That doesn't surprise me. I can totally see how "housing first" has become a political phase that just gets slapped on to every policy, whether it fits or not.
It makes sense to me. Help people with housing, and they could turn their lives around. What I don't get, is if you have chronic illness or are disabled, why that disability insurance or something like that couldn't be used to pay rent/lease/mortgage.
Why couldn't we design campuses for people that need help? Campuses with several housing units that people could stay in, and in due time, let them work for the building.
"Why couldn't we design campuses for people that need help? Campuses with several housing units that people could stay in, and in due time, let them work for the building."'
I think this is a great idea. A type of "halfway house" to re-enter society from homelessness. It looks like Utah built small versions of these, but I imagine they cost a lot which is why they prioritized subsidizing rents. But definitely a great idea that we'd be wise to consider!
This was an amazing article, Joe. In 2016 San Diego was visited by folks in Utah, Oregon, and Texas when they setup their Taskforce for the Homeless which appeared to be “board member” types. I just got back from a visit and the homeless situation appears to be as dire as ever. I’m going to check in on it. Thanks for sharing this and the little jab at the temple. 😅 I grew up running around on the other end of State street.
Thanks Katie! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'd love to learn about SF's homelessness crisis and the potential solutions. I feel like it's the city most known for homelessness, so hearing their proposed solutions would be quite illuminating.
WOW, finally a solution that works! Prob in the long run, saves society money in health care, crime, disease, trash pick up, soil and water contamination with feces, etc.....Thank you for this post!!!
I'm glad you liked it! I like to keep my posts brief and focused, so I didn't get into this, but what convinced Llyod Pendleton was actually hearing that it was MUCH cheaper to house folks as opposed to paying for them to be eventually imprisoned. When people are housed, you just have to subsidize their rent. When they're unhoused, they interact with police (costs $), get sent to jail (costs $), appear in court (costs $), and are typically incarcerated (costs $). Then they get out, and the cycle starts again.
While one can take heart that this program is working, for now, I have to point out that the people of Utah aren't funding the initiative: this Utah program receives 80% of its funding from the Federal Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Program. In short, these rents are being subsidized by taxpayers who don't even live in Utah, and cannot A- benefit from it, or B- clarify that they don't want their money being put toward it.
As Milton Freedman put it, there are no free lunches.
I'm not going to sit here and say these folks don't deserve help; they are human beings, deserving of dignity and a chance at living decently. But let's be clear- such programs CANNOT endure in perpetuity.
As for the nod toward taking taxes from the Mormon Church- no. If you want them to keep their ideology out of public places like schools and legislation, then you don't get to compel them to pay taxes. Play fair, or at least confess that you don't really care about fairness if it hurts your socio-political perspective.
I posit this forecast based on the following factors:
1- An audit of TANF funds allocation by a Republican-majority House and/or Senate would likely result in this program's 'Pay-For' mechanism getting cut off. Unlikely, yes, but certainly possible.
2- With SNAP, utilities assistance programs, Veterans' Affairs housing assistance programs, and childcare programs all receiving a chunk of their funding from this same account, the increasing pinch due to inflation, directors of these various programs are likely going to have to soon start vying actively for more funding from the same source.
3- Money is not infinite. That's just called observable reality. Sure, you can make the money printer go 'brrr', as some more conservative commentators than myself would quip, but all that does is devalue the supply currently available, which will only exacerbate the original problem. I'm not an economist, but I'm also not a drooling idiot.
I drool for other reasons entirely, so pardon me a moment while the nice men with the butterfly nets "help" me back to my room.
[Bangs head off padded wall while singing Yankee Doodle Dandee for five straight minutes]
Ahem. Thank you for allowing me that sidebar.
As I also said in my commentary, I'm not so heartless as to demand the recipients of this beneficial program be tossed out on their heads. However, I do request that we all exercise some logic regarding these things, and be honest about the challenges and troubles inherent in them.
Thank you for your response, but as none of your three points illustrate a direct, present threat to Utah's housing programs, I don't share your analysis that such programs can't last in perpetuity.
Perhaps you didn't actually read point 2 carefully- those other programs are PRESENTLY undergoing a crunch, which means that soon, likely in the next fiscal year or two, they are going to be competing for that funding, and programs like Utah's house-first policy program has beneficiaries only in ONE state, whereas all those other programs have beneficiaries in ALL states. That would seem to me like a direct, present threat.
Of course, in this use of 'present' I mean 'near-term', which may be outside the scope of your original reply. If so, that's understandable: it's your thread, I have no right to claim a priori definitions of terminology.
If I'm reading point #2 correctly, it sounds like the threat you speak of is inflation forcing the government to cut back spending. If so, then I don't think that's a big a threat as one might thing. The current inflation rate is 3.18%, which is .1% lower than the long-term US average.
This inflation rate has been quoted by several pundits over the last couple of weeks, and as both Peter Quinonas and the folks at the Mises Institute have pointed out, it is calculated without including the rising cost of food and energy (gas, natural gas, and electricity). When these factors are included, our current inflation rate calculates out to a present rate of around 14%, significantly higher than the long-term US average.
Yes, government spending needs to be cut back. I can think of a few dozen overseas military bases we haven't needed to operate for a LONG time to start with....
But I digress. We seem to be at an impasse, but a polite one by comparison to some I've had over my time here. I hope this response finds you well.
It's the caption under the picture of the church that did it for me. Nicely done.
I had missed that until I saw your comment. Doubly well-done!
lol thanks, I was proud of that.
NY has housing first policies too, but it’s a meaningless phrase (at least in NY) when there’s simply not enough housing.
That doesn't surprise me. I can totally see how "housing first" has become a political phase that just gets slapped on to every policy, whether it fits or not.
Having a safe stable home to live in makes all the difference in the world.
It truly is the basis for a healthy life. Without it, one isn't going to be able to live adequately.
It makes sense to me. Help people with housing, and they could turn their lives around. What I don't get, is if you have chronic illness or are disabled, why that disability insurance or something like that couldn't be used to pay rent/lease/mortgage.
Why couldn't we design campuses for people that need help? Campuses with several housing units that people could stay in, and in due time, let them work for the building.
"Why couldn't we design campuses for people that need help? Campuses with several housing units that people could stay in, and in due time, let them work for the building."'
I think this is a great idea. A type of "halfway house" to re-enter society from homelessness. It looks like Utah built small versions of these, but I imagine they cost a lot which is why they prioritized subsidizing rents. But definitely a great idea that we'd be wise to consider!
This was an amazing article, Joe. In 2016 San Diego was visited by folks in Utah, Oregon, and Texas when they setup their Taskforce for the Homeless which appeared to be “board member” types. I just got back from a visit and the homeless situation appears to be as dire as ever. I’m going to check in on it. Thanks for sharing this and the little jab at the temple. 😅 I grew up running around on the other end of State street.
Thanks Katie! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'd love to learn about SF's homelessness crisis and the potential solutions. I feel like it's the city most known for homelessness, so hearing their proposed solutions would be quite illuminating.
Excellent piece, Joe. I think stats have shown that it really is that simple.
Thanks Joan! I wish people would realize how simple this could be
WOW, finally a solution that works! Prob in the long run, saves society money in health care, crime, disease, trash pick up, soil and water contamination with feces, etc.....Thank you for this post!!!
I'm glad you liked it! I like to keep my posts brief and focused, so I didn't get into this, but what convinced Llyod Pendleton was actually hearing that it was MUCH cheaper to house folks as opposed to paying for them to be eventually imprisoned. When people are housed, you just have to subsidize their rent. When they're unhoused, they interact with police (costs $), get sent to jail (costs $), appear in court (costs $), and are typically incarcerated (costs $). Then they get out, and the cycle starts again.
That’s such an important point!
While one can take heart that this program is working, for now, I have to point out that the people of Utah aren't funding the initiative: this Utah program receives 80% of its funding from the Federal Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Program. In short, these rents are being subsidized by taxpayers who don't even live in Utah, and cannot A- benefit from it, or B- clarify that they don't want their money being put toward it.
As Milton Freedman put it, there are no free lunches.
I'm not going to sit here and say these folks don't deserve help; they are human beings, deserving of dignity and a chance at living decently. But let's be clear- such programs CANNOT endure in perpetuity.
As for the nod toward taking taxes from the Mormon Church- no. If you want them to keep their ideology out of public places like schools and legislation, then you don't get to compel them to pay taxes. Play fair, or at least confess that you don't really care about fairness if it hurts your socio-political perspective.
"But let's be clear- such programs CANNOT endure in perpetuity."
What's the evidence behind this? Utah has been using its housing first approach since 2005, so it's not like its a flash in the pan.
I posit this forecast based on the following factors:
1- An audit of TANF funds allocation by a Republican-majority House and/or Senate would likely result in this program's 'Pay-For' mechanism getting cut off. Unlikely, yes, but certainly possible.
2- With SNAP, utilities assistance programs, Veterans' Affairs housing assistance programs, and childcare programs all receiving a chunk of their funding from this same account, the increasing pinch due to inflation, directors of these various programs are likely going to have to soon start vying actively for more funding from the same source.
3- Money is not infinite. That's just called observable reality. Sure, you can make the money printer go 'brrr', as some more conservative commentators than myself would quip, but all that does is devalue the supply currently available, which will only exacerbate the original problem. I'm not an economist, but I'm also not a drooling idiot.
I drool for other reasons entirely, so pardon me a moment while the nice men with the butterfly nets "help" me back to my room.
[Bangs head off padded wall while singing Yankee Doodle Dandee for five straight minutes]
Ahem. Thank you for allowing me that sidebar.
As I also said in my commentary, I'm not so heartless as to demand the recipients of this beneficial program be tossed out on their heads. However, I do request that we all exercise some logic regarding these things, and be honest about the challenges and troubles inherent in them.
Thank you for your response, but as none of your three points illustrate a direct, present threat to Utah's housing programs, I don't share your analysis that such programs can't last in perpetuity.
Additionally, my apologies if my singing was off-key. Damned tranqs do a number on my vocal quality....
Perhaps you didn't actually read point 2 carefully- those other programs are PRESENTLY undergoing a crunch, which means that soon, likely in the next fiscal year or two, they are going to be competing for that funding, and programs like Utah's house-first policy program has beneficiaries only in ONE state, whereas all those other programs have beneficiaries in ALL states. That would seem to me like a direct, present threat.
Of course, in this use of 'present' I mean 'near-term', which may be outside the scope of your original reply. If so, that's understandable: it's your thread, I have no right to claim a priori definitions of terminology.
If I'm reading point #2 correctly, it sounds like the threat you speak of is inflation forcing the government to cut back spending. If so, then I don't think that's a big a threat as one might thing. The current inflation rate is 3.18%, which is .1% lower than the long-term US average.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_inflation_rate#:~:text=US%20Inflation%20Rate%20(I%3AUSIR)&text=US%20Inflation%20Rate%20is%20at,in%20price%20over%20a%20year.
This inflation rate has been quoted by several pundits over the last couple of weeks, and as both Peter Quinonas and the folks at the Mises Institute have pointed out, it is calculated without including the rising cost of food and energy (gas, natural gas, and electricity). When these factors are included, our current inflation rate calculates out to a present rate of around 14%, significantly higher than the long-term US average.
Yes, government spending needs to be cut back. I can think of a few dozen overseas military bases we haven't needed to operate for a LONG time to start with....
But I digress. We seem to be at an impasse, but a polite one by comparison to some I've had over my time here. I hope this response finds you well.
join cult. 2. get free home. 3. and they say temptation is of the devil?