sure they do. just nimby
Who said that? I'm saying if they are hopeless and we are going to be supporting them anyway then isolate them in a rural dormitory style facility and out of the urban environment. ...give them alcohol/drugs if that's what it takes to keep them there. Have a microbrewery and pot greenhouses. Keep em loaded and happy and not out ripping people off so they can feed their demons.
Whatever man. Everyone else is going to make themselves mentally ill so they can get that sweet gubment housing.
Your op linked another good grits piece:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...sness.html?m=1
Refreshing to see a city like Ft Worth think and act outside the fiscal box instead of simply throwing more cash at police enforcement.
Fwiw, the Directions Home project link claims that values of properties nearest the project housing steadily rose (2000-2008 if I read it correctly)
http://fortworthtexas.gov/homelessness/
Socialism!
@CC :
my point was implicitly that we are wasting a lot of money by allowing local jails to be the service of first resort for people with addiction and mental health problems.
jail triage for mental health issues is wasteful and counterproductive...
Thanks for noticing. So few posters descend to the level of posted and available details. I thought it was pretty cool too.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfa...ng_up.php#moreThe sleeping-in-public ban has been around long enough that's it's not often discussed, but it was controversial when it was implemented in the early 1990s and sparked a class action lawsuit by Dallas' homeless. They scored an initial victory in 1994, when a federal judge forbade Dallas police from enforcing the ban, reasoning that, because shelter space is limited, and because human beings need sleep, the measure amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
The decision was reversed on appeal, although not because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found the measure cons utional. Since none of the tickets or arrests made under the law ever led to convictions, the homeless plaintiffs didn't have standing to bring their case.
In other words, Dallas is free to arrest people for sleeping in public all it wants so long as it doesn't actually prosecute them. Which is what appears to happening every morning downtown.
Talk about spending a lot of money not to solve a problem.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5022628.htmlIt's cheaper to give homeless men and women a permanent place to live than to leave them on the streets.
That’s according to a study of an apartment complex for formerly homeless people in Charlotte, N.C., that found drastic savings on health care costs and incarceration.
Moore Place houses 85 chronically homeless adults, and was the subject of a study by the University of North Carolina Charlotte released on Monday. The study found that, in its first year, Moore Place tenants saved $1.8 million in health care costs, with 447 fewer emergency room visits (a 78 percent reduction) and 372 fewer days in the hospital (a 79 percent reduction).
The tenants also spent 84 percent fewer days in jail, with a 78 percent drop in arrests.
board conservatives: are you for or against spending $$$ wisely to save even more?
God, Ayn Rand, and fatass Christians want these losers to be homeless.
I wasn't talking to you, silly.
I already knew what you would say.
Are those the only choices?
fire away. spending a little money to save even more money down the line seems like a no brainer to me.
Well again, if doing what's cheapest is the only choice then yes this is a no brainer. My conservative view is that while we have an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves we should do so with the intention of helping those people become productive members of society rather than simply creating a dependent class because it is the cheapest option.
In the case of the chronically homeless, in most cases, that will involve substance abuse treatment combined with long term mental health treatment followed by education/job training. That's not going to be cheap.
seems reasonable. treatment isn't cheap for sure. might be cheaper than frequent/long term incarceration and uninsured hospital stays.
of course, not all chronically homeless people are drug dependent or mentally ill, but these are significant factors.
Who are homeless veterans?
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) states that the nation’s homeless veterans are predominantly male, with roughly 8% being female. The majority are single; live in urban areas; and suffer from mental illness, alcohol and/or substance abuse, or co-occurring disorders. About 12% of the adult homeless population are veterans.
Roughly 40% of all homeless veterans are African American or Hispanic, despite only accounting for 10.4% and 3.4% of the U.S. veteran population, respectively.
Homeless veterans are younger on average than the total veteran population. Approximately 9% are between the ages of 18 and 30, and 41% are between the ages of 31 and 50. Conversely, only 5% of all veterans are between the ages of 18 and 30, and less than 23% are between 31 and 50.
America’s homeless veterans have served in World War II, the Korean War, Cold War, Vietnam War, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq (OEF/OIF), and the military’s anti-drug cultivation efforts in South America. Nearly half of homeless veterans served during the Vietnam era. Two-thirds served our country for at least three years, and one-third were stationed in a war zone.
About 1.4 million other veterans, meanwhile, are considered at risk of homelessness due to poverty, lack of support networks, and dismal living conditions in overcrowded or substandard housing.
http://nchv.org/index.php/news/media...nd_statistics/
hmm, seems like "the military teaches you how to be a man" is bull . It's an age old problem, what to do with warriors after the war.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
