Not everything is an argument bro. I was just sharing the link because i found it interesting and its on this topic. Read it or don't then. Its not a link trying to prove anything.
Its not all about money. Its also about principles and the models I've looked into on the links you posted are not long term enough to show long lasting effects. The one in salt lake failed. Show me one sustainable through the regressions addicts go through.
your models that i have looked into do not get to the details of some of the issues i have brought up in the past you have dismissed.
a two year model does nothing to show long term sustainability. Anything can have money tossed at it for a while to improve it but most funding to things like that are not sustainable.
And reality is most people wont vote to coddle those who make poor decisions and sont want to improve their decision making. Most people would rather spend a little more to not.
We have been through this before and we both know we agree about more than we don't on this topic.
i just think I'm more realistic about the longterm effects of it all than you are.
of course were not going to “fix” everyone. Thats why id rather focus money spent on those that can and want to change.
Have you ever worked with an addict or a drunk trying to get them sober and to care? Its not even close to as easy as you like to paint a picture as.
Now you can focus on that one little aspect of our disagreement and post paragraphs of how its wrong or you can recognize i agree with you on most of what you say call it good.
Go read the article. You will find it a good read. Does it matter if it was linked in or the oregonian or the wall street journal?
its a detailed article about homeless and with how adamant you are you know how to solve the problem for all, i would think you would be interested in it. unless you are only interested in trying to get everyone to think 100% like you?
read the article or dont…geez…
What argument? I asked what I was supposed to learn at the link. I mostly just saw opinions. That's not evidence of anything.
Nothing failed about Salt Lake City, except they listened to arguments like you're making now and allowed the program to end. It was a 10 year program that saved them a ton of money and virtually eliminated homelessness, drastically reduced crime, reduced emergency services and reduced property damage.
They stopped funding it after the 10 year program concluded and saw homelessness come back and then saw spending drastically increase on homelessness with tent cities, overworked emergency services, police, and damaged public spaces.
Yes, if you end a program it will end. It was insane of them to end it. The people who work with the homeless all say it never should have ended and that it worked better than any other program they've seen.
Which is why they have started using the housing first strategy again. But since they stopped the program for a decade there is a lot to do, and it will take significant investment to catch back up.
It's again cleaning up their streets. In the last few years 95% of people placed in permanent housing have stayed there or moved on to better living arrangements. 95%.
Imagine Portland with 95% fewer homeless...
The biggest problem with SLC's system has been Vegas And LA sending their homeless there. Overwhelming SLC's resources. Because it works.
This needs to be done on a national level and not lose funding every election cycle.
Portland Metro area has the money to fund it here for our local population. Now we need to build it and make sure we have enough support staff to match people with the services they need.
But spending $15k-$25k per year on a homeless person isn't a waste of money.
Because you're saving the $50k-$100k per year they would be costing us living in our public spaces. Speaking of which, we'd get our public spaces back.
Nothing about that is a failure. Not even close. Yes, it's something we have to pay for. But it costs so much less than the alternative, and we all have better living situations because of it.