http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/realestate/commercial/24portland.html?pagewanted=1&sq=portland%20shelter&st=cse&scp=1
Jesus, $47MM for 106,000 sf building? Why not focus less on the aesthetic and more on using those funds to actually help people?
hell, how many houses could they have built for 47 million?? Sometimes I wonder if people think things through (as politicians)...although I will give the benefit of the doubt that the $ quoted wasn't absolutely accurate. But still...
And people wonder why I'm in favor of a small government. Is it too much to ask that public funds be used efficiently? I want a social safety net, but one that maximizes the money its given. Keep your eye on the ball. It's about helping people.
47 mil/150k = 313 houses, thats how many each one of those about 1500 sqft * 313 = 470,000 sq ft > 106,000 lol
So all you commie bums want the government to subsidize your scuzzy homeless friends with brand new houses?
Let's not be too hasty here. While I might agree that a new building project may be a bit lavish, if properly managed it could provide shelter for homeless people for 6-10 decades. That makes the price seem reasonable. Again, I would prefer they find a few older buildings and renovate them for a far cheaper cost, but there are economizing benefits to placing most of the homeless in one specific location. At first blush, it seems overkill, but I'll keep an open mind.
Agreed. There are a lot of services in that building that you can't provide in 313 (or however many) individual houses. barfo
How about building a more utilitarian structure at $220/sf? That's $24-$25MM. Use the other $22-$23MM to build another one or provide other services?
You commie bums sure love to waste my taxes. That money could pay for 847 swimming pools in my rich suburb.
Where would they have built these 313 imaginary houses? I don't think that many homeless people would use a house if it was clear out in Hillsboro or Happy Valley or wherever you could find enough land. In my years of study, I've noticed that homeless people seem to like urban areas. Housing costs about 80-100 per square foot to build. Plus you'd have to buy the land. Even if you built apartment complexes, the cost difference isn't that great. It seems like putting this where it'll get used is a better option than spending less money but getting less use out of it.
But where? Not in downtown Portland that's for sure. They couldn't have gotten enough land for 300+ houses plus all the other facilities that this space will offer in a place where it would get used.
I read somewhere that actual building costs are about $28m, which brings it more in line with what you were thinking
The govt. has this program called TARP, and spent $800B on acquiring "toxic assets" (foreclosed homes) from banks. Surely $800B buys you at least 330 homes, and govt. wouldn't have to spend this additional $27M or whatever. Or how about repurposing existing govt. buildings. like the empty FBI building in W Va that was nothing but pork for Roberty KKK Byrd?
I think there is more to being homeless than simply lacking a house. Yes, I'm sure Portland's homeless would find an office building in W. Virginia tremendously useful. barfo
A mailing address is the first step on the road back. Most homeless people are obamaville type victims - they had homes and the $1500 he gave them to move out has run out. Let them eat dumpster cake! Right?
Colorado: Sacramento: http://pumapac.org/2009/03/13/obamaville/ Eugene Oregon: [video=youtube;z3gpVqwffzs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3gpVqwffzs[/video] El Centro, Merced, California and the entire state of Michigan: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/02/16/obamaville-the-next-kettle-for-the-tea-party/ Go get your own links.
