A Foolproof Solution to Chronic Homelessness?

Do you believe Tsemberis' approach will succeed?

  • Absolutely; it should be adopted by as many municipalities as possible

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but it will only work in certain places and on a limited scale

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It's too early to tell one way or another

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, it will eventually encourage dependence and run into problems such as NIMBYism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Absolutely Not; It will wind up a failure like the "projects" from the late 1900's

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

syonidv

VIP Member
May 7, 2015
183
26
68
Toronto, Ontario
From everyone's favourite duo (the Washington Post via MSN) [bold by me]:

Meet Sam Tsemberis. According to academics and advocates, he’s all but solved chronic homelessness. His research, which commands the support of most scholars, has inspired policies across the nation, as well as in the District. The results have been staggering. Late last month, Utah, the latest laboratory for Tsemberis’s models, reported it has nearly eradicated chronic homelessness. Phoenix, an earlier test case, eliminated chronic homelessness among veterans. Then New Orleans did the same.

Homelessness has long seemed one of the most intractable of social problems. For decades, the number of homeless from New York City to San Francisco surged — and so did the costs. At one point around the turn of the millennium, New York was spending an annual $40,500 on every homeless person with mental issues. Then came Tsemberis, who around that same time unfurled a model so simple children could grasp it, so cost-effective fiscal hawks loved it, so socially progressive liberals praised it.

And now, here he is again, peering up at another brick building on another urban street in another city that’s dabbling with his models. “This building,” he declares of the Irving Street structure, “is great.”

He pauses for a moment, eyes flashing.

“See that sign over there? It says, ‘Now Leasing.’ That’s what we look for.”

It’s that simple, he said. Give homes for the homeless, and you will solve chronic homelessness.

All readers are encouraged to read the full article here.

What say you?

A good idea that shifts focus from treatment to prevention? A progressive pipe dream that will ultimately collapse under its own weight? A brilliant strategy well grounded in positive real-world results? An invitation for abuse and the new American housing projects?
 
Beware one size fits all solutions. Also, when you give people stuff they fail to see the value.
 
Our Church does a lot of work with the homeless, it's a vicious cycle. Too many "non profits" are making huge profits off of it and it needs to stop and the money from grants, donations and foundations needs to go where it was directed to go, to the people who truly need it. Not in bloated salaries and benefits for people working these non profits
 
Beware one size fits all solutions. Also, when you give people stuff they fail to see the value.
I get the impression the intent isn't to instill a sense of value, but instead to tackle a problem in a more efficient way.

They're basically conceding that the cost of policing, emergency care, and the many social welfare programs that presently "deal with" the problem of chronic homelessness carry such a hefty price tag that it makes better financial sense to simply give these people a home, whether they value it or not.

If they turn out to value it and take care of it, that's a bonus. If it helps them to get back on their feet and back among the gainfully employed, that's even better.

The problem I see with it is that in the longer term it may well incentivize the kinds of behaviours that lead to homelessness.
 
From everyone's favourite duo (the Washington Post via MSN) [bold by me]:

Meet Sam Tsemberis. According to academics and advocates, he’s all but solved chronic homelessness. His research, which commands the support of most scholars, has inspired policies across the nation, as well as in the District. The results have been staggering. Late last month, Utah, the latest laboratory for Tsemberis’s models, reported it has nearly eradicated chronic homelessness. Phoenix, an earlier test case, eliminated chronic homelessness among veterans. Then New Orleans did the same.

Homelessness has long seemed one of the most intractable of social problems. For decades, the number of homeless from New York City to San Francisco surged — and so did the costs. At one point around the turn of the millennium, New York was spending an annual $40,500 on every homeless person with mental issues. Then came Tsemberis, who around that same time unfurled a model so simple children could grasp it, so cost-effective fiscal hawks loved it, so socially progressive liberals praised it.

And now, here he is again, peering up at another brick building on another urban street in another city that’s dabbling with his models. “This building,” he declares of the Irving Street structure, “is great.”

He pauses for a moment, eyes flashing.

“See that sign over there? It says, ‘Now Leasing.’ That’s what we look for.”

It’s that simple, he said. Give homes for the homeless, and you will solve chronic homelessness.

All readers are encouraged to read the full article here.

What say you?

A good idea that shifts focus from treatment to prevention? A progressive pipe dream that will ultimately collapse under its own weight? A brilliant strategy well grounded in positive real-world results? An invitation for abuse and the new American housing projects?

Sound like legal needle exchange logic: if keeping needles illegal so you can't do it safely and under a degree of control results in tax monies going to fight the resulting diseases, but legalizing the exchanges reduces tax expenses, you legalize the legal free needle exchange.

Same thing with homelessness. If you're paying $40,500/year for 1 homeless person, but buying a propety where the rent is only $750/month it's far cheaper to buy as many of those properties as youc an and let homeless live in them rent-free.

Plus having the address enables homeless to get jobs and everything else. Eventually becomming indpedent and self-sufficient again, whereas keeping them homeless just sustains the tax drain already extant.
 
Passing and enforcing vagrancy laws will end the careers of most of the homeless. For those unable to work or a find a sponsor the state can put them in institutions and make them work or keep them lobotomized on chemicals.
 

Forum List

Back
Top