Quote:
Originally Posted by craftbeerdad
In Utah, of all places, they gave the homeless free homes because it was cheaper than relying on social assisted housing and support. Although it hasn't resulted in a meaningful transition up the housing chain (and opening spots up down the chain), it has reduced homelessness by a considerable amount.
I suppose there's a fine line, because we all know there's individuals who need help and there's some who joke about the system and how they can still live there lives and afford beer, smokes, food, etc. How do I know? Go to the Beer Store on Barton and wait in line and over here the chatter.
Not sure were any closer to solving the problems, but identifying people who want help is relatively important versus people who do not care.
|
But then there are also those who are incapable of helping themselves, which I suspect is something like 95% of homeless. Giving a hardcore opiod addicted homeless person a free apartment is no solution, and doesn't work. They won't get off the drugs, and they won't become useful members of society. What they will do is continue their drug use, destroy the apartment and eventually end up on the street again.
What you need is drug treatment (likely forced in a compassionate facility), then long term supports and supervised housing. Some will recover and enter society, some will unfortunately not and need to be institutionalized. Some have developed such severe mental health issues that there simply is no recovery. Recognizing that is important.
What you don't need is free drugs, free places to inject those drugs, and free housing with no supports. That we know, all you have to do is take a look at British Columbia.