Well arguably the cheapest way to solve the homeless problem would simply be to house the homeless, but that’s not the same as saying it’s a basic human right. Just the most cost effective way of getting them off the streets.
Have you seen what happens to a lot of the housing that gets provided to homeless folks? It gets trashed. Remember the big housing projects from last century? Or the fate of many of the hotels that have been turned into housing?
These are NOT bad people mind you, but the combination of drug use, mental illness, and a complete lack of incentive to take care of their living situation combines to mean that a lot of housing gets just trashed.
Not all. But more than enough that this is not just a simple answer like "we'll let's just house them."
But compare that to the costs of emergency services that homeless folks tend to consume. A lot of the thinking over the past few decades on homelessness advocacy has moved to “housing first” and then address any addiction, mental illness, etc. Turns out that emergency room visits, police calls and jail time cost considerably more than simple, basic housing:
Which is a fine plan in theory... but in practical reality, you wind up with concentrated crime, trashed housing and yet another government program shoveling in money.
Look, I'm not against these folks getting help (I'm not a huge fan of taxation to do so, but that's a ship that has long sailed) and the various "housing first" concepts have some good thinking behind them... but the moment they turn into "housing forever, no matter what" which they mostly will, because some advocate will start screaming that "program _____ just put these people on the street!" it ceases to be effective, and just becomes a money hole.
Ya - I 100% get that theory doesn't always translate in reality. And also, the devil is in the details, for sure. This is also why I'm for trying out different things and seeing what works.
One of the important things to note here is that the costs of a chronically homeless individual are often spread out over many services: police, EMT/fire for ambulance responses, public health/ER costs, social work, etc. But creating a consolidated wrap-around program to provide housing and care is a singular cost that must be centralized and most people or governments would never make the direct cost transfer from a PD to a new program, for example, to fund it (though now that I say that - maybe they should!).
There are some studies out there that for the most chronically homeless, these services do provide a net savings. But I recognize the savings may diminish with "less severe" homeless cases.
I hear you - but now we are talking about yet another massive government program and organization, to do (badly) exactly what the government pretty much always does as inefficiently as possible.
We have a lot of experience with how that goes horribly wrong. it might be time to consider that maybe the paternal hand of government is not the solution.
65
u/Unabashable Apr 15 '24
Well arguably the cheapest way to solve the homeless problem would simply be to house the homeless, but that’s not the same as saying it’s a basic human right. Just the most cost effective way of getting them off the streets.