Utah: Solving homelessness? (1 Viewer)

[[icon]]

"If people became atheists, they'd have no reason not to steal, rape, pillage, and generally be jerks."

"If people got a free apartment, they'd have no reason not to just completely slack off and be unproductive."

These strike me as similar claims, equally oblivious to certain basic facts of human nature. Most people don't want to be jerks. Most people don't want to be freeloaders.

People don't want to come into a free apartment by becoming destitute. They want to land a million-dollar mansion by becoming rich. You know what a guy with a mansion can do that a guy with an apartment cannot? Two chicks at the same time, man. That's still important to a lot of dudes.

I'm not saying that exactly zero people will work a little less hard when homelessness is no longer a serious threat. There will always be a few. But human nature being what it is, there shouldn't be too many. People, by and large, do not give up and start coasting just because they're not homeless. Think about how many people in your neighborhood could, if they wanted to, buy a crappy dwelling somewhere right now (mortgage-free) and then live the rest of their lives on welfare and food stamps without ever working again. Lots and lots could. And yet they don't -- because they don't want to. People tend to have larger aspirations for their lives than settling into a crappy dwelling, ruling out homelessness as a threat, and then simply shutting everything down. (And the people who don't have larger aspirations than that weren't going to be terribly productive as homeless people anyway, so it's not like making them non-homeless would rob the world of any stellar productivity on their part.)

For the record I'm not asserting that families living in nice neighborhoods are going to fall off the grid and do this.

I'm talking about the 48.1% of the country's population that makes less than $25k a year. Lots of those may be voluntarily unemployed (SAHM, etc) but the majority are not.

What about the 15% of the US population who have a household income below $23k a year. These people have little to no chance of ever having that white picket fence or that mansion on the hill. I anticipate a LOT of these people would be tempted to give up that gas station or fast food job and simply take the handout. At that point you don't seem much of a light at the end of the tunnel, and if they're offering you a house in addition to those food stamps and federal medical care.... what incentive IS there to work? None.

 

[Black Box]

Sounds like a pretty decent retirement plan.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

What about the 15% of the US population who have a household income below $23k a year. These people have little to no chance of ever having that white picket fence or that mansion on the hill. I anticipate a LOT of these people would be tempted to give up that gas station or fast food job and simply take the handout. At that point you don't seem much of a light at the end of the tunnel, and if they're offering you a house in addition to those food stamps and federal medical care.... what incentive IS there to work? None.

Some might. But most people who are currently surviving on that income without assitance wouldn't.

But the question real question you raise is... what ratio of people helped vs new freeloaders would make this worthwhile?

Say we got 1000 people out of homelessness for every person who "opted into" homelessness? Worth it? 100? 10?

 

[Black Box]

"If people got a free apartment, they'd have no reason not to just completely slack off and be unproductive."

I think the argument is that this program is a disincentive towards being productive, not that there would be no reason to be productive.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

"If people got a free apartment, they'd have no reason not to just completely slack off and be unproductive."

I think the argument is that this program is a disincentive towards being productive, not that there would be no reason to be productive.

Does "being productive" mean the same thing as having a job?

 

[Black Box]

What about the 15% of the US population who have a household income below $23k a year. These people have little to no chance of ever having that white picket fence or that mansion on the hill. I anticipate a LOT of these people would be tempted to give up that gas station or fast food job and simply take the handout. At that point you don't seem much of a light at the end of the tunnel, and if they're offering you a house in addition to those food stamps and federal medical care.... what incentive IS there to work? None.

Some might. But most people who are currently surviving on that income without assitance wouldn't.

But the question real question you raise is... what ratio of people helped vs new freeloaders would make this worthwhile?

Say we got 1000 people out of homelessness for every person who "opted into" homelessness? Worth it? 100? 10?

It sounds like the program is a practical one--it saves the state $5670 per homeless person annually. Each freeloader joining the system would cost the state an additional $11K. So if we ignore any other money lost from a freeloader "choosing" to be homeless, it seems that a single freeloader will offset the savings of taking two homeless people off the streets.

I'm also obviously ignoring any humanitarian benefits of taking the homeless off the streets, but this seems to be a good starting point.

 

[Black Box]

"If people got a free apartment, they'd have no reason not to just completely slack off and be unproductive."

I think the argument is that this program is a disincentive towards being productive, not that there would be no reason to be productive.

Does "being productive" mean the same thing as having a job?

It might--it also might mean that it provides a disincentive towards having a better job, or working harder, etc.

 

[[icon]]

It sounds like the program is a practical one--it saves the state $5670 per homeless person annually.

This (falsely IMO) is assuming the people do not get arrested or need medical care. The 16k number includes police and emergency room visits.

I'm not comfortable with the assumption that someone who has a tendency of getting arrested or sick/injured will no longer do so once they are given a home.

 

[Black Box]

It sounds like the program is a practical one--it saves the state $5670 per homeless person annually. E

This (falsely IMO) is assuming the people do not get arrested or need medical care. The 16k number includes police and emergency room visits. I'm not comfortable with the assumption that someone who has a tendency of getting arrested or sick/injured will no longer do so once they are given a home.

Fair point. I'm just going by the state-issued numbers.

My underlying point is that the costs can be calculated to answer wdcrob's question.

 

[[icon]]

I also think you have to account for those who will either strip the dwelling for drug money, or allow it to go into a state of disrepair (anyone who owns a home knows upkeep isn't free). That cost of damage/depreciation of some units needs to be factored into the equation as well.

Who's covering maintenance costs of this dwelling? Property Taxes? Insurance?

 

[roadkill1292]

Let's also count the people who may be able to clean themselves up enough with a roof over their heads and go out job hunting.

 

[[icon]]

Let's also count the people who may be able to clean themselves up enough with a roof over their heads and go out job hunting.

This is why I propose a scale on something like this

6mo Fully subsidized

6mo 50% subsidized

Out.

If you can't get your legs back under you and get some work in a year, you're likely not going to do it. If you're feeling generous, make it 1yr at 50% subsidized. There has to be a limit on stuff like this though.

And I recognize I'm not a policymaker, but I want drug testing. Offer free treatment... but I want drug testing before I'd personally get behind anything like this. If you can afford crack/heroin/etc then you can afford to put a roof over your own damn head.

 

[DSP]

Let's also count the people who may be able to clean themselves up enough with a roof over their heads and go out job hunting.

This is why I propose a scale on something like this

6mo Fully subsidized

6mo 50% subsidized

Out.

If you can't get your legs back under you and get some work in a year, you're likely not going to do it. If you're feeling generous, make it 1yr at 50% subsidized. There has to be a limit on stuff like this though.

And I recognize I'm not a policymaker, but I want drug testing. Offer free treatment... but I want drug testing before I'd personally get behind anything like this. If you can afford crack/heroin/etc then you can afford to put a roof over your own damn head.

How to you handle the issue of false positives?

 

[[icon]]

Let's also count the people who may be able to clean themselves up enough with a roof over their heads and go out job hunting.

This is why I propose a scale on something like this

6mo Fully subsidized

6mo 50% subsidized

Out.

If you can't get your legs back under you and get some work in a year, you're likely not going to do it. If you're feeling generous, make it 1yr at 50% subsidized. There has to be a limit on stuff like this though.

And I recognize I'm not a policymaker, but I want drug testing. Offer free treatment... but I want drug testing before I'd personally get behind anything like this. If you can afford crack/heroin/etc then you can afford to put a roof over your own damn head.

How to you handle the issue of false positives?

How do you handle the payment of maintenance, taxes and insurance on these free houses?It's pretty easy to try to shoot minuscule holes in folks trying to come up with solutions, rather than doing the heavy lifting yourself.

Then again reading your other threads, this isn't terribly surprising coming from you.

 

[[icon]]

Let's also count the people who may be able to clean themselves up enough with a roof over their heads and go out job hunting.

This is why I propose a scale on something like this

6mo Fully subsidized

6mo 50% subsidized

Out.

If you can't get your legs back under you and get some work in a year, you're likely not going to do it. If you're feeling generous, make it 1yr at 50% subsidized. There has to be a limit on stuff like this though.

And I recognize I'm not a policymaker, but I want drug testing. Offer free treatment... but I want drug testing before I'd personally get behind anything like this. If you can afford crack/heroin/etc then you can afford to put a roof over your own damn head.

How to you handle the issue of false positives?

1st strike: warning

2nd strike: temp dip in penalty, mandatory treatment.

3rd strike: out on the street.

 

[DSP]

Let's also count the people who may be able to clean themselves up enough with a roof over their heads and go out job hunting.

This is why I propose a scale on something like this

6mo Fully subsidized

6mo 50% subsidized

Out.

If you can't get your legs back under you and get some work in a year, you're likely not going to do it. If you're feeling generous, make it 1yr at 50% subsidized. There has to be a limit on stuff like this though.

And I recognize I'm not a policymaker, but I want drug testing. Offer free treatment... but I want drug testing before I'd personally get behind anything like this. If you can afford crack/heroin/etc then you can afford to put a roof over your own damn head.

How to you handle the issue of false positives?

How do you handle the payment of maintenance, taxes and insurance on these free houses?It's pretty easy to try to shoot minuscule holes in folks trying to come up with solutions, rather than doing the heavy lifting yourself.

Then again reading your other threads, this isn't terribly surprising coming from you.

You didnt answer the question you just counteted it with another unrelated one

Are you also aware that florida implemented a drug testing program for welfare recipients and that they caught almost nobody and cost a huge amount of money and saved the state nothing?

You elitists think every poor person is a drug addict but that is overwelmingly not the case

 

[DiStefano]

Let's also count the people who may be able to clean themselves up enough with a roof over their heads and go out job hunting.

This is why I propose a scale on something like this

6mo Fully subsidized

6mo 50% subsidized

Out.

If you can't get your legs back under you and get some work in a year, you're likely not going to do it. If you're feeling generous, make it 1yr at 50% subsidized. There has to be a limit on stuff like this though.

And I recognize I'm not a policymaker, but I want drug testing. Offer free treatment... but I want drug testing before I'd personally get behind anything like this. If you can afford crack/heroin/etc then you can afford to put a roof over your own damn head.

How to you handle the issue of false positives?

How do you handle the payment of maintenance, taxes and insurance on these free houses?It's pretty easy to try to shoot minuscule holes in folks trying to come up with solutions, rather than doing the heavy lifting yourself.

Then again reading your other threads, this isn't terribly surprising coming from you.

You didnt answer the question you just counteted it with another unrelated one

Are you also aware that florida implemented a drug testing program for welfare recipients and that they caught almost nobody and cost a huge amount of money and saved the state nothing?

You elitists think every poor person is a drug addict but that is overwelmingly not the case

You use the favorite Marxist solution, of course. You shoot them.

 

[[icon]]

You didnt answer the question you just counteted it with another unrelated one

Are you also aware that florida implemented a drug testing program for welfare recipients and that they caught almost nobody and cost a huge amount of money and saved the state nothing?

You elitists think every poor person is a drug addict but that is overwelmingly not the case

"In general, family income below $9,000, lack of health insurance, and having a family member in the same household receiving welfare were associated with the highest past year prevalence of any illicit drug use and past year marijuana use. Lack of health insurance and receipt of welfare assistance also were associated with past year cocaine use, especially among adults."

"Welfare recipients are 4x as likely to have used cocaine in the past year.

Welfare recipients are 3x as likely to have used any iliicit drug in the past year."

SOURCE: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA.gov)

And I answered your question.... 3 strikes you're out.

Now you answer my questions.

Who's paying for / providing maintenance on these houses?

Who's paying taxes?

Who's paying for insurance?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I also think you have to account for those who will either strip the dwelling for drug money, or allow it to go into a state of disrepair (anyone who owns a home knows upkeep isn't free). That cost of damage/depreciation of some units needs to be factored into the equation as well.

Who's covering maintenance costs of this dwelling? Property Taxes? Insurance?

So you agree that a cost/benefit approach is how this decision should be made?

 

[[icon]]

I also think you have to account for those who will either strip the dwelling for drug money, or allow it to go into a state of disrepair (anyone who owns a home knows upkeep isn't free). That cost of damage/depreciation of some units needs to be factored into the equation as well.

Who's covering maintenance costs of this dwelling? Property Taxes? Insurance?

So you agree that a cost/benefit approach is how this decision should be made?

I think cost/benefit should factor into it. I think blindly making decisions based on any one factor is foolish.

I love how I'm answering everyone's questions, posting facts/data, and posing ideas and nobody will touch my questions

 

[DSP]

You didnt answer the question you just counteted it with another unrelated one

Are you also aware that florida implemented a drug testing program for welfare recipients and that they caught almost nobody and cost a huge amount of money and saved the state nothing?

You elitists think every poor person is a drug addict but that is overwelmingly not the case

"In general, family income below $9,000, lack of health insurance, and having a family member in the same household receiving welfare were associated with the highest past year prevalence of any illicit drug use and past year marijuana use. Lack of health insurance and receipt of welfare assistance also were associated with past year cocaine use, especially among adults."

"Welfare recipients are 4x as likely to have used cocaine in the past year.

Welfare recipients are 3x as likely to have used any iliicit drug in the past year."

SOURCE: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA.gov)

And I answered your question.... 3 strikes you're out.

Now you answer my questions.

Who's paying for / providing maintenance on these houses?

Who's paying taxes?

Who's paying for insurance?

So why did floridas testing program only result in 2 people losing benefits if they are all drug addicts?

 

[[icon]]

"In general, family income below $9,000, lack of health insurance, and having a family member in the same household receiving welfare were associated with the highest past year prevalence of any illicit drug use and past year marijuana use. Lack of health insurance and receipt of welfare assistance also were associated with past year cocaine use, especially among adults."

"Welfare recipients are 4x as likely to have used cocaine in the past year.

Welfare recipients are 3x as likely to have used any iliicit drug in the past year."

SOURCE: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA.gov)

And I answered your question.... 3 strikes you're out.

Now you answer my questions.

Who's paying for / providing maintenance on these houses?

Who's paying taxes?

Who's paying for insurance?

So why did floridas testing program only result in 2 people losing benefits if they are all drug addicts?

You aren't answering my questions because you don't have any answers... which is funny for a guy who claims to know more about the situation. Last question of yours I'll answer until you stop asking questions and start providing answers.

I like to think that perhaps a lot of folks cleaned up their act as a result of the implementation of testing. It is a Fact that lower income / welfare recipients use drugs at a much higher rate that other people. If implementing a drug testing program helps bring those numbers down I'd think that's a good result... wouldn't you?

There would have to be anti-"Cheat" measures in place as well...randomized timing, observed tests, etc.

 

[DSP]

"In general, family income below $9,000, lack of health insurance, and having a family member in the same household receiving welfare were associated with the highest past year prevalence of any illicit drug use and past year marijuana use. Lack of health insurance and receipt of welfare assistance also were associated with past year cocaine use, especially among adults."

"Welfare recipients are 4x as likely to have used cocaine in the past year.

Welfare recipients are 3x as likely to have used any iliicit drug in the past year."

SOURCE: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA.gov)

And I answered your question.... 3 strikes you're out.

Now you answer my questions.

Who's paying for / providing maintenance on these houses?

Who's paying taxes?

Who's paying for insurance?

So why did floridas testing program only result in 2 people losing benefits if they are all drug addicts?

You aren't answering my questions because you don't have any answers... which is funny for a guy who claims to know more about the situation. Last question of yours I'll answer until you stop asking questions and start providing answers.

I like to think that perhaps a lot of folks cleaned up their act as a result of the implementation of testing. It is a Fact that lower income / welfare recipients use drugs at a much higher rate that other people. If implementing a drug testing program helps bring those numbers down I'd think that's a good result... wouldn't you?

There would have to be anti-"Cheat" measures in place as well...randomized timing, observed tests, etc.

Actually ypu refused to answer my original question. Which is why I didnt answer yours. No point speaking anymore to a vile person such as ypurself who advocates a caste system

 

[[icon]]

Actually ypu refused to answer my original question. Which is why I didnt answer yours. No point speaking anymore to a vile person such as ypurself who advocates a caste system

that's what I thought.

And I did answer your question... not my fault ya can't read.

But keep on making excuses to get through life...

 

[DSP]

Actually ypu refused to answer my original question. Which is why I didnt answer yours. No point speaking anymore to a vile person such as ypurself who advocates a caste system

that's what I thought.

And I did answer your question... not my fault ya can't read.

But keep on making excuses to get through life...

No you didnt. Im done with this nonsense. You cant even debate properly

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I also think you have to account for those who will either strip the dwelling for drug money, or allow it to go into a state of disrepair (anyone who owns a home knows upkeep isn't free). That cost of damage/depreciation of some units needs to be factored into the equation as well.

Who's covering maintenance costs of this dwelling? Property Taxes? Insurance?

So you agree that a cost/benefit approach is how this decision should be made?

I think cost/benefit should factor into it. I think blindly making decisions based on any one factor is foolish.

I love how I'm answering everyone's questions, posting facts/data, and posing ideas and nobody will touch my questions

Yeah... you might want to think on that one.

 

[[icon]]

So again...

For Folks who want to work and better themselves?
• Fed Subsidized drug treatment.
• Fully subsidized housing for first 6-9 months. 75% subsidized for next 6-9 months. Eligible for Section 8 housing afterward if income qualifies.
• Standard Medicare /Medical
• Case worker / Career advisor / Placement assistance
• Consent to random drug tests. 3 strikes you're out.

• Agree to 15-20hrs week work to "earn your keep"
• Offer subsidized medical and ongoing career/personal counseling for couple years after "graduation" to ease transition into real world.

I'd sign on for that sort of assistance to help those who want to help themselves. Take most of the money from drug war... it would easily be funded. Decriminalize marijuana.

For folks who fail out?
• Shelters provide bare bones (but still luxurious by global standards) living conditions (bunk and a blanket, 1500 cals a day)
• Bare bones medical assistance... candidly not 100% sure how to approach this, however these folks who've chosen to not take advantage of the chance to better themselves do not deserve the same level of medical care as those who did.

 

[[icon]]

No you didnt. Im done with this nonsense. You cant even debate properly

Good lord you're terrible at this.

 

[RCon]

I also think you have to account for those who will either strip the dwelling for drug money, or allow it to go into a state of disrepair (anyone who owns a home knows upkeep isn't free). That cost of damage/depreciation of some units needs to be factored into the equation as well.

Who's covering maintenance costs of this dwelling? Property Taxes? Insurance?

I was assuming that these are rentals, where the landlord is taking care of maintenance, property taxes, insurance, etc., and the state is simply paying the rent (and security deposits, as appropriate). Under such an assumption, those costs are already factored in.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

FWIW, I think the problem with this is that the homeless in Nevada, Arizona, CA, etc would be more likely to find their way to Utah. I don't agree that you're incentivizing people to become homelss, but if you're already there this is going to look like a damn good deal.

 

[DSP]

The bigger question is... .

Where will we house everyone once agenda 21 is fully implemented? How will those of you who hate the poor feel about being shoehorned in to megacities with the common folk?

 

[SacramentoBob]

FWIW, I think the problem with this is that the homeless in Nevada, Arizona, CA, etc would be more likely to find their way to Utah. I don't agree that you're incentivizing people to become homelss, but if you're already there this is going to look like a damn good deal.

Sounds like a good deal for Nevada, Arizona and California then.

 

[[icon]]

FWIW, I think the problem with this is that the homeless in Nevada, Arizona, CA, etc would be more likely to find their way to Utah. I don't agree that you're incentivizing people to become homelss, but if you're already there this is going to look like a damn good deal.

Sounds like a good deal for Nevada, Arizona and California then.

cool... can we just turn utah into one big homeless camp?

 

[[icon]]

The bigger question is... .

Where will we house everyone once agenda 21 is fully implemented? How will those of you who hate the poor feel about being shoehorned in to megacities with the common folk?

The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but because Agenda 21 is a legally non-binding statement of intent and not a treaty, theUnited States Senate was not required to hold a formal debate or vote on it. It is therefore not considered to be law under Article Six of the United States Constitution.

The US will never fully (or even largely) bow to Agenda 21.

 

[DSP]

The bigger question is... .

Where will we house everyone once agenda 21 is fully implemented? How will those of you who hate the poor feel about being shoehorned in to megacities with the common folk?

The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but because Agenda 21 is a legally non-binding statement of intent and not a treaty, theUnited States Senate was not required to hold a formal debate or vote on it. It is therefore not considered to be law under Article Six of the United States Constitution.

The US will never fully (or even largely) bow to Agenda 21.

Yet

Havr you seen the official agenda 21 maps the gov has drawn up?

The law means nothing to the law makers

 

[Homer J Simpson]

While it may be cheaper now to provide an apartment, my question is over time will this actually encourage more people to become homeless so that they get a free ride. Why work to have a meager living arrangement when you can be homeless and have the same thing. Over time this make create a bigger homeless population thus increasing the problem.

There is certainly a question as to how effective this will be, but I'm extremely skeptical there will be a mass influx of people striving to become homeless. Time will tell.

I'd wager 20-30% of the US population struggles mightlily to afford to put a roof over their head. Why would they continue working 1-2-3 jobs to do so if you're going to provide one for free?

Can you give some examples of large masses of people willfully giving up gainful employment in order to get some free subsistence level of existence?

Sure. As soon as you give some examples of states giving out houses to the homeless on a mass scale.

You know they're not just giving away houses, right?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

While it may be cheaper now to provide an apartment, my question is over time will this actually encourage more people to become homeless so that they get a free ride. Why work to have a meager living arrangement when you can be homeless and have the same thing. Over time this make create a bigger homeless population thus increasing the problem.

There is certainly a question as to how effective this will be, but I'm extremely skeptical there will be a mass influx of people striving to become homeless. Time will tell.

I'd wager 20-30% of the US population struggles mightlily to afford to put a roof over their head. Why would they continue working 1-2-3 jobs to do so if you're going to provide one for free?

Can you give some examples of large masses of people willfully giving up gainful employment in order to get some free subsistence level of existence?

Sure. As soon as you give some examples of states giving out houses to the homeless on a mass scale.

I guess that's a no.