What would you do with or for homeless people?

Soylent Green.

 

Send them to the Soylent Green factory, and then feed the Soylent Green to Leftists, Progressives, Socialists and Communists. Either that, or use them for medical experimentation. Alternatively, you could take all the people in prison for violent offenses and drop them in the ocean, and then convert the former cells into rooms for the homeless.

 

Anyone else notice how the really fascist suggestions are coming solely from the Right?

 

Questerr, you clearly don't know what fascism is.

No thanks. They can commit to stopping drug use first, and then we'll talk about free housing, maybe, but it won't be on the streets of San Fran where drugs are plentiful (and they are somehow able to buy them).

 

Deporting or murdering homeless people is fascism. Period.

 

That solution has been tried and failed over and over. My solution has been tried and succeeded.

 

Answer: Nothing....not a damn thing.

 

I don't think there is a solution to the homeless problem. Even in countries that brag about their social benefits such as Germany and France, there are many people sleeping in the streets.

If you talk to homeless, you will discover that many have mental or emotional problems that prevent them from having normal interactions with other human beings, much less holding a job or caring for a residence. Some have been in the military and have suffered emotional damage that prevents them from functioning normally. One homeless man I know was given a bicycle on two occasions to help him get around. Both times, the bike was stolen within days. He had a good lock, but he didn't have the sense to use it.

I don't think anyone has come up with a humane solution to the homeless problem.

 

`
`
I would build lots of bridges.

 

Dammit beat me to it!

 

The best idea are Poor Farms. Almost anyone can do some work unless they are very sick.

First, the lazy poor must work for several hours. Once they have earned their keep---then they can be fed and sheltered for the night in tents and other basic shelters.

Those who are hardcore alcoholics, druggies are almost impossible to rehabilitate unless they undergo devine transformation. They themselves made the stupid decision to use addictive substances, and therefore must each suffer the consequences. They should be required to work for their keep like everyone else.

 

One thing I would do is give them all a mental evaluation, and some would be committed for their own protection. Others who are not insane, would be given vouchers to find living accommodation for 3 months, they would be given ID bracelets, and if after 3 months they fail to find long term living accommodations they would be put into holding facility and work camp.

 

My first thought would be to vastly increase the number of visas available for people who would be willing/able to volunteer to help the homeless as part of a condition for their visa acceptance, both in terms of construction and in terms of mental health assistance.

 

No. Housing first is a solution that works but it can't get past many conservatives legislatures. They can't see that it is better to have for society to have a homeless person off the street even if they are not yet ready to accept substance abuse or mental health treatment.

 

The reason is this stuff costs money. Would you build houses for homeless people for nothing? How long could you keep that up? That leaves higher taxes to pay for you to build houses for people who don't work. I see very few here who would want to do this.

The work camp is the best idea I've seen.

As for able-bodied people who are transported to the work camp who still won't work, not even for their own maintenance, well, that's where things would get really interesting.

At some point we just have to let them die of starvation if they won't work but are able to and are given opportunities. Returning them to the city to loiter and beg and steal is low on my list of preferred options, uncharitable as it may sound. I mean I know I am supposed to care about them, but I care more about those who don't make trouble and who do work.

 

You have never worked with the homeless. I have. The overwhelming majority are mentally ill or substance dependent. They could not work if you whipped them. It is CHEAPER to give them housing than to house them in jails, hospitals, emergency rooms and prisons. Get them off the streets, clean them up, give them some stability and eventually you will find they will respond to that social worker who keeps showing up at their door with food. Your community will be safer, cleaner AND more humane. But if it is only about money then understand it is also CHEAPER. You just need to put aside your moral judgments.

- - - Updated - - -

A starving man will do anything to eat so you can feed him or fight him. Your choice.

 

In Massachusetts, the Home & Healthy for Good program reported some significant outcomes that were favorable especially in the area of cost savings.[12]

The Denver Housing First Collaborative, operated by the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless,[13] provides housing through a Housing First approach to more than 200 chronically homeless individuals. A 2006 cost study documented a significant reduction in the use and cost of emergency services by program participants as well as increased health status.[14] Emergency room visits and costs were reduced by an average of 34.3 percent. Hospital inpatient costs were reduced by 66 percent. Detox visits were reduced by 82 percent. Incarceration days and costs were reduced by 76 percent. 77 percent of those entering the program continued to be housed in the program after two years.

Researchers in Seattle, Washington, partnering with the Downtown Emergency Service Center, found that providing housing and support services for homeless alcoholics costs taxpayers less than leaving them on the street, where taxpayer money goes towards police and emergency health care.[2][15][16] Results of the study funded by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (SAPRP) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation[17] appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association April, 2009.[2] This first US controlled assessment of the effectiveness of Housing First specifically targeting chronically homeless alcoholics showed that the program saved taxpayers more than $4 million over the first year of operation. During the first six months, even after considering the cost of administering the housing, 95 residents in a Housing First program in downtown Seattle, the study reported an average cost-savings of 53 percent—nearly US $2,500 per month per person in health and social services, compared to the per month costs of a wait-list control group of 39 homeless people. Further, stable housing also results in reduced drinking among homeless alcoholics.

In Utah, there has been "a 72 percent decrease overall since enacting the plan in 2005" according to the Utah Division of Housing and Community Development.[18]

In August 2007, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development reported that the number of chronically homeless individuals living on the streets or in shelters dropped by an unprecedented 30 percent, from 175,914 people in 2005 to 123,833 in 2007. This was credited in part to the "housing first" approach; Congress in 1999 directed that HUD spend 30% of its funding on the method.[19]

In September 2010, it was reported that the Housing First Initiative had significantly reduced the chronic homeless single person population in Boston, Massachusetts, although homeless families were still increasing in number. Some shelters were reducing the number of beds due to lowered numbers of homeless, and some emergency shelter facilities were closing, especially the emergency Boston Night Center.[20] By 2015, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh had announced a 3-year plan to end chronic homelessness, focusing on coordinating efforts among public agencies and nonprofit organizations providing services to homeless men and women.[21][22]

In 2013, the estimated national public cost of chronic homelessness was between $3.7 and $4.7 billion according to the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). Through Housing First programs, chronically homeless individuals are using fewer hospital resources, spending less time in costly incarceration and requiring fewer emergency room visits. Studies in New York City and in Utah have shown that every homeless person housed in programs such as Housing First saves taxpayers $10,000 and $8,000 a year, respectively. A research study at University of Northern Carolina also reported that a housing project for the chronically homeless called Moore Place had saved the county $2.4 million

 

Funny thing is I was thinking about this today when I was driving down the road and saw a homeless couple sitting next to a bunch of trash. What I was thinking was how about having homeless people pick up trash on the side of the roads and freeways, and give them $50 for a certain amount of trash collected ?

Kill 2 birds with 1 stone, keep the streets and neighborhoods cleaner as well as supply the homeless with some money so they can eat, or buy some new clothes. Give them something to do to try and curb panhandling as well as make them more useful instead of standing on a street corner.

 

And if they choose not to work because the voices in their head tell them that you are satan trying to lure them to their death?

 

Then that is their own problem.

 

And we are right back to where we started . That is no solution at all. Give people a home and eventually they may have enough stability at some point to accept that psychiatric referral.

 

Go ahead, give them your home. Im sure you have either a spare bedroom they can use, or at least a couch they can sleep on. Be my guest.

Also you are projecting that the homeless do not work, in which you would be dead wrong.

 

Nothing in the Constitution says I have to tolerate homeless losers.

You're already spending $90,000 per year per homeless person and you haven't even made a dent.

The elderly contributed to Society and are reaping their benefits/rewards.

Homeless people aren't viable outside the womb, so they should be aborted, just like a fetus.

First of all, it would never happen to one of my family members, and if it did, then I'd take them in under my own roof.

The Constitution is silent on the issue, meaning the government can -- in conjunction with the 5th and 6th Amendments (Due Process) hold a hearing and strip someone of their US Citizenship and deport them.

 

Why do people love paying MORE taxes when a cheaper solution that makes your community cleaner and safer exists. I guess we can continue to house the homeless in the most expensive options available....jails, er's, hospitals and prisons

 

Should we deport the disabled as well? The truth is the vast majority of homeless are disabled.....you just can't see it

- - - Updated - - -

These are always the dumbest arguments. Think Isis is a problem? Then ship out and fight them