It always amazes me how expensive “affordable housing” turns out to be, both to have it constructed in the first place and to keep it operating once in place.
I get it, these are needy people, so the operating costs aren’t just building operating costs, they also include social supports, etc. However, advocates of Housing First always say that once the housing situation is settled, the occupants can start to work on their other problems, which would imply that, over time, the need for social supports, etc. might decrease. Never seems to happen, in real life.
I totally get it. One way or another, these unfortunate souls burn through a lot of expensive societal supports, including police encounters, social workers, mental health workers, income supports, shelters, health care encounters (paramedics, emergency, hospitalizations, addictions supports, various other medications). The per night per bed cost to maintain our local homeless shelters is more than a room in a local luxury hotel!
Interestingly, all the advocates still complain that not enough is being done. The fundamental complaint of the homeless is often that they can’t afford a home on the money they have. That’s a gross over-simplification, given the complex issues many of them face. Nonetheless, if you gave most anybody the $100k each that it takes to house people in the affordable housing, most anybody should be able to afford a pretty decent abode.
I suspect there are at least two problems. First, the efforts of all those various “helpers” are not well coordinated. I suspect there’s a lot of duplication and waste. Second, there’s a growing industry around helping the homeless, and that, in part, explains the rising costs. Many of our local advocates seem to end up as employees, then as managers, then they end up running a business bidding for the contract to run local shelters.
Lots of money gets spent, most of it not going to the homeless. It’s going to buy expensive supports for the homeless, buying them from people who are making a pretty good living in this business. Even the guys who are executive directors of “not for profits” seem to do all right, financially!
I am compiling a list of the costs for housing the homeless. It is important to realize that the Sudbury's By–Name List shows that 50% of the homeless have physcial and mental health issues plus they are addicted to alcohol or drugs.
The cost of a homeless person sleeping on the streets/tents is $50,000 a year. (Food, clothing, footwear, emergency blankets, tents, sleeping bags, medical care, ambulance and hospital visits, bus tickets, taxi chits, the warming and cooling centres, and all the outreach workers, social workers, police services, bylaw officers, security, drug addiction supplies, welfare, the works.) Sudbury has 700 programs and about 120 agencies helping the homeless.
Then if you talk tiny homes, transistional or supportive housing, the costs doubles or tribles. The costs are for life. There is no requirement for any homeless to give up drugs. They have to voluntarily request it when they are ready. The social workers are happy to wait.
There are no plans, serious or otherwise, to stop the supply of new addicts, especially from the middle school, high school and college kids. If your city is known to have good supports for the homeless, the smaller communities send you theirs. The homeless get free one-way bus tickets. In Ontario we call it the Ontario Northland therapy. (the provincial bus line.)
One of our mayoralty candidates has suggested that Halifax is now a magnet community for the homeless, given the supportive milieu. Other bleeding heart candidates disagree, but pretty well every story you read about a homeless guy says they came here from somewhere, thinking things would work out….
The 700 programs and 120 agencies, expending $50k per person per year just to support life on the street, kind of proves my point. Far too many helpers, all earning a living by helping, and yet there’s a steady supply of people who need help and feel they aren’t getting enough. Obviously, the money isn’t helping the people who need it.
If you can handle subtitles and very poor English spoken by one of the main actress's you may enjoy "Shinjuko Field Hospital". This new Japanese 11 episode TV comedy-drama on Netflex shows the life of the prostitutes, homeless, runaway girls and foreigners in the red-light district of Tokyo. The distrust of doctors and society by these people are made clear.
It is interesting to see how another society deals with these problems.
Back in Canada, what I am concerned about is that we are creating a whole new class of people who will be wards of the state for the rest of their lives. The welfare state will never satisfy the never ending needs/desires of everyone.
We had a social safety net, which was there to catch you when you fell and to support you for as long as needed, without being overly generous. As a doctor, I knew plenty of patients who relied on it. For a while, my office was right next door to the social assistance office. It wasn’t generous, in fact it was bordering on cruel at times, but like I said it wasn’t there to support you forever, just bridge the gaps.
Now we seem to be heading for some sort of guaranteed lifestyle, with housing, food, money, drugs, and support workers of every kind. We even have a van driving around delivering healthcare to the homeless, while 20% of the employed people can’t find a family doctor. When you add it up, the monetary value of their support is greater than the median income of the hard-working, tax-paying citizens, some of whom are proudly looking after themselves on pretty meagre incomes.
There’s no sense that any of this homeless support is to bridge the gaps. There’s no gratitude. There’s little to no sense that the recipients are supposed to be getting their affairs in order and ultimately supporting themselves. It’s like perpetual childhood, with the state taking the place of the parents. The “children” can act out, be irresponsible, do whatever, and they expect unconditional love and nurturing. Add to that the fact that all those overdoses are causing cumulative brain damage and yes, we are creating a class of people who will be dependant for life.
It always amazes me how expensive “affordable housing” turns out to be, both to have it constructed in the first place and to keep it operating once in place.
I get it, these are needy people, so the operating costs aren’t just building operating costs, they also include social supports, etc. However, advocates of Housing First always say that once the housing situation is settled, the occupants can start to work on their other problems, which would imply that, over time, the need for social supports, etc. might decrease. Never seems to happen, in real life.
I totally get it. One way or another, these unfortunate souls burn through a lot of expensive societal supports, including police encounters, social workers, mental health workers, income supports, shelters, health care encounters (paramedics, emergency, hospitalizations, addictions supports, various other medications). The per night per bed cost to maintain our local homeless shelters is more than a room in a local luxury hotel!
Interestingly, all the advocates still complain that not enough is being done. The fundamental complaint of the homeless is often that they can’t afford a home on the money they have. That’s a gross over-simplification, given the complex issues many of them face. Nonetheless, if you gave most anybody the $100k each that it takes to house people in the affordable housing, most anybody should be able to afford a pretty decent abode.
I suspect there are at least two problems. First, the efforts of all those various “helpers” are not well coordinated. I suspect there’s a lot of duplication and waste. Second, there’s a growing industry around helping the homeless, and that, in part, explains the rising costs. Many of our local advocates seem to end up as employees, then as managers, then they end up running a business bidding for the contract to run local shelters.
Lots of money gets spent, most of it not going to the homeless. It’s going to buy expensive supports for the homeless, buying them from people who are making a pretty good living in this business. Even the guys who are executive directors of “not for profits” seem to do all right, financially!
I am compiling a list of the costs for housing the homeless. It is important to realize that the Sudbury's By–Name List shows that 50% of the homeless have physcial and mental health issues plus they are addicted to alcohol or drugs.
The cost of a homeless person sleeping on the streets/tents is $50,000 a year. (Food, clothing, footwear, emergency blankets, tents, sleeping bags, medical care, ambulance and hospital visits, bus tickets, taxi chits, the warming and cooling centres, and all the outreach workers, social workers, police services, bylaw officers, security, drug addiction supplies, welfare, the works.) Sudbury has 700 programs and about 120 agencies helping the homeless.
Then if you talk tiny homes, transistional or supportive housing, the costs doubles or tribles. The costs are for life. There is no requirement for any homeless to give up drugs. They have to voluntarily request it when they are ready. The social workers are happy to wait.
There are no plans, serious or otherwise, to stop the supply of new addicts, especially from the middle school, high school and college kids. If your city is known to have good supports for the homeless, the smaller communities send you theirs. The homeless get free one-way bus tickets. In Ontario we call it the Ontario Northland therapy. (the provincial bus line.)
Your right about the growth in non-profit NGOs.
One of our mayoralty candidates has suggested that Halifax is now a magnet community for the homeless, given the supportive milieu. Other bleeding heart candidates disagree, but pretty well every story you read about a homeless guy says they came here from somewhere, thinking things would work out….
The 700 programs and 120 agencies, expending $50k per person per year just to support life on the street, kind of proves my point. Far too many helpers, all earning a living by helping, and yet there’s a steady supply of people who need help and feel they aren’t getting enough. Obviously, the money isn’t helping the people who need it.
If you can handle subtitles and very poor English spoken by one of the main actress's you may enjoy "Shinjuko Field Hospital". This new Japanese 11 episode TV comedy-drama on Netflex shows the life of the prostitutes, homeless, runaway girls and foreigners in the red-light district of Tokyo. The distrust of doctors and society by these people are made clear.
It is interesting to see how another society deals with these problems.
Back in Canada, what I am concerned about is that we are creating a whole new class of people who will be wards of the state for the rest of their lives. The welfare state will never satisfy the never ending needs/desires of everyone.
I agree.
We had a social safety net, which was there to catch you when you fell and to support you for as long as needed, without being overly generous. As a doctor, I knew plenty of patients who relied on it. For a while, my office was right next door to the social assistance office. It wasn’t generous, in fact it was bordering on cruel at times, but like I said it wasn’t there to support you forever, just bridge the gaps.
Now we seem to be heading for some sort of guaranteed lifestyle, with housing, food, money, drugs, and support workers of every kind. We even have a van driving around delivering healthcare to the homeless, while 20% of the employed people can’t find a family doctor. When you add it up, the monetary value of their support is greater than the median income of the hard-working, tax-paying citizens, some of whom are proudly looking after themselves on pretty meagre incomes.
There’s no sense that any of this homeless support is to bridge the gaps. There’s no gratitude. There’s little to no sense that the recipients are supposed to be getting their affairs in order and ultimately supporting themselves. It’s like perpetual childhood, with the state taking the place of the parents. The “children” can act out, be irresponsible, do whatever, and they expect unconditional love and nurturing. Add to that the fact that all those overdoses are causing cumulative brain damage and yes, we are creating a class of people who will be dependant for life.