# Modern solutions to the homeless



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

City of Portland thinks it has a solution for their homeless...the idea may be catching on in other cities as well..c
can't have the unwashed masses panhandling on the streets..doesn't look good for the city or the shoppers that go around these pan handlers. 
Technology ikn progress..first we had micro processors, then micro waves..now MICRO HOMES.

This could be the wave of the future, and maybe a solution for those poor unfortunates out there with "too much square footage' homes, wasted space and mortgaged to the hilt while paying huge property taxes. :biggrin:



> The city of Portland, Oregon, is hoping to offer its estimated 2,000 homeless residents a safer place to spend the night: micro homes.





> *Before people can get back on their feet and take advantage of job training and drug and alcohol counselling*, they need a place to live," County Chairwoman Deborah Kafoury said Wednesday. "This helps accomplish that."





> A TechDwell prototype of the structures being proposed can sleep two, includes a washroom and kitchen, and *should cost about $20,000 to build.* The 200-square-foot micro homes can be* built on-site in just days*, within 45 days of an order.





> Because the tiny houses offer dwellers more privacy than big shelters, they may appeal to people who are reluctant to give up the sense of independence that comes from living on the street," wrote TIME's Anita Hamilton. "The micro homes could also be cheaper than temporary emergency shelters, w*hich cost up to $16,000 a year and lack plumbing."*
> 
> 
> > The tiny homes will be rented out for $250 and $350 a month, making the project self-sustaining
> ...


There you go...when people can think out of the 'cardboard" box they may be presently living in..there is no boundaries to what can be accomplished. A bright idea of course! Get the homeless to pay rent and get
them off city taxpayers payrolls. 

IKEA style knocked down plastic garden sheds 10x10 may also be the next thing for the cities to find
shelter for these homeless people. The sheds can be erected in any park with a few portable "JOHNNY-ON-THE-SPOT facilities, water in plastic bottles, propane tanks for heating, and "Hobo style beans" to heat up on those campfires to start their day.:biggrin:


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

> ... A bright idea of course! Get the homeless to pay rent and get them off city taxpayers payrolls.


 ... don't think so. Sounds more like a business opportunity for the developer of these microhomes who's probably someone's buddy at cityhall. Where is the link for this story?



> *Before people can get back on their feet and take advantage of job training and drug and alcohol counselling*, they need a place to live," County Chairwoman Deborah Kafoury said Wednesday. "This helps accomplish that."


 .. sounds like an oxymoron to me .. no way can the homeless be able to pay rent and get off the city taxpayers' payroll if they have an addiction or mental illness problem that they can't shake off first. The city's social services department needs to do a better job or work alittle harder to come up with a better solution (far from easy).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

They can receive welfare to help pay the rent.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

And where does welfare $ come from?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... don't think so. Sounds more like a business opportunity for the developer of these microhomes who's probably someone's buddy at cityhall. Where is the link for this story?


Oh, You want a link too? :biggrin:..its on Yahoo news...
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/portland-looks-micro-homes-homeless-165115841.html


> .. sounds like an oxymoron to me .. no way can the homeless be able to pay rent and get off the city taxpayers' payroll if they have an addiction or mental illness problem that they can't shake off first. The city's social services department needs to do a better job or work alittle harder to come up with a better solution (far from easy).


Well this is another "pie in the sky" dream for local politcians that have never lived in a homeless person's shoes, or sat down and
discussed with a homeless person..why they were homeless in the first place.

Here is the artist's conception of these micro homes..not exactly palatial..but you know..it is a step up from the traditional homeless shelter a refrigerator cardboard box..









I was once homeless meself..got kicked out of my marital home, so my ex could rent it out for a profit and not share
it with me because she had "exclusive rights from the court" to the marital home. I'm sure that a stick of dynamite would have come in handy at the time to resolve that dispute, and I was homeless for 3 or 4 days searching for a place to live..living out of my vehicle, eating hobo beans...talking to the birds. :biggrin:


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

First off the definition of homeless is pretty broad and doesn't just apply to beggars and drug addicts, it's technically anyone who doesn't have a permanent place to call home. It includes things like battered women and their kids who are fleeing domestic violence (she could be employed) or even that couch surfing buddy you had in university...

Second, just because they have a house, doesn't mean they'll pay any rent themselves, there's a number of social aid programs out there already, so we still get to pay for it...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> And where does welfare $ come from?


LOL!..it's creative accounting at it's best..taxpayers fund the welfare rolls (pun) and the city hands it out to the homeless, who buy booze and drugs and cigarettes.... and anything left over... for booze, drugs and cigarettes.

They depend on food banks or soup kitchens when they are hungry and pan handle in front of stores that cater to the rich shoppers, telling them; " Once I built a railroad, made it run, now I'm done?... "Brother can you spare a "dime" <upgraded because of inflation => "dollar or two"? today. 

Ok, back to the "rent'..How is a homeless person going to pay rent when they don;t have a job and just panhandle?

Do they count their "day's receipts" from pan handling and say to themselves..
Wow! I collected nearly $20 today..I'l take that over to my bank and deposit it so I can write a check to the city for my microhome rent at the end of the month..
oh wait!..I forgot..I don't have a bank acct, or a check book, or a pen to write a check with, or a wallet to keep the money in....never mind...I got a plan...
I will pull myself up and get retrained as a computer scientist, or a public speaker on investment strategy and make enough to pay my rent.:biggrin:


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> ...Here is the artist's conception of these micro homes..*not exactly palatial*..but you know..it is a step up from the traditional homeless shelter a refrigerator cardboard box..
> 
> I was once homeless meself..got kicked out of my marital home, so my ex could rent it out for a profit and not share
> it with me because she had "exclusive rights from the court" to the marital home. I'm sure that a stick of dynamite would have come in handy at the time to resolve that dispute, and I was homeless for 3 or 4 days searching for a place to live..living out of my vehicle, eating hobo beans...talking to the birds. :biggrin:


 ...that box is just plain ugly ... and the artist's rendering with a pretty garden, open space is delusional. No different from setting up tents - and great for squatters in the years to come when the city can't upkeep the maintenance, running/living costs, etc. 

As for your 3 to 4 days version of living out of your vehicle, eating hobo-beans, that ain't so bad. Talking to the birds is sad though. I have heard that some early (now rich) immigrants were living out of the park and had the bench(es) their bed since they couldn't afford a room in the city (including my dad - not rich though).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Leaving homeless on the street without offering services and treatment for drug or mental illness issues is actually MORE EXPENSIVE. They tend to have a lot of run ins with police, and end up in hospital, which costs us tens of thousands per year apiece. You are being remarkably short-sighted...penny wise and pound foolish.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ..
> *As for your 3 to 4 days version of living out of your vehicle, eating hobo-beans, that ain't so bad.* Talking to the birds is sad though. I have heard that some early (now rich) immigrants were living out of the park and had the bench(es) their bed since they couldn't afford a room in the city (including my dad - not rich though).


I cheated though..ate at McD's/BK and used their washrooms to shave and do a towel wipe ..for a guy, living alone, I could get away with that until my apt was ready to be moved in.

Fortunately the way it worked out..I was told to vacate by the middle of the month by the court
(it turned out to be a saturday, I think), and my apt was ready to move in on the monday, which I took off work.
I had all my possessions in a storage locker for a couple of weeks before that, as I had 30 days notice from my lawyer that the court granted her exclusive possession on the 16th...mid month..
so, I had to scramble to find an apt that was ready for my occupation on the 16th (last half of the month).


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Leaving homeless on the street without offering services and treatment for drug or mental illness issues is actually MORE EXPENSIVE. They tend to have a lot of run ins with police,* and end up in hospital, which costs us tens of thousands per year apiece*. You are being remarkably short-sighted...penny wise and pound foolish.


Then there are the homeless that come into the hospital corridors to warm up in the winter and everyone ignores them. Costs nothing until they get kicked out, and end up freezing to death sometimes on a park bench.

Although there are mission shelters for men, and separately for women, they have pretty strict rules there..
no drugs, no fighting, no stealing ...that short of thing...most prefer to be on the street instead.

Some, especially in the winter, will attempt to steal some minor item, so they can end up sleeping in a nice warm jail cell with a bit of food.

Pretty sad to see TV pictures of the homeless last winter during those brutal cold spells in Toronto and elsewhere..even the subway grates didn't have enough heat to keep them warm.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Leaving homeless on the street without offering services and treatment for drug or mental illness issues is actually MORE EXPENSIVE.* They tend to have a lot of run ins with police*, and end up in hospital, which costs us tens of thousands per year apiece. You are being remarkably short-sighted...penny wise and pound foolish.


 ... no kidding the mentally ills are an easy target for cops to handle and where did I say or even suggested about leaving the homeless / drugged / mentally ill people out on the street? where? or is this your thinking and putting words in my mouth? Re -read my first post (#2) and see if that "bright" idea will "realistically" work as you're so "pound-wise".


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> Then there are the homeless that come into the hospital corridors to warm up in the winter and everyone ignores them. Costs nothing until they get kicked out, and end up freezing to death sometimes on a park bench.
> 
> Although there are mission shelters for men, and separately for women, they have pretty strict rules there..
> no drugs, no fighting, no stealing ...that short of thing...*most prefer to be on the street instead.
> ...


 ... very true and quite sad considering this kind of problem still exists in a first world city, or a big metropolitan such as Toronto. 

As Just a Guy has said above, homelessness is a broad term and there are many categories for this ... it could be by choice (young punks), battered women (not by choice), unemployeds in transition and then those that are mentally ill or have drug and alchohol problems. This is the latter category that this articles about "microhomes" are intended for and I don't think realistically it will work because the "root" of the problem has not been first solved. The mentally ill/druggies/alcoholics need to treated first before being thrown out to society or housed in one of these "microhomes". If they can't even stand living in a shelter or a hospital ward, how can they manage in one of these "homes?" on their own ... unless they become prisoners in these boxes.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> I cheated though..ate at McD's/BK and used their washrooms to shave and do a towel wipe ..for a guy, living alone, I could get away with that until my apt was ready to be moved in.
> 
> Fortunately the way it worked out..I was told to vacate by the middle of the month by the court
> (it turned out to be a saturday, I think), and my apt was ready to move in on the monday, which I took off work.
> ...


 ... well, figured you would have survived easily given your engineering skills were still intact. (Just kdding here) :biggrin: 

Man, your divorce was seriously brutal and I hope time will heal. :untroubled:


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Shelters are horrible because rape, theft, disease and assault are common. I think far more homeless would take advantage of a microhome they could feel secure in when compared to a shelter. 

No one is saying that microhomes are the whole answer, but giving homeless an affordable option for a fixed address can help many get bootstrapped back into society.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

These units are huge compared to where the average Chinese worker can expect to retire.

I saw a picture of a place somewhere (I will see if I can dig it up) and they are packed in like sardines in a can.

One small room about the size of a jail cell. A communal bath down the hall. Everything they own packed into one tiny space.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... well, figured you would have survived easily given your engineering skills were still intact. (Just kdding here) :biggrin:
> 
> Man, your divorce was seriously brutal and I hope time will heal. :untroubled:


For me....it was... "The divorce from Hell!" , after nearly 4 years f it dragging on, and 3 lawyers later..her lawyer stalled "my day in divorce court" TWICE to make sure it coincided with a feminist judge that just "loved to throw the book" at men, ( generally the respondents), favouring the woman petitioner...

Of course being naive in the ways of civil proceedings, who would have "thunk" that it could end up *so one sided...*
As my third lawyer whispered in my ear, seeing THAT particular judge hearing our case, (the morning of the first day in court))..."oh oh!..I know all about THAT judge..I think we may be in some kind of trouble!"

Not a warm feeling when I was fighting for my financial survival. 

As they say, "the pendulum" of judicial precedence, has swung the OTHER WAY in favour of the woman...
the man (the respondent) is just a "second class citizen" with "supposedly deep pockets" in divorce courts.

Maybe someday, in some next generation..*it will swing back to the middle to be fair to both parties *who have the unfortunate situation of ending up in divorce court...but for now....you take it as it comes.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Shelters are horrible because rape, theft, disease and assault are common. I think far more homeless would take advantage of a microhome they could feel secure in when compared to a shelter.
> 
> No one is saying that microhomes are the whole answer, but giving homeless an affordable option for a fixed address can help many get bootstrapped back into society.


Andrew...even though these 'microhomes for the homeless" are a utopian dream by some misinformed local poltitician, the reality is that those that have fallen on hard times..have a more serious underlying issue(s) than just moving into a fancy garden shed (with no plumbing) and no electicity (are they going to pay the high cost of electricity for heaters, microwaves, lights and a TV?...probably not!)

Now just think of the sanitary problems facing everyone, if you get 2000 homeless "residents" living in a reserved "park like setting" owned by the city...it better be a LONG WAY OFF from the rest of the residents in the city that pay taxes! The noise, the smells, the mess.....

Nobody wants to see that many sheds, and unwashed (no showers) homeless wandering around, getting into fights, leaving garbage strewn all over the place, defecating and urinating anywhere because they are so drunk (or on drugs) that they can't even find the city provided "johnny on the spots that have "cr*p" all over the seats and stink like...well you get the picture...

Utopia..in this world can be Heaven or it can be Hell....it is not ""Hotel California"..or Hotel Oregon...or where ever that ill conceived scheme was first hatched. 

Remember the INM (Idle No More) movement in Ottawa and the tent city that Ottawa allowed Chief Spence and others to set up on some grassy island in the Ottawa river?...it was a* bit of a mess after they finally left*.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Did you read what you posted? They do include washroom and kitchen facilities.

Nothing says you have to put a thousand of these structures on one giant site. I think your imagination is running amok.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I really wish politicians and charities would take a lesson in economics 101. I didn't make our world like this but unfortuneately it is the way the world is:

"Give homes to the homeless and you will end up with more homeless"

Do I need to go over that lesson again or did everyone get it?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

OptsyEagle said:


> I really wish politicians and charities would take a lesson in economics 101. I didn't make our world like this but unfortuneately it is the way the world is:
> 
> "Give homes to the homeless and you will end up with more homeless"
> 
> Do I need to go over that lesson again or did everyone get it?


I saw the movie with Kevin Costner......"Build it and......."


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

They aren't 'giving' homes. They are renting them on a cost recovery basis for a couple hundred dollars per month.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Did you read what you posted? They do include washroom and kitchen facilities.
> 
> Nothing says you have to put a thousand of these structures on one giant site. I think your imagination is running amok.


Sorry, I must have missed that part. 

Lets see..a 10 x 20 garden home is 200 sq feet. So not seeing the architects blueprint, one can imagine a single homeless (more the case) or a couple homeless (homeless man and homeless woman...sharing the same
200sq ft garden shed...friends with benefits as some call it.

Ok, I visualize a bed, a hotplate, a dry sink, one that you pour water in the sink to wash dishes and let
it drain into a bucket..grey water. Then when full, you toss it out your front door on the lawn or better still the neighbours front yard, as these units will be so close together,you will hear the neighbours snoring and maybe other activities as well.:biggrin:

Now as far as the sanitary plumbing, it costs several hundred thousand to connect a trunk sanitary sewer to the main sewer line...
and then there is the issue of flush toilets (a luxury that the homeless often have to forgo)..but there are these composting toilets that can be installed in this 10 x 20 little shack with a trap door at the back, so the homeless can take the composted residue and spread it on their flower garden..or "organic veggie patch". :biggrin:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> I really wish politicians and charities would take a lesson in economics 101. I didn't make our world like this but unfortuneately it is the way the world is:
> 
> "Give homes to the homeless and you will end up with more homeless"
> 
> Do I need to go over that lesson again or did everyone get it?


 And some will probably set fire to theirs to prove a point that they need more attention or accidently by smoking in bed..no smoke detectors? and no fire insurance because the 200sq ft shack does not fit into the description of a home for fire insurance companies...so total loss in those cases..and the homeless that were "homeowners"...
become the homeless once again...and the cycle starts all over.

Question is..who will absorb the loss in that case..I guess the city.

Now I just thought of another question, I don't know if the US still offers door to door mail delivery in these "modified trailer parks"..I'm sure they do, (Canada Post no longer does) would each unit on "HOMELESS Street" have a number so the welfare checks can reach the homeless... who are no longer homeless?:biggrin:


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Border control at Hope and Squamish. That would solve Vancouver's homeless problem.... "Go back to Portage and Main and freeze."


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Carver, I'm stumped by your total opposition to affordable shelter for homeless people. The idea will be tried, and if it is effective for some it may spread. I don't understand your interest in prejudging the idea and declaring that it won't work. Your preference is for them to live on sewer grates and defecate in doorways?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

More on the homless and in some cases maybe the old expression "Indian giver"..applies?:biggrin:



> “It’s wrong,” McKay says. “You give something and now that they don’t like it they take it back. I’m really frustrated, stressed out.”





> A family on the Salt River First Nation in Fort Smith, N.W.T., has been given until 6 o'clock this evening to leave their home.
> Anthony John McKay lives at the house with his two young children, his adopted nephew and his 76-year-old mother.
> He says he took ownership of the home last year.
> In July, he got a letter from the band chief demanding they go, because of too many complaints and police activity at the residence.
> ...





> McKay's wife, *who’s currently at a women’s correctional centre*, says her neighbours' issues are with her, not with her husband or kids.





> “We need somebody's help," she says. "If he ends up losing that house, *you're gonna have five people that are gonna wind up being homeless*.





> David Poitras is the former chief of Salt River First Nation.
> He says he had Mckay and three other families sign a tenancy agreement when they moved into four newly built homes back in 2012.
> *“We made an agreement where they would pay $500 a month, and we would do the maintenance, and they would eventually own the houses. If they did any damage then we could fix it up with the $500 they were paying,” Poitras says.
> The arrangement was supposed to last about 15 years.*
> ...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Carver, I'm stumped by your total opposition to affordable shelter for homeless people. The idea will be tried, and if it is effective for some it may spread. *I don't understand your interest in prejudging the idea and declaring that it won't work*.
> 
> *Your preference is for them to live on sewer grates and defecate in doorways?*


Not my preference, Andrew..just stating the facts..that most of them do. Winnepeg has a lot of homeless from the First Nations, who leave their band reserves after living in squalor, seek their fame and fortune in the big cities and end up.....well..on sewer grates and perhaps do their business in doorways, when no one is watching. 



> A new report by the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg shows a marked increase of people sleeping outdoors in this city.
> The study states that nearly 28,000 people live in inadequate housing in the city core and on any given night, 353 Winnipeggers sleep in shelters.
> It also says an unknown number of people sleep outdoors, in cars, abandoned buildings, or public locations like the airport





> Shirley Sanderson, 51, who has been homeless for three years said not having a place to go is "an awful feeling inside, like your heart is broken because it feels like people don't care about you."





> "A few nights I had nowhere to go and walked the streets until broad daylight," she said.
> "Last Summer I slept in the park, a few times in an abandoned truck, and in behind an industrial building in St. James.





> While a lot of groups work to combat homelessness in the city, what's needed is a unified strategy, Maes said.
> 
> "We need a plan involving the municipal government, the provincial government, the federal government, and of course, the community," she said, citing Calgary's 10-year stategy to end homlessness as a model for Winnipeg to follow.





> Chronic homelessness is particularly costly:
> one University of California study followed *15 chronically homeless individuals for 18 months and found each person consumed $200,000 in public services.*
> 
> This far exceeds the cost of providing affordable housing with the attendant support services needed to help sustain it.
> ...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

You've built a case for doing something about the problem, as the status quo 'do nothing' strategy is actually costing a fortune. I think providing most affordable housing options would be very useful for helping many currently homeless individuals then deal with other issues such as addiction, mental health and employment.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Being from Winnipeg and knowing first hand about the homeless(north-end)these Micro homes would be useless.
The problems a lot of these people are in go way beyond housing
Every-time i am in the north-end of winnipeg i feel like i am in a 3rd world country.
These micro-homes would rapidly become shanty towns and further increase the problems(this would look similar to mexico's 'tent' city
The aboriginal problems and challenges are so much more than simply 'housing'


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

andrewf said:


> You've built a case for doing something about the problem, as the status quo 'do nothing' strategy is actually costing a fortune. *I think providing most affordable housing options would be very useful for helping many currently homeless individuals then deal with other issues such as addiction, mental health and employment*.


 ... in that case, how about subsidized, low income housing projects like that in Toronto? There're also hostels for temporary homeless folks in transition. 

I think "mobile" trailer-homes or portables might work better for these challenging type of homeless folks (drunks, drug addicts, mental illness) until they get their issues permanently resolved.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Why use subsidized housing when this could work without government support? It's more scalable.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Isn't that quaint.... at a time when there are MILLIONS of abandoned and foreclosed homes sitting empty.

Does anyone remember before there was a homeless problem? In Toronto there was no such problem between the thirties depression and about 1970.

Then various levels of government in their wisdom, shut down all the cheap rooming houses and boarding houses, put severe restrictions on build new housing, and increased taxes and building costs radically.

Suddenly, for no reason at all, there was a housing shortage which they responded to with rent controls, which resulted in even greater housing shortages.

The point is the marketplace is perfectly able to provide safe, clean, low cost housing if it is allowed to. They might think about cooperating in the conversion of houses, hotels etc to rooming houses and boarding houses which were a popular option for low income people and transients for hundreds of years.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Does anyone remember before there was a homeless problem? In Toronto there was no such problem between the thirties depression and about 1970.


Evidence? No homeless for 40 years?

I agree about deregulating the rental market, but I'm not sure that would be enough. Many of the currently homeless have problems other than inability for afford housing.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Evidence? No homeless for 40 years?
> 
> I agree about deregulating the rental market, but I'm not sure that would be enough. Many of the currently homeless have problems other than inability for afford housing.


I didn't say there were no homeless. There may have been a few rubbies and psychotic cases, but there was no wide spread homeless problem like there is today.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When I had my little food delivery business, I would go to all kinds of subsidized rental complexes.

It was startling.........the difference between the "church run co-ops" and the government operated housing buildings.

The little co-ops were well maintained, pretty little complexes..........and the government buildings were falling apart and dumps.

Better the government got out of the housing business, and supported the small groups with a little "seed money".

A decent sized church group........not only wants to provide housing.......but has a volunteer army to maintain the place, counsel the people living in it, and offer other help that supports their "little" community project.

The government has well paid administrators and office staff, and contracts out all services to businesses that are expensive due to licensing and insurance requirements. They don't own the properties and are less interested in taking care of them.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

i won't comment on the design idea from Portland, which looks like a garden shed with plumbing. Except to say it might work in the west coast climate.

But on the general subject of housing the homeless, a lot of studies have been done in various parts of Canada in recent years, all of them concluding that our current approach isn't working. And for the hard-core homeless it would be cheaper to the taxpayer to provide them with housing, and better for the well-being of the homeless. 

To quote from one policy paper:"The Real Cost of Homelessness" - http://homelesshub.ca/ResourceFiles/costofhomelessness_paper21092012.pdf

_In recent years, many have argued that our current response to homelessness – one that relies heavily on the provision of emergency services – is a very expensive way of responding to a seemingly intractable problem. What happens if we shift our energy from managing the problem – ... – to actually trying to end homelessness? We know this can be done, and also that it is the right thing to do. Some will say that we cannot afford this – but it is worth asking: does our current approach actually save us any money, or is it cheaper to address the root causes of homelessness? That is, is it more cost effective to house people and / or prevent them from becoming homeless in the first place, than to let people languish in a state of homelessness, relying on emergency shelters and day programs? That is a policy question that is worth addressing._

Wake up and read the papers Carverman. This is why a number of municipalities and social service agencies are exploring alternatives, because what we are doing now ain't workin', and is costing us a lot more money than most of us realize.


----------

