OT Hero!

The program doesn't work unless you house them all.

Never once did I say they would all be positive contributors to society, just that they would on average cost society less.

The housing first program doesn't work unless housing people is the first step.

Even if that means housing the criminals in jail. Which I would advocate for with varying degrees of severity based on the crime.

 

oh for fucks sake. Are you just going to continue arguing symantics while disregarding the bulk of my posts?

strawman..... lol!

 

You said "it would hurt" which I took to mean more harmful... Please correct me if I've misunderstood?

 

okay so now you are agreeing each case should have variances???


Thats all ive been saying!!!!

homeless solutions are not black Nd white. The circumstances vary and im not for any universal answer because it wont work for all....

so after all of this back and forth we are basically saying the same thing.....


Ugh....

so goes S2.

 

you misunderstood 100%. I simply said it would hurt them. Not more or less than anything thing else. The degree is dependant on the individual situation.

 

Well now that you are speaking plainly, i do agree to an extent.
However I do not believe most of domestic services should.
The educational needs of oregon are different than that of Washington dc.
Etc
Etc
Etc

funding and allocating should not be universal for most things. Universal meaning an even mandate for all states equally.

 

It is simple though. And I'm honestly not trying to play any games. I'm reducing this to the points that are important to me. Which is

1) The high financial cost of the homeless on society

2) The lack economic return these people contribute to society

3) The messy and smelly public areas I wish I could more easily enjoy with my family,

4) The embarrassment of having people who pass through see that we allow this in our society

5) The desire to solve this the most effective and efficient way possible.

We are spending enough on every homeless person to send them to college and possibly enough to jail them for the rest of their lives.

Housing them would:
1)Be far less expensive than any other option I've seen suggested or been able to find. Aside from just executing them, which could theoretically pay for itself if you turned it into some kind of pay for Purge/Surviving The Game kind of program. Of course, none of use would even consider such a horrible idea, so moving on...

2) Many studies and programs have shown that housing them also allows them to be treated most effectively, resulting in the highest return on investment possible by getting the most people out of the system and back contributing to the economy. Not all of them, or even most of them. Just more than without housing them.

3&4) Eliminate the homeless caused smelly, messy public areas which are an endless embarrassment.

 

quality post and i agree with most of it.

Work is getting busy. So i dont want you to think im ignoring.
Ill try to comment on each portion later.

 

Ok, my apologies.
If it hurts those people no less or no more than allowing them to remain homeless, I would propose we house them to reduce the cost on the system and help alleviate the messes all around our cities and improve the safety in these and surrounding areas, while also helping those who can recover and contribute to society to do so.

 

I never said anything was black and white or universal answer to all things. Just universal minimum, or floors to how far we let people fall into destitution.

Just like we have minimum levels of education, minimum qualifications to be a teacher, minimum qualifications to be a doctor, minimum qualifications to be a firefighter, federal minim wage...

There are things important enough to require minimums. If only 1 state did housing first eventually all homeless people in the country would be pushed to that state. That's not tenable.

If every state pays an equal share per capita, and is able to request federal funds based on number of "homed individuals" with a bonus for successful rehabilitation and bonus for low recidivism we'll all be paying less than we're paying now, no homeless camps, far fewer beggers, and far cleaner cities and public areas.

We could solve this problem in a year.

 

I can see where a logical person could be led to this conclusion. However, look at the increase in homelessness. A person here, a person there, sure but when large numbers of people start behaving differently there must be a sociological reason and I believe that reason to be the economy and how the poor are ever more poor as the wealthy are ever more wealthy. And if you accept that then why are the poor increasingly poor. Lately, the Covid-19 virus has made people increasingly unemployed and without the means to support themselves although this trend has been going on for some time now.

 

First, I would like to say, thank you for the honest attempt at an up and up discussion without trying to pawn me or come at me with personal insults like some do around here. Its truly a breath of fresh air and for that, I owe you my honest opinions without the games I return to some individuals here.
Now you touched on several points that i'm going to break down, but its going to be a long read, so grab a beer or coffee or smoke or whatever and settle in.

This is an issue. Between needle exchange programs, additional city janitorial services required to clean up after them, additional police spending to deal with them, etc., its extremely costly. However, I see it as two branches of financial costs. Short term and long term. Yes. The short term may be more expensive on paper, meaning dollar for dollar of first hand money, it looks like it costs less to house them. But are these reports taking into account that if we house them and enable them, they will then be free to continue their street life activity, but simply have a home to go to, thus not minimizing the public service costs of dealing with their behavior?
So now, we are simply paying what we were prior AND THEN housing on top of that?

For me, the long term costs for the ideas im laying out below, seem like they would be much less than providing housing that will have a lifetime of payments required. I'm sure you have heard the saying, "give a man a fish and he eats for a night. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime". I'm a teach a guy to fish kind of guy. Id rather put more into rehabilitation efforts than just give housing. Rehabs have in house treatment. Fund more halfway houses, but do not let these people just have free room and be able to run freely around.

This is an easy remedy. While in rehab and/or halfway housing provide blue collar skills training(plumbers, electricians, etc). Not only is our economy in dire need of skilled techs because they are a dying breed, it helps the addicts find work when they have completed their recovery and they become contributing members again.

Couldn't agree more. I moved out of downtown in 2013. It was going down hill then and continues to do so. I used to walk from my wife and my's place up on the hill above PCC to 7th and Burnside and back, three times a week to band rehearsal. So I had a birds eye view of the fact that the homeless and the crime has been going on LONG before covid and the current economic results of covid.

You think that is their thought? Visitors who see the homeless on the streets? How could people allow this homeless issue? Well, you are right, but finish that thought. What do they mean by allow?
Again, I had many visitors when I lived down town and then could hear people talking as I pass by as well. It had nothing to do with how could we allow this economically or socially, its how can we allow them to just sit there and destroy their surroundings? How come the city doesn't clean this up?

When a visitor is sitting at a table outside enjoying a dinner and looks across the street at a homeless tent with a person smoking a crack pipe or whatever pipe, (even weed at that point), the thought isnt, "how do we allow this", its "how come they arent arrested? How could we legalize hard drugs when we already have such a huge drug abuse iosue? WTH are we thinking?"

That's the thoughts I found prevalent in my friends, relatives, etc who visited, or Ive discussed things with.

And the answer is..... this city is a pushover for drug abuse and continually fails to address it correctly.

Absolutely, but ill add in a sustainable way. The most cost effective might not be the long term solution.
See above.
See you just answered it. We are spending enough money on them already and now you want to spend even more on them? This is like when what's his face wanted to double the border patrol after tripling it did nothing. We cant just keep tossing money and enabling people and expect the costs to go down. They will actually go up because now we are paying even more than before and enabling them to still hang out on the streets and live a life of mischief that we still end up paying for.

Okay, before I say I disagree with the bulk of this( aside from the executing, no one wants that) I think you are painting a black and white picture when it has many more layers and shades than that, or I have to just disagree.


But to dissect, you mention housing provides an ability to be treated effectively.

NOW we are starting to get into the details, that I believe are essential for making sure those in true need get the help and TYPE of help they need.

Lets face it ,and this one im pretty staunch on, because ive just seen it first hand too many times with my own eyes to accept someone telling me something different... the bulk of the homeless are addicts. Whether they were when they became homeless, or became a victim of the environment they ended up in, they are addicts.


The homeless is not a black and white thing and people are homeless for many different reasons. To just think we can provide a universal answer for all, to me, seems like a failure from the start. Unless your goal is to only help a small percentage of them.

Before we offer housing to any of them, they should go through a thorough evaluation as to their condition, cause of homelessness and current mental state.
Those who show mental deficiencies deemed unable to live within society safely, go to the psyche ward for treatment.
Those who show an addiction to a substance go to in house treatment.
Those who show a healthy and competent disfigure, but are a victim of economic circumstance are provided housing with training in a field of need.
Those who show mental aptitude but have a physical disability severe enough to keep them from working, we house.
ALL vets with honorable discharge who are homeless, we house or provide the appropriate treatment and house. This is indisputable and really would be the first priority on my list. They served for us to have what we have. They deserve nothing less and we treat vets like complete shit.

Now, all of this comes at a much greater expense than just housing them, but again, Ive seen many of these people up close and without help. No amount of room and board is going to change their habits and they will still be on the streets most of the time causing trouble, pissing in corners and living a lawless life.

I actually believe we should spend more than we are now, but its all about HOW we spend it, and my government has given me zero faith in their knowledge of how to tackle the problems with a microscope vs a wide angle lens.

This is one of the reasons why i'm not for universal anything. Because I don't think the problem is one universal thing and I think its situational for each individual and in order to provide the best help for each individual is to treat each case individually. Not universally.

Just because i'm not for universal spending for a minimum for all, doesn't mean i'm a punisher and think we shouldn't help.

I just think that we cant keep just tossing more money and expect change. That's the definition of sanity doing that over and over. We need to think outside the box. We need to integrate more work programs, so those who come out of recovery have a place to go to work and they can pay back some of the debt their help caused. Not all of course, but a percentage.



For those who refuse to comply to the programs deemed required, then they can go to jail. Their refusal is an admission that they have no desire to be a productive member of society.
See I'm all for wanting to help, but I also want to segregate those who will take the help and run with it, vs those who will try to abuse or refuse, costing us much more money in the long run.

Now I don't expect you to agree with all of what I said, or even some of it, but I do believe I have compassionate, yet stern ideas that could provide long term sustainable answers to the homeless, unemployed, crime rate, police needs, etc.


The thing is we all must be willing to pay more now, so we don't have to pay forever. But in doing so, Portland could the best city this country has ever seen. and we MUST demand more discipline from ourselves. We have become a complacent, soft, lazy society, expecting handouts at every turn. We need to teach ourselves and our youth how to hike the bootstraps up and be men and women and not adult children. This isn't gonna happen with pampering and freebie handouts. Its going to happen with a stern but fair regiment required by those who received benefits. We have got to break this chain or it will be everyone wanting free room without pay. Shit. Ill just quit my job and live for free too then.
You mentioned, it has to be a national minimum or they will all move here and we cant support that. Well true, in your scenario. But in mine I welcome them. We fix them. Get them back to being a productive member and Portland and Oregon's economy grows and thrives because of it.

I will leave you with this....

I know there is a longstanding dispute about this city and whether its a trashy hell hole or its just isolated areas....
Perception is everything and the rest of the country and world, whether accurate or not, see us as a complete shit storm. If property values are still going up now, I would not except them to continue to do so. I believe the reason they haven't fallen quite yet is only because the feds keep lowering the rate, so sales are still happening, maintaining the values. But the housing market isn't an instant thing and the feds cant keep lowering rates. What happened this year in Portland might not affect the housing market for another year or so. But as long as the perception of Portland is its a big pile of dogshit, then citizens and businesses will not want to come here and that's just a logical fact. If we continue to be seen this way, I have zero doubt it will have a huge impact on the housing market and property values all around Portland.
Again, whether its the truth or not, it IS the narrative and in the property value situation its really all that matters.


~~~'We must work hardest to help those who want to help themselves'~~~



~End Thesis~ LOL.

 

And BTW the guy in the OP is absolutely a hero.

 

But see, what if some people don't need a floor in certain areas? Why provide something not needed? Not everyone has the same health care needs. some need more, some need less. In providing a minimum level we still may be taking away some of the needs of certain people to give to others who dont actually have a need.

No bonuses. requirements.

I think, well I wont make this long, the other post has the bulk of my thought,s but I think its a pipe dream to provide housing, hope for rehab and just assume they will remain off the streets, get a job and become a productive member of society.
Pampering and handholding has in part gotten us to this point.
I'm not for pampering expansion when it hasnt worked thus far. There are tons of programs out there already to help these people and they dont work, because there is no discipline within the programs.

 

Likewise. This is the reason I come to these forums. The honest exchange of ideas and information. I'm not here to make anybody feel bad unless they are refusing to have an honest discussion... then the whole thing just turns into something else entirely...

I was going to go point by point in response, but I don't think that's necessary for most of it. You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm proposing. I'm not proposing removing any current benefits. I'm not proposing hoping for future treatment.

We know that most people do not want to be destitute. Most people do not want to be addicts. Most people want a nice apartment. A nice car or bike. A new iPhone they can take on a vacation to the Bahamas.

Most poor and homeless people aren't in a position to even consider those things. As you know, they are worried about getting the next handout. The next high. Sure, some people will be like that even if there is no stress. That's what they want. About 1% of people. The other 99% are either too sick or want better for themselves.

When you remove the stress of finding a less cold or wet place to shoot up people can think more clearly. When you don't have to worry about just finding enough food to survive, your mind works better. This is why poor people make such poor choices.

But again, time and time again, we have found that if you remove a wealthy person's cushy lifestyle (and access to their wealth) they start to make poorer choices that poor people make.

Given this floor, more people will choose to improve their lives. And having a caseworker ready to help guide these motivated individuals through the system makes lasting rehabilitation far more likely.

Just giving people a warm, dry, private and secure space where they can eat, sleep, bathe, and receive mail removes the majority of the societal cost. We can home and treat them (with the help of a caseworker who will check in on them) for $12k per year per person. Them being homeless costs an extra $20k-$50k per year per person, depending on the city, just in additional emergency services, increased maintenance, equipment, increased police, and the overtime for all of these services the community pays for.

Coupled with the fact that the people who are homeless are far less likely to kick the habit or make as full of a recovery as people who have homes. So we're immediately spending far less on each person. Then, since people are more likely to make a lasting recovery and re-join the working class if they have a home, you are paying for fewer people long term.

Everything you are suggesting works better if these people have a home. And the data shows us that it is cheaper to give them that home than to let them stay homeless. Even if none of them ever left the system. But again, the data also shows us that more of them are able to lift themselves out of the system and become productive members of society than any other solution.

Nearly every place that has tried this has saved money doing so. The ones they aren't sure about certainly didn't spend more, and they all cleaned up their cities as long as the program lasted.

Finland is doing it now, with spectacular results.

I don't expect the people visiting you at your home in Portland to understand any of this. They are angry at the symptom they can see, not the actual problem.

Giving them all homes hurts nobody and solves every problem I have with the homeless. I am all for instituting the housing first program nationwide.

There is literally no logical reason not to.

 

The people who don't need the floor don't hit the floor or need the service. If they don't need it they don't use it. It is available, but not provided.

No harm, no foul.

I understand it seems that if this was so effective and simple we'd already be doing it. I think there are many reasons people don't want to believe it. But it's really best to ignore those reasons and just follow the data.

It's literally not a pipe dream. It's been done. Very effectively and very successfully.

 

im going to keep this one brief for the moment as you deserve better than me just talking out of my ass.

My first thought though is i need to study up on the data you keep referencing. My inclination is it isnt taking into account many secondary costs of housing people with issues.

Now im not going to disagree that a better environment typically results in more sound decision making.

But i dont think thats the case with addicts.

Many addicts have homes and still make poor choice forcing them out, so at first glance i seriously question the thought that if we give an addict a home he will stop being an addict. Or we wouldn't have many addicts because they all came from homes at one point for the most part.
Let me research the data you are referring to and get back to you with a more in depth analysis.

 

That's a great point, a really great point. A home ALONE will not necessarily help an addict who became addicted in the same situation.

But those addicts with homes are far better off and less costly on average than addicts without homes.

Again, the housing first program doesn't assume that everybody will be cured by getting into a home.

Just that, on average, people in homes are significantly healthier, less costly for society, and far easier to help than those same people living on the streets.

Far less costly than even the $800 per month price of a studio apartment in Portland.