I didn't say that at all.
I said you can't show it all in one tidy chart the way you've asked. There is too much data that isn't made public.
All we can do since the granular data isn't made public is assume the cities aren't lying to us when they tell us what the homeless cost them. But many cities and states give very similar numbers. And HUD supports those numbers.
http://usich.gov/population/chronic
Are you suggesting they are lying?
We can compare that to the actual costs once they are housed and trackable which have been shown in the links I've provided. Which homing them makes possible.
Is your argument that cities are lying and each homeless does not actually costs us $30k-$50k per year? I've never seen anybody dispute the validity of those claims.
We do know from the studies that the damage in cities stopped (see Salt Lake City). Reporters couldn't even find homeless people anywhere in the city. Are you disputing that? If you're not disputing that, then you can obviously see that maintenance and repair costs, as well as emergency services, went down for the city...
What data is not made public? If there is not data made to the public then how do we know what costs what and what may have a percent increase based on inability to solve that portion of the many faceted problem? I see this as backing my claim that there are X factors that will skew the numbers that aren't quantifiable by some numbers.
You are asserting your stance based off reports that dont provide the full picture. For example... If unquantifiable costs equate to 3% of the financial costs but that goes up by 50% due to not being solved, the total increase on the budget is not that big of a hit. However if that unquantifiable factor is 35%$ of the financial cost and it increases by 50% by not being solved, that is a huge hit on the total financial costs.
The end result is we just disagree on philosophies of how to handle those who do not want to be a productive part of our society/economy.
Homelessness is the problem I'm addressing here. The "homeless" cost $30k-$50k per year per person. The "Homeless" are causing the messes in our cities. According to the courts, the constitution protects the rights of people to "rest" in our public spaces. Hence, the "homeless" problem is the exact problem we need to address.
No. I'm not painting with a broad brush. I've said you home everybody you can and make decisions with the others during the homing process. This is in fact, what Housing First does, as described in all of the links i've sent you. I've said many times the homing process is the first step. Hence the name "
Housing First".
I don't see George Floyd's death as an excuse to ignore the failures of our social systems (which includes the police and judicial systems which CAUSED George Floyd's death). Quite the opposite, actually.
There is no reason for you to keep saying anything about jail or treatment. We agree in those respects, many of them need treatment. Imagine how much more treatment we could afford if cities were saving 50-75% on the homeless... There is literally no reason to keep circling back to that. Every homeless population has similar ratios of drug addicts and criminals as Portland. I've seen no evidence to suggest Portland's homeless demographic is unique in this respect when compared to other cities. You seem to be suggesting that is the case. If you have evidence to support that theory please provide it.
Housing everybody first
- Allows you to better focus on the drug addicts and criminals (this is common sense).
- Cleans up the cities (proven fact).
- Shows significant cost savings (according to
all available evidence)
Saying you are addressing the problem of homeless without segregating the homelesss into several categories is painting with a broad brush. Sorry if you disagree, but one cant discuss the homeless without discussing separately what drives different people to be homeless. It isn't just one answer. And in this city the bulk of it is addiction.
That last line that we disagree with. you are going by all available quantifiable evidence on paper. i'm going with street sense and putting an estimation on a bunch of X factors that I believe will happen based on my close history with addicts and witnessing their behaviors for 30 plus years. And this increased cost I believe it will have blows everything else out of the water.
And if we want to go by all available evidence, what better evidence does one have than to look from state to state to see this is not a wide spread solution being used tr solve the homeless problems. In part because each regions has different homeless problems. Drug addicts flock to Portland because of the lenient laws increasing substantially the percent of homeless that are addicts.
I lived in Denver and upstate NY and traveled to NYC daily and the homeless are very different than the bulk of Portland's homeless. For one the other cities had a much higher rate of disabled homeless. Also the average age seemed to be much older than Portland.
Again, were gonna have to agree to disagree on several fronts with regards to Portland. I believe Portland's leniency towards drug abuse and vagrancy has contributed to Portland's homeless percentage. And it is these type of homeless causing the vast majority of the damage.
I believe the answers first come with changing some laws in the state that have contributed and enabled current behaviors we see in the city. Without the changes in laws, it will just be an endless cycle of sweep them up and put a roof over their head.. watch them get up a bit and fall right back down into the streets. All the while addicts from all over the country continue to come here to reep the benefits of the handouts that keep coming.
To me the answer isn't sustainable because it doesn't stop the cycle, and thus, the costs will be ongoing instead of one time.
Even in the SLC example it was noted in the article the rio grande project was supposed to be brief and it has been a longer project than originally predicted and the housing issues continue to arise as they spread the homeless about. Funds were cut for them. But it doesn't say why. Because to put the city in the red? over budget? Not sure, but it wasnt financially feasible or funds wouldn't have been stricken? This then comes down to a budget prioritizing philosophy or political belief. Which is a reallocation of spending to help better finances the housing programs, were they to go nation wide in all major cities.
But to say its financially [possible without a shift in spending and pulling form other are was, is not accurate from what ive read and understand.
