Portland setting up villages for homeless with heat and electricity

[Guile]

Wonder if there is concern about these becoming half way houses.

 

[CreepyMcCreeperson]

Why do y'all keep bring up the cost of houses? The cost don't matter, we have the technology for cheap housing. The problem is the land

The taxpayers are paying for this, so yeah, the cost matters. I understand people get into bad situations in life, but I don’t necessarily want to pay for it. That’s just how my mind has evolved since I started paying property taxes.

 

[CreepyMcCreeperson]

That looks nicer than a lot of apartments.

 

[GPBear]

Fukk Portland grehs...



Went from enabling to straight catering.



What kind of real life, help-you-put-your-du-rag-on-for-the-hobos type shiit is this.



Until you're actually in portland and see how bad the drug and homeless epidemic is there, you woudn't be all willy nilly aboot it.



Was there back in May and saw needles and excrement outside the bars. It was prevalent and was enough to have me avoiding it for the remainder of my breathing days.



.

tfw are you talking about

I'm in Oregon, you right-wing nutjob are fukkin delusional.

yknow what, fukk it, keep fear mongering, yea PDX is a dystopian nightmare, maybe it'll keep people from moving here and driving up rent prices.

 

[GPBear]

The taxpayers are paying for this, so yeah, the cost matters. I understand people get into bad situations in life, but I don’t necessarily want to pay for it. That’s just how my mind has evolved since I started paying property taxes.

You really don't have idea how taxes work. Which is exactly what politicians want so they can use it as an obscure talking point.

The idea that services for the homeless would somehow cost you out of pocket expense is ludicrous considering the amount we spend on military and defense.

There's around 550,000 homeless people in the US, it's estimated to cost 13,000 to house someone. 550,000*13,000 = that's around 7 billion total.
Over 700 billion was spent on military/defense last year.

It would be less than 1% of what we spend on the military, but because there's no money to be made in war-mongering by housing the homeless, politicians don't gaf. And that's on a massive, nationwide scale. You're legitimately questioning the cost of a single-city program aimed directly at the homeless problem. But you're out here using neoconservative talking points out of Reagan's playbook while people live out in the streets in what claims to be the most developed nation on earth. The Department of Housing estimated it would cost 20 billion to solve homelessness in the US. That would still be a fraction of the cost spent on the military-industrial complex in a year, let alone the cost of all these imperialist wars over the last 75 years.

If you really want to go down that ridiculous line of argument, then it would save the city/taxpayers money long-term to solve the homeless crisis because of its detrimental economic impact. But again, neoconservatives aren't the brightest. Frankly, I think the economic arguments are just facetious covers for the fact that a lot of these 'fiscal conservatives' just like seeing people suffer because it makes them feel better about themselves.

 

[bnew]

The taxpayers are paying for this, so yeah, the cost matters. I understand people get into bad situations in life, but I don’t necessarily want to pay for it. That’s just how my mind has evolved since I started paying property taxes.

what you still don't seem to understand is providing housing is ultimately much more cheaper to taxpayers than dealing with homelessness. so many people are blind to huge costs of sanitation, property destruction, police resources and et cetera thats associated with homelessness.

continuing with the same old way of dealing with the homeless will ensure that your taxes continue to go up and up while the homeless remain homeless, the public problems associated with it will still remain. housing is one of the first steps to providing a person stability so they can then be a more productive member of society.

 

[CreepyMcCreeperson]

what you still don't seem to understand is providing housing is ultimately much more cheaper to taxpayers than dealing with homelessness. so many people are blind to huge costs of sanitation, property destruction, police resources and et cetera thats associated with homelessness.

continuing with the same old way of dealing with the homeless will ensure that your taxes continue to go up and up while the homeless remain homeless, the public problems associated with it will still remain. housing is one of the first steps to providing a person stability so they can then be a more productive member of society.

I understand that, but if the money is being taken from other programs, such as public schools, or the taxes go up in general, people get mad.

Plus, things like this incentivize some people to not make more money, because they won’t qualify. The contrast between rent and a mortgage compared to low income housing is stark.

 

[bnew]

Wonder if there is concern about these becoming half way houses.

aren't halfway houses places for the recently incarcerated and paroled?

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

Congrats but in reality those are just new age shanty towns. They will need to watch for needles and overdoses on sight. Possibly have standing security.

No ideas original nothing new under the sun.

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

what you still don't seem to understand is providing housing is ultimately much more cheaper to taxpayers than dealing with homelessness. so many people are blind to huge costs of sanitation, property destruction, police resources and et cetera thats associated with homelessness.

continuing with the same old way of dealing with the homeless will ensure that your taxes continue to go up and up while the homeless remain homeless, the public problems associated with it will still remain. housing is one of the first steps to providing a person stability so they can then be a more productive member of society.

These incentives aren't new. Cities want property tax and tax income in general. The property is still going to be in demand where they are housed for other development.

At best it's a short term solution because they also don't want people becoming dependent on the idea of pod living in major cities. So let's see how long it goes...

 

[bnew]

I understand that, but if the money is being taken from other programs, such as public schools, or the taxes go up in general, people get mad.

Plus, things like this incentivize some people to not make more money, because they won’t qualify. The contrast between rent and a mortgage compared to low income housing is stark.

the money is already being taken away from public schools and other programs.

https://www.calcities.org/docs/defa...homelessness---barilone.pdf?sfvrsn=9e4099b9_3

If we realised the true cost of homelessness, we'd fix it overnight
snippet:

Social commentator Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece, Million-Dollar Murray, for The New Yorker in 2006. It’s the story of two Nevada police officers who spent much of their day dealing with homeless people such as six-foot-tall ex-marine and chronic alcoholic Murray. They regularly picked up Murray and drove him to hospital, drying-out clinics, the police lock-up and mental health facilities.

His bills were so legendary the policemen worked out, based on his health care alone, it would have been cheaper to house him in a hotel with his own private nurse. When not drunk, Murray was a charming, smart, talented chef. By the time he died of intestinal bleeding, they calculated the cost of Murray’s homelessness over a decade was US$1 million.

Those two Nevada policemen did something that is rarely done anywhere – they calculated (OK, roughly) the cost to the taxpayer of one man’s homelessness. And, in doing so, they showed, as Gladwell pointed out:

The kind of money it would take to solve the homeless problem could well be less than the kind of money it took to ignore it.

snippet:

For many, like David, problems once managed at state hospitals are now worked out in police stations, courtrooms, and shelters. That system has proven ineffective, as David’s case makes clear. And it is exceedingly expensive.

The state pays $37,400, on average, per year to care for a chronically homeless person who spends an average amount of time in homeless shelters, detox centers, jails, and hospitals, according to data collected by the housing alliance, a Boston-based advocacy group.

And that sum doesn’t factor in police or court costs.

In the last four years alone, David has been arrested some 50 times, costing the city of Boston an estimated $100,000 for bookings alone. He spent at least three months in jail, at a cost to the public of about $12,000, and at least six months in state hospitals, which cost about $500 per day. In total, that works out to $50,000 a year on services that have failed to turn David’s life around — not including the cost of his frequent court appearances.

By contrast, providing one homeless person with permanent, long-term housing — and the support services to help them succeed — costs about $15,500 per year, according to the shelter alliance.

“There is a cost associated with doing nothing,” said Joe Finn, the leader of the nonprofit housing alliance. “There are people who cost millions of dollars because of the way we use resources.”

look into how much homelessness costs your city/state government, you'll soon realize providing housing and social services is cheaper than the current way of dealing with homelessness.

 

[bnew]

synopsis

What do you think would happen if you invited an individual with mental health issues who had been homeless for many years to move directly from the street into housing? Loyd Pendleton shares how he went from skeptic to believer in the Housing First approach to homelessness -- providing the displaced with short-term assistance to find permanent housing quickly and without conditions -- and how it led to a 91 percent reduction in chronic homelessness over a ten-year period in Utah. Check out more TED Talks: http://www.ted.com

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

lol nah i thought about editing my post to say that obviously sleeping on the streets is inherently dangerous.

that whole encampment still look like it's one gust of wind and electric fire away from burning down tho, we should give them something better.

underground bunkers is the way to go in my opinion.

 

[NotAnFBIagent]

The wealthiest country in the world with one the highest cost of livings, and folks in here mad about helping the poorest people

No wonder Republicans have half the country in their back pocket

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

Why do y'all keep bring up the cost of houses? The cost don't matter, we have the technology for cheap housing. The problem is the land

underground living facilities for the homeless.
if you are underground, you always have a roof over your head.