Rumor What's going on in Portland?

If you have a certain level of income you would pay 30% of your income in rent. If you didn't pay you would be garnished.

Nobody would choose to live that way unless they needed it. Anybody with the wherewithal to earn enough money would want better living arrangements.

 

I would think everyone who currently pays for a small place would take the free one. Then all the younger people who move out on their own every year would take one. Just seems too good of a deal to pass up.

 

thats not as unique as you think. Its pretty much what i said in my post as well. And the report i linked verified it.

 

can you specifically point it out? I do not recall one portion discussing and putting sctual costs, a number to all the side costs entailed when the person doesn't change thier habits? Everyone i read i dod not see an actual number detailing out the costs of all the extras like still having 911 called because thye are still addicts. Still destroying the property and rebuilding it... how often? The quicker they destroy it the quicker it needs rebuilding, increasing the annual costs.

point me specifixally to an article thst detaisl that out. Nothing you have posted has broken that down and acknowledged the same costs now will still be there but then rhe additional costs of the housing will also be there.
Without fixing their addition, the 911 calls will still happen. The destruction will still happen.
So please point me specifically to a report and point to where in that report it acknowledges this and breaks it all down.

 

nice. So even though i was responding to someone specific, you couldn't control yourself and went off on me, then blame me for your lack of self control?
And a mod liked that shit???
Lmao.
Thansk for the direct apology there. Shows how sincere you were when you told me you dont like confrontation....

I can see why the two people who like your post liked it though.

can we say biased?
Anyhow thanks for the typical...


“I apologize for ranting... but.... he made me do it....”

gtfo and take real ownership like i have when ive fucked up. Stop blaming someone else...

 

id also like to point out, if the ecreport was that accurate, why arent cities across the nation homeless free? wouldnt they all have done this and rid themselves of the homeless with free housing everywhere?

i just did a search and didn't find one city that provides free housing for the homeless without any incentive or requirements to work and contribute.
So if its really half the costs why hasn't this been an answer long long ago and why is the homeless increasing in numbers?

is it because the government knows it will cost more? Is it because majority votes to down and if so, why? If this is truly half the cost, the majority cant really turn their backs on that can they?

Nothing in the reports broke costs down to the dollar and addressed the addiction factor of recovery time or the behaviors of addicts.

they wil still leave their homes and shit on the streets, vandalize, steal... all the things that cost now. Plus then the costs of the proposal.

no amount of money tossed st them will help solve anything until their addiction is first solved.

No free rent.

Work for rent. Rehab for rent.

 

Just read up the thread. Salt lake city went from spending $20k per year per person to $8k per year per person over the 10 year program (the program only cost $3k per person). They had cleaned up their streets. Reporters looking for homelessness couldn't find it.

But it was a 10 Year program which wasn't re-upped because the people in charge had changed and the new people didn't have the same support for it.

Now there are homeless people everywhere, just like Portland.

What you're advocating is against the law and is proven not too work. They could work for slave wages and a roof now. They aren't interested in that and by law you can't make them. That's not going to change.

You are choosing to keep things this way. Just like Utah. The evidence is there.

Think about that next time you're complaining about it.

Finland has eliminated homelessness this way as well. New York City has shown savings of $10,000 a year for each homeless person housed. Seattle and Boston have also both shown that a Housing First policy reduces homelessness and save money as well.

https://lacrosseindependent.com/2020/12/27/homelessness-housing-first-saves-money/

Here is some data showing outcomes in Canada. HF wins...
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7492-8

Here's 60 minutes... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/housin...e-chronically-homeless-60-minutes-2019-12-03/

 

Because it's a complicated calculation. It takes Data from dozens of sources.

You can't break it down to the dollar like that. There isn't enough Data collected on the homeless to do that. That's the problem with allowing them to remain homeless. You can't track them. You can't check up on them. You can't study them. They are too unpredictable. To unreliable.

You have to view it as number of episodes, arrests, emergencies, per person, compared with the city budget. And length of a given housing status comparison and with outcomes of other statuses.

It's not simple. It's complex. But housing first gets people off the streets. That is proven, thereby keeping our public spaces cleaner and safer. That is proven. It has done so everywhere it has been tried. It saves money nearly everywhere, and there is no evidence that it has ever cost more money than leaving them homeless anywhere. It makes these people easier to track.

Here is some data.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7492-8

People are easier to treat when homed than when homeless. And the treatment they receive is more effective and more often leads to full recovery and self reliance.

That's not even in question.

 

A generation of people not having to pay for living expenses? Just set up shop in a free apartment, what could go wrong? I guess I have less faith in people. I think if there were requirements for it, like a full time job, no criminal activity, etc., maybe it works, but tracking that seems impossible. And what housing is this, newly built housing on vacant land, or empty buildings? I just think it any 'free' housing needs to be absolutely bare bones, as basic as possible. Nothing anyone would enjoy, but better than homeless. I sound like an asshole maybe, but I don't love the idea on its surface.

 

btw i have no doubt it saves money. i just dont quite have a grasp on the fairness of it all or the incentive for people to 'get out and improve their lives' if we give them free apartments.

 

My daughter had squatters living in an empty house next to her for some time. Initially they were not a problem and she helped them with food and other needed things. They were not a problem until they themselves didnt limit who and how many could crash there and trouble started. Parties started happening nightly and my son in laws shop was broken into and needles started showing up on her lower property. She went back over to talk to the ones that she first met with and it appeared their clout with the others was zero, so they ignored my daughters concerns. She did ask them to calm it down and dont migrate onto her property because her kids played there and she was finding needles. Well, a week after her second visit my son in law went with her to address again but they were both threatened so eventually the cops were able to do something because they had taken in guys that were robbing houses and storing merchandise there. The out of town owners eventually put the place up for sale and were able to after a long while, get them out for good. People tried to help and reach out but no respect for others and criminal activity cannot be tolerated in a community environment. You cant mix drug addicts and/or mentally unstable people with no regards for others in a neighborhood/community.

 

Should try and do both.

 

How did that get in here? I don't recall saying a thing about that.

 

I drove I-205 from Stafford road to SR-14 in Washington and saw may 30 homeless peoples tents. Downtown must have many many more from what I've seen. They want to be near where they can get food, drink and panhandling.

 

There are unintended consequences to these things. Handing out free housing sounds wonderful. We clean up the streets. I just think you have to look at what you are setting yourself up for once you do it. Again as long as there are some qualifications around the housing and rule enforcement then fine. But how the hell are we going to do that? If you just dole out free stuff what does that do to younger people who traditionally went out got jobs and found a place to live. Now they what, just go live free and what’s the incentive to make money? Most of my monthly expense is my home. It just seems a little short sighted.