[Wada]

The way I see it the 333 million for 1,575 housing units for the homeless is a whole lot more for the taxpayer's dollar than the security cost of 1.1 billion for the G? Summit. That just makes me want to puke.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I think the apartment costs are only part of the picture. There are social workers and medical costs for the mentally ill. All around expensive, but that's just the way it is. This is why it has been a long time coming.

[Lemmy]

If you've decided you want to use government money to help out poor people, it makes a lot more sense to just give them cash.

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

If you've decided you want to use government money to help out poor people, it makes a lot more sense to just give them cash.

Start with giving them a house, and an education.
I think the phrase: "give a hungry man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will eat for the rest of is life" is fitting here.

[Lemmy]

Brenda Brenda:

Start with giving them a house, and an education.
I think the phrase: "give a hungry man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will eat for the rest of is life" is fitting here.

I agree with the education part, Brenda. But if we give them cash, they can go out and rent their own apartment. It's cheaper on the tax payer and they (and their children) don't have to live with the stigma of being "in the projects".

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Brenda Brenda:

Start with giving them a house, and an education.
I think the phrase: "give a hungry man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will eat for the rest of is life" is fitting here.

I agree with the education part, Brenda. But if we give them cash, they can go out and rent their own apartment. It's cheaper on the tax payer and they (and their children) don't have to live with the stigma of being "in the projects".

If you give them cash, the alcoholics will buy alcohol, the crackheads will buy crack, before they spend it on rent...

[Lemmy]

Brenda Brenda:

If you give them cash, the alcoholics will buy alcohol, the crackheads will buy crack, before they spend it on rent...

Why are you assuming poor people can't make spending decisions as well as you? If the alcohol or crack makes them happier than the housing, so what? Isn't the individual the best judge of how to maximize his/her welfare? If blowing the money on dope IS a legitimate concern (and there's no reason to believe it is) then make drug testing a requisite of getting the money. That would add more cost, but it'd still be cheaper than building downtown condos. But basic consumer theory (income & subsititution effects) tells us that giving cash is preferred to the provision of ANY specific good or service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_choice#Price_effect_as_sum_of_substitution_and_income_effects

Lots of economists have proposed housing vouchers rather than building government housing. The results where these programs have been tested are very promising. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/58w2r9p1

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Brenda Brenda:

If you give them cash, the alcoholics will buy alcohol, the crackheads will buy crack, before they spend it on rent...

Why are you assuming poor people can't make spending decisions as well as you? If the alcohol or crack makes them happier than the housing, so what? Isn't the individual the best judge of how to maximize his/her welfare? If blowing the money on dope IS a legitimate concern (and there's no reason to believe it is) then make drug testing a requisite of getting the money. That would add more cost, but it'd still be cheaper than building downtown condos. But basic consumer theory (income & subsititution effects) tells us that giving cash is preferred to the provision of ANY specific good or service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_choice#Price_effect_as_sum_of_substitution_and_income_effects

Lots of economists have proposed housing vouchers rather than building government housing. The results where these programs have been tested are very promising. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/58w2r9p1

I don't know about you, but isnt this topic about getting the homeless OFF the streets, and THAT is why they build this, and spend all this tax-money?

Apparently, these particular addicts cannot make the right decisions, or they would feed their addiction with their own money, and not mine.

[Lemmy]

Brenda Brenda:

Apparently, these particular addicts cannot make the right decisions, or they would feed their addiction with their own money, and not mine.

So you don't want to give "these addicts", say, $500 per month cash, but you DO want to give them a, say, $1000-per-month apartment for free? That makes no sense. A crackheads gonna do crack whether he's living in a free apartment or a free cardboard refrigerator box.

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Brenda Brenda:

Apparently, these particular addicts cannot make the right decisions, or they would feed their addiction with their own money, and not mine.

So you don't want to give "these addicts", say, $500 per month cash, but you DO want to give them a, say, $1000-per-month apartment for free? That makes no sense. A crackheads gonna do crack whether he's living in a free apartment or a free cardboard refrigerator box.

No, not for free. And not "just appartments" or "just money". Like I said, a program, that includes drug- and alcoholtesting, education, help with getting and keeping a job. If you want to solve the problem, you have to do it right, or not at all. What I read now, is just half-assed...

[Public_Domain]

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

This is all very touchy feely but it still doesn't mitigate the fact that no one has answered the question about who gets these units, are the people who occupy them expected to help pay for them and what happens if you trash your tax payer supplied housing unit or turn it into crack central?

Until the Government of BC, the Mayor of Vancouver, and all the antihomeless organizations can answer these questions, i'll reserve judgement on whether these units will be a help in combating homelessness or just another band aid fix like the shooting galleries.

The same people who get the existing units now. It's not as if this is a new thing, just and expansion. This is supportive housing for people who can't manage on their own.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

If you've decided you want to use government money to help out poor people, it makes a lot more sense to just give them cash.

I don't think so. About half the homeless are mentally ill - you think the could manage that money effectively. Say another quarter are addicts (some of the mentally ill are addicts too) - you think they can manage that money. This is giving them a place to be even when they do fuck up.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

Lemmy Lemmy:

If you've decided you want to use government money to help out poor people, it makes a lot more sense to just give them cash.

Start with giving them a house, and an education.
I think the phrase: "give a hungry man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will eat for the rest of is life" is fitting here.

Good luck with the education part. Educating a schizophrenic who's not stablized isn't going to work, and somebody who's totally damaged won't benefit from education either. I'm all for the government providing more, and lower cost, training to people who can benefit from it - the larges part of this population can't. There are just some people in society that are too fucked up to make it on their own. We can throw them away, let them live in the streets, in which case they cause all sorts of problems. We could put them in concentration camps and gas them, but so far even the Reformacons don't seem up for that. Or we can provide services so that they have an adequate life - probably the cheapest option in the long run.

[Dragom]

Guys, the poor can't make spending decisions very well. That is why they are poor.

You can't help the homeless by giving them money. Their income or absence of income is not what makes them homeless.

These are people that actually genuinely believe that a 2 dollar hamburger is cheaper then buying food from the grocery store and cooking it.

And there are the things they don't know. They don't know for instance that you can pick up a computer out of any dumpster, download some 20 year old games onto a 1.44 MB diskette at a local library and preoccupy yourself with stuff for weeks for nothing at all.

They start doing drugs because they think it's the cheapest form of entertainment. They eat take out because they think it's cheap. They give their money away to their friends because they think thats what friends do. They'll lie and steal their way to the next hit but it's okay because they think they aren't hurting anyone.