Homing the homeless

I think people would abuse the system and get housed free of charge not because they are chronically homeless but because they are lazy and can't be arsed to pay their own way. I think it would be too difficult to police and we'd end up in a right mess.

Not sure it would make any difference to be honest. My OH is a project worker with said homeless people in a hostel in our city, we also volunteer with the local soup run feeding said homeless people and looking out for them nightly.

Some of them just dont want a home, with the addictions and problems they have they find it easier and less of a burden to live on the street, then they only have to suit themselves and not worry about finding rent, paying bills etc. The bruden of having a home is too much for them, just looking after themselves on a daily basis is too much for some let alone having a home and keeping it.

Agree that it would just be yet another system for people to exploit. Financially it makes sense with the current numbers of homeless but I can just imagine that these numbers would suddenly go up if this was introduced. The government seems too lenient in handing thing out to people that, in my opinion, have no right to.

I also think that some people just cant function well in society and putting them in free accomodation wouldn't help them, and would cause a lot of problems in the local community. I can imagine the buildings would turn into a local drug den and no safer than living on the street.

Obviously there are some people that it would help immensley but i think the positive are outweighed.

In Denver, the system is only open to chronically homeless, people with severe difficulties, illnesses, addictions and social problems. It's not a system that would be open to abuse as you'd have to be living rough with a heroin addiction, pneumonia and a list of criminal charges before you're considered (not exactly this, but you get my point, a situation not worth going through just to get a rent-free house).

They wouldn't pay any rent or bills.

Ideologically, I think it's a great idea and much more preferable to the thought of leaving people on the streets. I can't see it ever working out in this country though because the majority of people won't be able to get past the 'free house in exchange for being a waster' idea, which is a terrible shame. Anecdotally, I seem to encounter more people who are content to shrug their shoulders at the chronically homeless and say their situation is of their own making, therefore they have to live with it. That's a perspective I absolutely don't agree with but it seems to be quite prevalent.

There would be some do-gooder or other saying it should be open to everyone on the streets and then someone else would start claiming it was their "human right" to have whatever the addicts etc get. I just think it would be a massive can of worms. There are so many people in this country who already think it is their right to get everything for nothing, it would just add to that way of thinking.

This ^^^^

There are people where my OH works that cant even function on a daily basis, they need medical/phsychiatric help, that they currently dont get because of lack of funding, and they are all thrown together in a melting pot. Putting them in a home with a project worker isnt going to get them 'well', my OH and his colleagues arent medically trained to deal with it. In one shift last week my OH got threatened with an iron bar and had a tv thrown at him!

I so, so understand this... but I think it's equally unethical if not more so to refrain from helping people in need when the means to do so is there (and in this example cheaper than the costs of no intervention).

I think it's disgraceful that there are people sleeping and dying on the streets of supposedly wealthy countries. Especially considering so many are disabled and/or with mental health issues. Are we not supposed to have a welfare-state safety net?

From the article (my bold):

The reality, of course, is hardly that neat and tidy. The idea that the very sickest and most troubled of the homeless can be stabilized and eventually employed is only a hope. Some of them plainly won't be able to get there: these are, after all, hard cases. "We've got one man, he's in his twenties," Post said. "Already, he has cirrhosis of the liver. One time he blew a blood alcohol of .49, which is enough to kill most people. The first place we had he brought over all his friends, and they partied and trashed the place and broke a window. Then we gave him another apartment, and he did the same thing."

Post said that the man had been sober for several months. But he could relapse at some point and perhaps trash another apartment, and they'd have to figure out what to do with him next. Post had just been on a conference call with some people in New York City who run a similar program, and they talked about whether giving clients so many chances simply encourages them to behave irresponsibly. For some people, it probably does. But what was the alternative? If this young man was put back on the streets, he would cost the system even more money. The current philosophy of welfare holds that government assistance should be temporary and conditional, to avoid creating dependency. But someone who blows .49 on a Breathalyzer and has cirrhosis of the liver at the age of twenty-seven doesn't respond to incentives and sanctions in the usual way.

Do we spend too much money helping the people that won't help themselves rather than the ones who can't?

I'd reply in some thoughtful fashion but I am too busy trying to raise voluntary (charitably sourced) income for the homeless, because, actually, the "system" doesn't support people like this.

Possibly. I just think there ought to be places available so people don't have to sleep on the actual streets.

Bear in mind that this admittedly instinctual reaction of mine may not do anything to actually alleviate any problems. Perhaps there would be worse problems in homeless shelters, I don't know. I just feel (without any reasoning behind it, just a feeling) that shelter is a basic right and should be available to all considering we have the means to support this. We can pay for so many things but not to keep someone from living without any shelter? Surely shelter is one of the most basic priorities and for people to be dying of exposure and hunger in a modern wealthy country just seems obscene to me.

I agree with this entirely. The system sadly really does have too many holes in it. The paperwork and bureaucracy to wade through if you are homeless is unbelievable and I've heard so many very sad stories about people trying to get some help to get back on their feet, but not coping with the application processes. We have a very strange mindset in this country with regards to homeless people and addicts. I refuse to believe that there is anyone out there who doesn't deserve help.

Nail. Head. Bash.

I think we should not waste any money on smack heads and the like.

Money for this sort of thing should go into helping younger people find work/start businesses etc

It must be so scary to sleep rough. I'd probably be more scared to sleep in a shelter though if I am honest.

There is lots of temporary accommodation available (although not enough, for sure). The cost of running this system, the admin, the rent, the moving and so on, can amount to tens of thousands of pounds per person per year...

...Now. I don't know how much any of you spend on rent or a mortgage but I'd wager it's not THAT much.

Why not give someone a flat, rent-free? It's cheaper.

Why? Someone who is seriously (maybe terminally) ill, who has absolutely zero incentive or motivation to own a house or get a job. Why not put them in a flat, assign a careworker and save some cash?

Welcome to London, Footlong... Plenty of people pay tens of thousands of pounds in rent.

I don't know what the solution is but I suspect we could all do more to help.

You obviously don't live in London?

I would seriously sh!t myself. So many people waiting to take advantage too.

Unfortunately for people like you, not spending ANY money on them isn't an option. One way or another, a portion of the taxes (I assume) that you pay go on medical care for the array of complex health issues 'smack heads and the like' face, plus the cost of police intervention and so on, so forth. The purpose of a scheme like the one proposed in the OP is to look at reducing the financial drain on wider society and investigating whether providing free housing would actually lessen the burden above leaving things as they are.

I don't think people are getting the premise.

IF we invested in permanent housing for the chronically homeless, we would have more money in the government coffers. Which we could use to spend on other things.

Yep, accepted, although the massive rent costs in London are down to scarcity, not the cost of the bricks and mortar.

But cheaper if you provide them with a flat.

Seriously?! People dont just decide to become 'smack heads' as you call them! Many people have deep rooted problems that lead to drug addiction, alcoholism and homelessness. People deserve a chance, they need care and they need hope! Thank fully we arent all narrow minded, what if it was your son/daughter/friend etc who was a so-called smack head??!!!!

There is ample evidence from America that this works and saves the taxpayers huge amounts of money. The UK government, various quangos and homeless charities have worked through extensive cost analyses and all arrived at the same conclsuion - it is cheaper to house people permanently than it is to run the current system of temporary shelter and support. The figures arrived at by the CLG group are staggering - some £2 billion savings a year.

I stopped reading part way through as some of the responses were upsetting me.

I work for a charity that houses the homeless, we don't provide a hostel or night bed we provide a home. We help people get back on their feet, we provide education, training and help gaining employment, we run substance misuse services, each client is given a support worker and has the opportunity to attend counselling, we have day programmes of gardening and exercise, we provide help with independent living skills, we rebuild peoples self confidence and social skills, we have a dedicated mental health worker and finally when people are ready we help them to get their own flat or room in a shared house.

Everyone deserves another chance no one should be written off as a smack head.

I think that everyone deserves shelter, but from my own experience - H used to live someone who was an alcoholic. He borrowed lots of money from H and other people. One friend in particular leant him a very large sum of money and provided him with free food and accomodation for as long as he needed. He responded by never repaying the money, leaving every job he was given to stay at home drinking, smashing up the friend's house, inviting strangers there. He never repaid any of the money he borrowed and later set up a fb group supporting abuse against the racial group the same friend who had helped him belonged to. He left the friend's house after his lies got out of control because he was worried he would be found out. He was homeless for several months before a charity offered him a place to stay - he refused treatment, was abusive towards those trying to help him and other homeless people. In his case I don't think anyone can help him until he is willing to change, it seems like the more help he is offered, the worse he becomes.

I think homeless people should be offered support but I don't think its fair to the workers who are employed to help them, or the other people who live in the apartment building with them, to provide free shelter to people who respond by being violent and abusive. I really don't know what the solution is.

I think what FTLOMB has outlined in her OP sounds like a good idea in principal, it's just a case of implementing it.

Many people are set in their ways, and to suddenly try and change it might not be met with the response that is hoped for. But that can be said for anything. Just an example, but when the bus lanes were implemented and cars suddenly couldn't use the lanes between certain times, it was met with a sudden need to change the way we travelled. Fast forward a few years and it's the norm! ( i realise that comparing homelessness to bus lanes might seem a bit unfair/far fetched, but i'm more trying to make the point of changning systems)

Looking at it from a longer term persepective, Maybe this system would work. Those on the streets just now who may well qualify for it, might choose to not use the help, or use it and abuse it, but i'd like to think that if that was the case, it would only be a small minority. As time goes on and the system becomes more embedded in our society, i think the benefits would greatly outshine the negatives, and those in need would use the system as it was intended!

No one deserves to be kicked to the kerb. Those with addicitions as powerful as the ones that some of these people have, we can never know what it does to their mind that causes them to act in the way they do.

I hope that some of that makes sense, but i do tend to ramble sometimes...

I'm not sure people understand what I'm suggesting (or rather, not what I'm suggesting, but what is being implemented in the US and pushed for in the UK).

All the usual medical care, addiction programmes, therapy, employment help and so on would remain. There would still be programmes and day-care and all that shebang.

The only thing that changes is a "temporary shelter" system, to be replaced by a "permanent home" system. There is lots of evidence that it is cheaper to house the chronically homeless on a permanent basis than to push them through a series of stop-gaps.

The moral dilemma is whether you would be willing to pay for a permanent, rent-free house for a homeless person.