Biden's new plan to help the homeless also tackles inflation

[butters]

Biden’s goal is to tackle inflation and increasing housing stock is the perfect place to start. Across the country, there is an estimated housing supply deficit of 3.8 million homes, which has severe economic consequences, including driving inflation and exacerbating the homelessness crisis. Homelessness creates massive social and economic costs for American cities, families, individuals, and the federal government itself; one 2017 study found that a person experiencing chronic homelessness costs the taxpayer an average of more than $35,000 per year.

Houston demonstrates the benefit of this approach. The city has decreased homelessness by approximately 63% since 2011 and saved taxpayers millions of dollars by placing people in permanent housing and giving them the support they need to stay there. The cost of allowing people to remain on the street — costs associated with community programs, health care, child welfare, public health, mental health care, and criminal justice — is enormous.

Conversely, through permanent housing programs and supportive services, Houston houses individuals for approximately $18,000 per person per year — the average cost of rent for a one-bedroom unit plus a portion of a case manager’s salary.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=47dbe7a9bc134fc381047d1de69f409b

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

There’s a healthy dose of spin.

https://www.texasobserver.org/houst...elessness-but-the-reality-isnt-quite-as-rosy/

 

[Chobham]

Who pays for all of this?

 

[phrodeau]

Who pays for all of this?

It reduces costs. Try reading the post.

 

[Chobham]

It reduces costs. Try reading the post.

Try reading the rebuttal.

To deal with the chronically homeless you have to first define the character of the chronically homeless. The overwhelming majority are mentally ill, or substance abusers, or both. They are in need of treatment, not a house. Without altering their behavior their behavior isn't going to change. Allowing them to destroy property, public or private, is a costly non-solution.

How do you go about getting them treatment? The law and various court decisions have made it virtually impossible for that to happen without a court order. A court order based on testimony that they are a threat to themselves and/or the community. A process which if applied to the entirety of the chronically homeless would tie up the courts for decades and even then the results of both the court outcomes and the treatment outcomes will be questionable. Do we institute a new court system, "Homeless Court?"

The housing solution will have the greatest positive impact on the transiently homeless. Those that due to circumstance find themselves temporarily without shelter. They are typically not mentally ill or substance abusers. They are also embarrassed by their current circumstances and are more than willing to work their way out of said circumstance.

Over my lifetime I've watched the liberal/progressive come up with programs that will solve whatever the latest societal concern is. Programs that ALWAYS end up costing the taxpayer substantially more money than initially promised and in the end do nothing to actually solve the problem. In most cases these programs bring with them consequences of their own which in turn require more programs for even more of the taxpayers dollar.

 

[pecksniff]

Over my lifetime I've watched the liberal/progressive come up with programs that will solve whatever the latest societal concern is. Programs that ALWAYS end up costing the taxpayer substantially more money than initially promised and in the end do nothing to actually solve the problem. In most cases these programs bring with them consequences of their own which in turn require more programs for even more of the taxpayers dollar.

That's not true, generally speaking. LBJ's War on Poverty was much more successful than people realize.