It’s not.

Here's a wild suggestion: maybe give them actual homes so that they can figure out the other problems in their lives.

Cities that have implemented a proper Housing First policy have seen dramatic decreases in their homeless populations and greater success in keeping them with homes.

Take Helsinki for example: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness

Instead of costing more and more money every year, giving a person a home becomes cheaper long-term because they can deal with their addictions, education, training, and health, then become productive members of the workforce.

Expecting a person to become drug-free while they're sleeping under bridges is futile.

[removed]

I was listening to a NYT Daily podcast episode about the homelessness problem in Houston. They were one of the few places that was getting this money and actually producing real results, mostly through housing-first policies. Housing-first means giving homeless a place to stay as a first step so that they can actually get their lives together.

When the woman running the program was asked what she thought made her program succeed so much compared to all the other cities getting federal funds for similar programs she gave an answer that was painful to hear. To paraphrase, most programs getting the money don’t seem to really be interested in helping homeless people. There are many cities that put so many restrictions on the program for the types of homeless who could be helped that no one qualified. It takes an administrator and team that actually believe in the goal and mission to get results. Simply pushing money and paper around doesn’t solve problems.

If you’re interested in this subject I highly recommend finding the NYT podcast episode about it.

I just wrote an entire essay as a comment before reading this… But another city that succeeded is Houston who was part of this program. But many other cities put a huge amount of red tape up.

Honestly tiny houses are pretty damn cheap, you could probably mass produce them for 30k a pop if you used inexpensive materials and equipped them with the bare minimum needed to qualify as a house. Buy up some empty land and set up a bus route to and from those areas. But I’m sure the issue is NIMBYs dont want homeless people in homes near them (lol)

Why not declare war on the cartel? The amount of people they killed with opiates would be equal to an act of war if it was a sovereign country right? Are we not able to precision target bunkers halfway around the world?

Tell me again how and why our Federal government does not have policy analysis ... better yet, tell me that policies are done via analysis rather than political party preferences.

They don't know because it was siphoned off by corrupt persons... otherwise known as family and friends.

UBI would fucking solve it lol.

You give someone $100 they can eat, get clothes, get a bud ticket, whatever. You give them a home and suddenly they have some worth again, something to live for, to fight for. It seems like basic psychology to me.

The Veterans Community Project currently does this.

San Francisco on the other hand has spent $60,000/year/tent "supporting" the homeless and nothing has improved. After sitting on a $1 billion bond issued to build housing for the homeless for 10 years, Los Angeles has started building them at $300k to $600k/unit.

It shouldn't be rocket science to build cheap and safe housing.

Already happening in Los Angeles, but you're right about the NIMBYs. Though a thought does occur to me with regards to this, why not use abandoned malls. Most of the infrastructure is already there and they could probable fit a couple of housing units where a single store used to be if you go for that minimalistic style seen in high end Japanese Capsule hotels. Increase that exponentially if it has what used to be a Sears stores attached to it.

It's been done before, granted that was more for profit rather the to help the homeless.

Open it up to non veterans!

I mean 300k in LA probably just pays for the land to be fair. Need to build outside of LA and set up a bus to and from the city or something.

Many would just spend it on drugs. Definitely wouldn't solve the problem.

Nops, LA city hates that idea!! Demolished the 5K mini house build by musician .

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n6h7fL22WCE

What’s chronic homelessness? I thought you’re either homeless or not.

We've given money to everyone but the homeless, and they're still homeless 🤷‍♂️

Did they spend the money fighting homelessness or fighting the homeless? He asked already knowing the answer.

I’ve never understood why cities don’t refurbish some of the empty buildings, which are an eyesore, into homes. I agree that homes would give a feeling of self worth and could be the hand up that someone needs. They’ve spent billions on what they thought was a solution. They need to try a different tactic.

If someone is "down on their luck" it's pretty easy to get government assistance and qualify for a whole bunch of welfare and job programs. So usually a regular person will be homeless only temporarily if something like that happens. Chronic homelessness is for people who are homeless long term and is almost always accompanied by drug use or mental illness which prevent the person from taking advantage of the various available benefits. For example some programs don't allow drug users to use their resources, which rules out a good chunk of chronic homelessness right out the gate. Or the addiction or illness make it so the person can't hold down a job, so they continually have to rely on temporary shelter and aid.

If you want to get rid of cartels, you legalize drugs. Think prohibition and gangsters.

Thank you for your explanation. So basically, it’s propel who are homeless with no prospects of being homed, as oppose to those who could potentially get themselves out of the situation.

And it would only cost $4 trillion a year to do it, nailed it!

"A" bus? L.A. county alone has 69,000 homeless.

To be fair i said “a bus route” in my original statement, plus it would be ridiculous to try and house that many people in a single subdivision. Obviously there would be more than one

Here’s a wild suggestion.

The chronically homeless have much larger issues than simply being homeless.

Until those underlying issues are treated, simply supplying housing does nothing but create new problems. Assuming they are even willing to stay in the provided housing without destroying it.

The chronically homeless overwhelmingly have severe mental health issues, chronic drug addiction, or both.

You're missing the whole purpose of giving them homes in the first place. There's no chance that those chronic issues can be treated until they have a place to live, to cook, to shower, to wash their clothes. The Housing First programs give them that, then provide social services like addiction help, healthcare, and work programs.

We've had the system you're talking about for decades and it isn't working. Homelessness is worse than ever.

Putting the severely mentally ill / chronically drug addicted in a house unsupervised creates more problems than it solves.

What they need is 24/7 supervised medical care.

1. This costs significantly more than simple housing.
2. It would likely be involuntary for a significant percentage of the chronically homeless.

Just need a few more billions

Did you miss the part where I said they'd be given social services and healthcare? They'd also be frequently checked in on and forced into certain programs in order to maintain their living spaces.

Mentally ill people need mental care, severe drug addicts need medical intervention to get clean. But doing any of that, then sending them back on the streets only serves to put them back into homelessness in the first place.

Maybe let's stop letting people be chronically homeless by giving them homes. How could we expect anyone to get clean if they don't even have a place to shower or cook their own food?

You have a high risk of it turning out like Cabrini Green.

Yeah, at least that way the homeless will die of a drug overdose out of public view. Out of sight, out of mind.

Hint, this is not a housing problem.

The people without those issues don’t tend to be chronically homeless.

People without mental health issues or severe drug issues already tend to have access to programs that help them find employment and housing.

You are conflating people with short-term housing issues with the chronically homeless.

They tend to be two separate groups with very different needs.

I doubt that an extended stay hotel costs $300k/unit.

The benefit of tiny houses is that if one gets trashed, they are a lot easier to swap out with a new one, especially if they are mass produced. Though I'd think that they could be put into a frame with multiple floors and walkways on one side and forklift access in the back to allow them to be easily swapped out with quick connect power, sewer, and water lines.

Thats a really good point and solves a major problem for these kinds of units

GUYS what if we took all the homeless and put them into all the unoccupied ones? Wow that was hard.

I believe they customize the programs to deal with veteran specific issues such as PTSD and combat injuries.

But yes, it should be universal.