Do you have a source for that? I can’t think of a more perfect rebuttal to people saying that we shouldn’t pay for their housing, but your claim is pretty bold, so being able to back it up with something would be good.
A chronically homeless person costs the tax payer an average of $35,578 per year. Costs on average are reduced by 49.5% when they are placed in supportive housing. Supportive housing costs on average $12,800, making the net savings roughly $4,800 per year.
Studies have shown that – in practice, and not just in theory – providing people experiencing chronic homelessness with permanent supportive housing saves taxpayers money.
Without connections to the right types of care, they cycle in and out of hospital emergency departments and inpatient beds, detox programs, jails, prisons, and psychiatric institutions—all at high public expense. Some studies have found that leaving a person to remain chronically homeless costs taxpayers as much as $30,000 to $50,000 per year.
This obviously varies from state to state. But generally it is cheaper to fix the root of a problem (housing) than a symptom (emergency services), and that applies to homelessness.
But even if it wasn’t a better option from a purely cost/benefit analysis, the moral thing to do is to house the homeless. So no matter what, it is something we should be doing.
Of course it’s the moral thing, but some people would disagree, hence there being value in being able to prove it’s cheaper. Thanks, I’m saving your comment in case I need to prove this to someone else in the future :D
They passed a “camping ban” targeting the homeless. It passed the city council a month or two ago. I attended a bunch of protests, but couldn’t really do anything about it since I live in IB
Honestly not surprised. Back when I worked for the city the director of parks and rec would go on and on about “combating” homlessnes. No one seemed interested in prevention or help (this was up in north county tho) and if you asked they’d look at you like you were crazy
It’s not surprising, but it is disappointing. Mayor Gloria ran on a platform that specifically called out Faulkner for his unconstitutional attempts to ban homelessness, and he turns around and does this.
Hell at this point it’s that added with another nefarious reason. It’s because in places like the US homeless are on par with untouchables.
Our hierarchies are so segmented they may as well be castes: and that’s by design. If there’s a group as poor off as homeless individuals then it shows other “lower castes” that they better fall in line or get kicked down to their level.
Why not help these homeless individuals? Because it takes money away from the “top castes” money pile. It also takes away the threat of homelessness that the “upper castes” use to keep the “middle castes” in line.
It’s cute that you think they’re trying to save money 😂
Here in California we’re saving the most money, by not jailing the homeless AND not housing the homeless.
Leaving them on the streets is also more expensive than housing them.
When they’re on the streets, it means the government must pay for emergency services, extra sanitation work, police are called more frequently, etc.
True. I should have said “saving money”.
Do you have a source for that? I can’t think of a more perfect rebuttal to people saying that we shouldn’t pay for their housing, but your claim is pretty bold, so being able to back it up with something would be good.
http://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Cost-Savings-from-PSH.pdf
https://www.npscoalition.org/post/fact-sheet-cost-of-homelessness
https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Ending_Chronic_Homelessness_in_2017.pdf
This obviously varies from state to state. But generally it is cheaper to fix the root of a problem (housing) than a symptom (emergency services), and that applies to homelessness.
But even if it wasn’t a better option from a purely cost/benefit analysis, the moral thing to do is to house the homeless. So no matter what, it is something we should be doing.
Of course it’s the moral thing, but some people would disagree, hence there being value in being able to prove it’s cheaper. Thanks, I’m saving your comment in case I need to prove this to someone else in the future :D
San Diego has entered the chat. I’m still fuming over that ban.
Oh fuck what happened in SD?
They passed a “camping ban” targeting the homeless. It passed the city council a month or two ago. I attended a bunch of protests, but couldn’t really do anything about it since I live in IB
Honestly not surprised. Back when I worked for the city the director of parks and rec would go on and on about “combating” homlessnes. No one seemed interested in prevention or help (this was up in north county tho) and if you asked they’d look at you like you were crazy
It’s not surprising, but it is disappointing. Mayor Gloria ran on a platform that specifically called out Faulkner for his unconstitutional attempts to ban homelessness, and he turns around and does this.
They’re making money on people being in jail of course.
And get slave labor!
If they didn’t want to be punished they shouldn’t have been poor.
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)
Hell at this point it’s that added with another nefarious reason. It’s because in places like the US homeless are on par with untouchables.
Our hierarchies are so segmented they may as well be castes: and that’s by design. If there’s a group as poor off as homeless individuals then it shows other “lower castes” that they better fall in line or get kicked down to their level.
Why not help these homeless individuals? Because it takes money away from the “top castes” money pile. It also takes away the threat of homelessness that the “upper castes” use to keep the “middle castes” in line.