Should we give every homeless person a home?

[hunter]

The Canadian city of Medicine Hat recently became the first city to end homelessness thanks to a surprisingly simple idea: giving every person living on the streets a home with no strings attached.

Unlike many other homelessness initiatives, the so-called "Housing First" approach doesn't require homeless people to make steps towards solving other issues like alcoholism, mental health problems or drug addiction before they get accommodation.

--more--

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36092852

The obvious and experimentally verified answer is "YES!"

This is especially true in our 21st century economy where increasing numbers of people are simply unemployable, not because they are addicts, or mentally ill, or disabled, but because the modern hyper-productive and automated economy simply doesn't need them.

People ought to look at guaranteed housing as a safety net for themselves and their loved ones. The range of jobs and careers that could evaporate in an instant is expanding.

But the best part about being human is that the vast majority of us want to move forward, break the real and imaginary chains that bind us, improve our own standard of living, and contribute to the community. Safe secure housing gives us the foundation to do that.

[HughBeaumont]

1. At least two to a home. It's not like we don't have enough vacant homes.

What is it, a 5:1 ratio?

Of course, tell this to our "Fuck You, Pay Me" financial institutions that own the mortgages on these homes.

[Hortensis]

3. Some municipalities here in the U.S. have also been

providing homes to their homeless with some inspiring results. But it's like making water run uphill. It requires constant tending. And mental illness and severe personality disorders are endemic among the homeless. Only some "just need a break," or a series of breaks, and those are the ones who tend to still be stable in the homes over the long term.

As for empty-house idea, are you sure your neighbors wouldn't mind having untreated mentally ill people and destitute and desperate drug addicts moving in?

Btw, it is very likely that, as soon as your local government got the idea that your neighborhood was a good place to dump problems, they'd be delivering convicted molesters, felons, druggies, and others fresh out of jail who have nowhere to go there. Those NIMBY neighborhoods have a way of objecting and, let's face it, they have to go somewhere.

No simple answers.

[hunter]

5. Nobody ever talks about "functional" alcoholics depressing property values.

And I've met fuck-loads of them, even in wealthy neighborhoods. Maybe especially in wealthier neighborhoods.

Opiate addicts, mildly supervised, on methadone or in similar treatment, are generally nicer neighbors than some of the affluent weekend raging alcoholic neighbors I've suffered.

The same would be true of most meth abusers too, given some supervision and enough clean and legal amphetamines to keep them stable.

[Iggo]

2. Yes.

[procon]

4. Yes. Yes. And yes.

Safe housing is a foundation. It starts so many of the positive, life affirming, and changing, things that everyone needs.

[TipTok]

8. Some percentage would turn that housing unsafe...

... due to the aforementioned issues.

Violence, drugs, keeping things sanitary etc...

[procon]

13. That's still workable, and far better than turning people out on the streets.

A lot of these people have mental health and substance abuse issues. If they at least have homes, it's going to be easier to get them into rehab programs, healthcare, mentoring, social services, assistance with living and work skillsets. Nothing would help uplift them if they are lost in the streets.

[maxsolomon]

6. The Devil is in the details

Medicine Hat has approx. 60K residents. So how many "homes" are we talking about? Utah's vaunted "just give them a home" program was also extremely limited in scope.

Seattle had 5,000 unsheltered homeless at the last count. Where are 5,000 spare homes in the hottest real estate market in the nation? People are BECOMING homeless due to skyrocketing rents - forced out when rent doubles or triples.

Should we ship the homeless off to where there ARE vacant homes? Or do we build 5,000 new homes? That takes years, maybe a decade. IF you can find the funding - which is rare as hen's teeth nowadays.

What do you do in the meantime? Tent cities? Let them camp wherever they want?

[librechik]

7. short answer, yes. Long answer, even more yes.

there is no excuse for municipalities who won't do this.

[maxsolomon]

14. see my post above

I'd like to hear your solutions to these "excuses".

[Downwinder]

9. YES! Look at Salt Lake City.

[Bonx]

12. Ok, I did. Not that great really.

Interesting article & comments:
http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/problem-not-solved/Content?oid=2966986

[maxsolomon]

16. that was Chronic Homeless ONLY

and the number helped was approx. 2000, and it was the entire state of Utah. it took years to get them all housing. years. and it didn't get them all.

great program, but its reputation exceeds its scale. Utah still has 14,000 homeless


http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how

the devil is in the details.

[Rebkeh]

10. Yes, if not because it's the right thing to do

then because homelessness hurts everyone. Not just the homeless, themselves. Everyone.

It's a win/win.

But we also have to, in addition, eliminate the things that cause homelessness in the first place, a lot of it has to do with mental health care... which is another issue.

It's all connected.

[dembotoz]

11. home vs a place to live

it takes a level of income to maintain a house as in repairs taxes utilities etc.

rent free basic accommodations that are safe i am all for that

politically how do you justify giving a house when there would be neighbors who pay thru the roof for rent.

can you say open revolt?

i know lots of renters who would scream bloody hell if the indigent were to pass them up on the road to home ownership while they got nothing.

[maxsolomon]

15. "home" means an apartment, a subsidized rental

not a deed to a property.

[RobertEarl]

17. Take away the free and subsidized housing we have

And homeless pops would triple.

If the US can't find homes for people then we are a failure as a Christian nation. Kinda like we are now.

Just a fraction of the defense budget would take care of nearly everyone needing assistance.

One good thing of housing for all, would be the end of all the bureaucracy in HUD and the billions wasted on paperwork.

[mountain grammy]

18. Subsidized housing should be expanded..

many are homeless because they can't afford a rental. If a person has some income, and most do, then subsidized housing is the answer. This should be a federal program run locally to get people off the streets. It absolutely can be done.

[bigwillq]

19. Yes (nt)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. No, but we should provide a home for each homeless person. N.T.