Amid record homelessness, a Texas think tank tries to upend how states tackle it

[highlandmum]

There are 15 million vacant homes in the country. Old motels or nursing homes can be repurposed into multi-unit housing. Lots can be purchased for tiny homes. There are a lot of options, we just have to want to do it. Rapid rehousing with no criteria other than homelessness is the best way to keep them off the street AND keep them housed, allowing them to stabilize and rejoin society. It's no more expensive, and often less expensive, then paying cops to roust them out, move them, jail them, put them through the court system, and actually allows them a chance to overcome their difficulties far better than shuffling them through the legal system or making them jump through a bunch of hoops prior to getting housed. If we wanted to, we would. But I know this country and I know what our priorities are, so I'm sure it won't happen.

Those vacant homes are owned by people, the old motels and nursing homes would cost millions of dollars to repurpose into mulit-unit housing to meet building code/fire code standards. You would need to hire property management, right now in my country construction workers and trades are at a premium and are hard to come by. So how does this work when you do not have the labour force to do the work.

It is not as easy as snapping your fingers and getting people into these places. My city has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in placing tiny homes on to unused parcels of city land, but there is push back of the "not in my backyard" crews. Are you also going to force people to sell their unused properties and land? Are you going to start taking over farm land for these places? Plus lets be realistic here, the population that we are talking about needs access to public transit, and most of these places we are looking at are away from the city core and the convenience of grocery stores and such and will probably be under serviced in terms of public transit, so now how do the get from point A to point B. Plus are you going to start setting limits on the amount of time they are eligible for these living arrangements?

It looks great on paper but logistically it is impossible to implement.

I doubt impossible. Yes, there are expensive up-front costs. Yes, there are logistical issues. Nothing insurmountable. Like I said, we could, we just don't want to. Shuffling them through the justice system hasn't done anything to curb homelessness. Unfettered capitalism and greed contribute to it more than anything, and that's what we reward in this country. But hey, private prisons gotta meet their quota and big businesses need cheap prison labor, so I guess we'll just keep on doing what we're doing.

Greed? Someone owns these vacant houses, construction labourers need to get paid, construction companies need to make money to stay in business. How are you wanting to get these places to housing standards without spending millions of dollars on upgrading and reto-fit? I never mentioned prison, I mentioned about the money it will take to get these places up to standard. But you are on about corporate greed - how are you going to get the work done without spending millions of dollars?

[jessilin0113]

Those vacant homes are owned by people, the old motels and nursing homes would cost millions of dollars to repurpose into mulit-unit housing to meet building code/fire code standards. You would need to hire property management, right now in my country construction workers and trades are at a premium and are hard to come by. So how does this work when you do not have the labour force to do the work.

It is not as easy as snapping your fingers and getting people into these places. My city has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in placing tiny homes on to unused parcels of city land, but there is push back of the "not in my backyard" crews. Are you also going to force people to sell their unused properties and land? Are you going to start taking over farm land for these places? Plus lets be realistic here, the population that we are talking about needs access to public transit, and most of these places we are looking at are away from the city core and the convenience of grocery stores and such and will probably be under serviced in terms of public transit, so now how do the get from point A to point B. Plus are you going to start setting limits on the amount of time they are eligible for these living arrangements?

It looks great on paper but logistically it is impossible to implement.

I doubt impossible. Yes, there are expensive up-front costs. Yes, there are logistical issues. Nothing insurmountable. Like I said, we could, we just don't want to. Shuffling them through the justice system hasn't done anything to curb homelessness. Unfettered capitalism and greed contribute to it more than anything, and that's what we reward in this country. But hey, private prisons gotta meet their quota and big businesses need cheap prison labor, so I guess we'll just keep on doing what we're doing.

Greed? Someone owns these vacant houses, construction labourers need to get paid, construction companies need to make money to stay in business. How are you wanting to get these places to housing standards without spending millions of dollars on upgrading and reto-fit? I never mentioned prison, I mentioned about the money it will take to get these places up to standard. But you are on about corporate greed - how are you going to get the work done without spending millions of dollars?

Any type of progress requires an up-front cost. If we could build housing, but eliminate costly legal actions and break even or get more for our dollar, should we do that? Or just keep shuffling them around at great cost anyway?

No, you didn't mention prison, I did, because I feel they are related. Why fix a problem when we can arrest and jail them, and use them for cheap labor and to satisfy minimum occupancy clauses. Then charge them room and board and let them out in a huge amount of debt so they can just fall behind and be homeless again and start the whole cycle over.

[Deleted User 1511]

I don't remember what Scandinavian country implemented "housing first" but I do remember that they have had success and have saved money in the process.

The majority of those who are homeless are employed. I think housing needs to look at the different groups of homeless and treat them differently. Low income housing would greatly benefit employed homeless and their families while group shelter with mental health resources would benefit another group of homeless, i.e., those suffering from mental illness or those teens and young adults who are homeless and unemployed.

Our county through Economic Development has been tackling low income housing by giving incentives in the form of grants to people who own abandoned housing. I can even add an apartment on top of my garage for a 0% interest loan as well as no increase in my property taxes for 10 years as long as I rent out that apartment as low income housing for 10 years.

Bottom line is that low income or "free" housing has to be pitched as a way to help a community as well as how it saves a community money in the long run, i.e., loss of tax base or employees. Where there's a will there's a way and it just has to be marketed appropriately.

[Della]

If you're working a full time job, you should be able to afford a place to live.

[AZOldGal66]

The ages old conflicts of idealistic goals vs reality.

[Deleted User 1511]

If you're working a full time job, you should be able to afford a place to live.

We don't treat low wage workers (especially essential workers) well in the US that's for sure. It really is embarrassing.

[Della]

The ages old conflicts of idealistic goals vs reality.

This?

"We're gonna have clean sidewalks. We're gonna have clean parks. We're gonna have safe streets," said Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis,"

[AZOldGal66]

The ages old conflicts of idealistic goals vs reality.

This?

"We're gonna have clean sidewalks. We're gonna have clean parks. We're gonna have safe streets," said Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis,"

Not what I'm referencing.

DeSantis sounds like he wants an "out of sight;out of mind" approach to homelessness which is inhumane and unrealistic.

[Della]

The ages old conflicts of idealistic goals vs reality.

This?

"We're gonna have clean sidewalks. We're gonna have clean parks. We're gonna have safe streets," said Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis,"

Not what I'm referencing.

DeSantis sounds like he wants an "out of sight;out of mind" approach to homelessness which is inhumane and unrealistic.

What are you referencing?

That seems to be the intent. Our city shelter is a pretty decent place downtown. It's really close to the Jaguars stadium, which is going to be rebuilt at a cost of $1.4 billion, so they're making plans to move the shelter outside of downtown.

[Slimshandy]

I mean… there’s two things going on here-

1) everyone wants everyone to be housed. No one wants homeless people, it would be much better if they could all be given houses…

2) in order to give everyone housing, you have to take from others. You have to be willing to take what someone else worked for, and give it to someone that didn’t work towards it. Which places our financial and anti-communist freedoms at a bit of a conundrum…



So we have to choose between the two.