Politics Homeless people gain ‘de facto right’ to sleep on sidewalks through federal court

Slavery was ended a long time ago. It wasn't good for the slaves then, and it wouldn't be good for them now.

 

Yes. it would be SO MUCH less expensive to just house them.

 

Then just watch the numbers grow and grow the more you "take care" of them. The problems with crime, drugs and general nuisance will remain.

 

We should make it illegal to be homeless.

 

Most people wouldn't qualify for a home. Those who do qualify cost us far more in emergency services, maintenance, and police overtime.

Again, the only real way to address this is at the nation level.

 

Court already ruled on that one, as you know.

 

You think that giving them housing while letting them be junkies will solve things, it won't. They will just be junkies who now have a free home.

 

Letting them be junkies with a free home works far better than letting them be homeless junkies. Streets are clean, it costs us half to a third as much, and most importantly, more people recover, and stay recovered when they are able to get treatment from a home as opposed to in the streets.

It worked great for 10 years in Utah, until the program wasn't re-upped at it's scheduled end date. Now they haves streets full of homeless again.

It's working well in Finland. It's really worked pretty much everywhere it's been tried, the only question is how much money you save. Not if you save money, but how much.

Cheaper, cleans up streets, higher rates of recovery and lower rates of recidivism.

Yeah, it works.

 

Give them free housing, you'll see a skyrocketing in the number of "unhoused". You don't have a system of rules, they will take advantage.

Seems like the only place they tried it is a bunch of majority white areas.

 

Televangelists should be in charge of housing and caring for the homeless....tax free status should come with a public service fine print agreement ......provide rehab and life coaching, etc...send them to Tony Robbins island or Dr Phil's mansion...they've already made theirs.

 

Actually I think California recently adopted the policy. Which is awesome, if they actually do it right and have no strings attached to housing.

 

sorry man i havecto look towards the future of all.
My space is reserved for someone else here.

he has the answers to solve the worlds problems and i must take the larger sect as the priority.
Save you or save Portland? Sorry i must save Portland and protect those with all the answers for a better tomorrow!

now if you can show me you have all the answers as well i may reconsider but you must be steadfast in your dismissal of any differing opinions as simply silly. if you are unable to take this stance then your out.

 

Assuming all of that money is spent in 5 years that's a huge savings.

$12 billion
÷161,000 homeless people in California
=$74k
÷ 5 years
= $15k per person.

San Francisco spends $40,000 per year per homeless person.

Extrapolate that across the state over the same 5 years and the cities of California are going to be paying $32 billion to NOT address the problem.

But we'll complain about the $12 billion rather than support the idea of clean streets while saving $20 billion every 5 years...

 

Do you know what I'm curious about this subject? I'm curious about why we have so many more homeless people than we did 50 years ago. My theory is that it has to do with wealth disparity, in fact, I'm sure of it. Two ways to remedy this: 1. Increase the minimum wage; 2. Increase the income tax on the wealthy.

 

I can't eat the rich.
1. Too much fat on the good pieces;
2. Everyone will be fighting and clawing for the pieces that don't have a lot of fat clinging to them;
3. Who wants to eat the lips and the ass?
The ears? Okay, you can deep fry them until crisp.
I think we should start on Sly, he's rich. Who's not afraid to eat the liver. Sorry, can't give you the heart because as we all know he has no heart.