensive! And then there are the drivers licenses. Do they or can the residents all get one? Can they pass the test? Do they have all the required documentation? Fees? Even scooters need a license and tabs and insurance. Let's face it...donated vehicles are not in the best shape. If they were, the owners would be trading or selling them. So your maintenance bills are going to be fairly expensive.
True, it would be expensive for an individual, but most towns and cities can afford to provide public transportation, so it might be doable, especially if they charge a small fee to residents to help cover some of their costs. I think it really comes down to having community support. Ideally, though, a shelter in an "up and coming" neighborhood should be fairly close to public transportation already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeachSalsa
You've never lived on a farm, have you? Do you have ANY IDEA what is involved in "taking care of cows"? Quality feed, vet care (neither of which is cheap!), fencing (again, not cheap), clean water, tractors and equipment and diesel fuel to power that tractor (that manure won't scrape and haul itself out of the barn and cow yard!) Where is all of that going to come from?
Perhaps raising cattle could get fairly expensive. The residents could probably raise other animals that are easier, like goats, rabbits, or chickens. Even raising a couple of cows, though, may be doable as long as everyone has a chore and the place doesn't cost too much to own and run. That amounts to having animals and plants that are relatively easy to grow and care for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeachSalsa
And growing food? A bit more doable, as long as they are willing to work. Weed, water, etc. What happens when the weather turns against you? (frost, drought, hail, etc.?)
Again, protecting the crops from frost and knowing when to plant what would just be part of regular maintenance. They would have to learn when to spray or wrap the orange trees, how to harvest the blueberries before the birds get to them, when to pick the pears, where to find the blackberries, how to keep the greenhouse warm and safe, etc.; that would all be part of regular maintenance to keep the place running smoothly. I think that would be doable, considering seeds are cheap, and a lot can be done if there are no city regulations to worry about.
Actually, the farm idea might be better than the community group home, because everyone would be working together, learning self-sufficiency, and enjoying the rewards of hard work. They would also be contributing back to their community by raising animals and plants that could be sold at the market. It would be quite a difficult life, but it would be one possible way to get back on their feet.
Because it's a mistake to give people anything they didn't earn. Cities used to build subsidized housing projects. They turned into the worst kind of slums within a very few years. Generally, all of the projects have been torn down after deteriorating past the point of livability.
I remember places like that when I grew up in Detroit back in the 60s. These places were dumps and eventually were torn down just to rid the area of the rats.
I'm still trying to figure out the people who start threads like this. If it is important to them to see people in public housing then go to the city and fight for it, don't whine about it online. Of course as they fight for it, people like me will fight against it for a number of reasons. One, I don't want them living near me, been there (Detroit) and it was not pretty. And two, I don't want any of my local tax dollars going to support other people.
It's bad enough my Federal tax dollars are being spread around.
People who have been foreclosed how?
Did they get in on their heads and try to buy a home they could not afford?
As a renter,i am weary of helping someone who bought a home they could not afford and then expects others to pay.
If they're otherwise healthy but out on the streets, who are we to judge? They could be refugees from a recent natural disaster. They could be people who have had their homes foreclosed. They could be people who lost their jobs and can no longer afford rent. There are a lot of possibilities.
I remember places like that when I grew up in Detroit back in the 60s. These places were dumps and eventually were torn down just to rid the area of the rats.
I'm still trying to figure out the people who start threads like this. If it is important to them to see people in public housing then go to the city and fight for it, don't whine about it online. Of course as they fight for it, people like me will fight against it for a number of reasons. One, I don't want them living near me, been there (Detroit) and it was not pretty. And two, I don't want any of my local tax dollars going to support other people.
It's bad enough my Federal tax dollars are being spread around.
I'm not in favor of supporting "people like that" either. I'm in favor of supporting decent people who are down on their luck and not afraid to work a little. I clearly stated that I do not favor or want to create a chance that this housing will favor anyone who uses drugs illegally or is mentally ill. Since that's the majority of "people like that" the only ones left are the decent homeless who are in a transitional stage and having trouble finding affordable housing.
The reason I started this thread was to get more information and find out if a solution is actually feasible. The idea "they should just all get jobs" is misguided, because most of the people in this demographic do work; they just don't bring in enough to afford decent housing. Why should they have to suffer and be lumped in with degenerates? How would you like it if you lost your job and had to resort to the shelters or the projects? Right now, they are every bit as dangerous as your post suggests. Something should be done to protect decent people who are just having a hard time.
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.
