What are we going to do about the homeless?

That's why a said the ACLU is't going to like my idea, but I think they would take things to far on an issue where I think public health overrides individual liberty. There is no inherent right that a mentally ill person as the right to endanger the health of others.

 

Discounted housing means you agree to live with a random roommate or family depending on the size of the house.
The unit gets government subsidies in the form of ebt, and Medicaid. The privlage to remain unemployed depends on several factors including daycare requirements, but each paycheck would be garnished by 30% while living in the unit as a non owner.
The owner who agrees to be placed with a family, or rent to randomly places families receives subsidies from HUD funds.

Screening process would be tiered. The lower the tier the more money HUD pay to the owners. Lowest tier usually mean crazy felons with poor credit who trash units.

Builders could section off certain parts of their plans and designate investment property as shared housing.

 

Is it possible that the majority that are addicts and alcoholics got that way as a form of escapism from their predicaments? They are in hell, so why not make themselves comfortable? If they are mentally ill, they have no idea, so the finger can be pointed at the system for leaving those in that state to roam free.
To fix any problem it must first be understood what it is, which has been established and then look for the cause. As you don't want to fix something only to have it reoccur. So prevention is the best medicine via education. For those mentally ill, facilities should be arranged for them to be housed in.

 

I think 'education' is simplistic, the problem is vastly deeper, incorrigible in many ways, complicated than that. We are dealing with a sea of lost souls. It's not a black and white, do this and it will be fixed, problem, that is simplistic.

 

For those already in the sea of the lost, yes it would be very difficult. But to no longer have the problem educate people better so they don't venture off into that sea of lost souls.

 

Our Govts have a vested interest in pricing the working and middle classes out of property. Given that, there's no possibility housing will ever become less expensive. The prices will keep increasing for as long as it takes to transfer the majority of residential property into corporate hands.

 

Is this actually a proposed policy? Or are you brainstorming your own ideas?

Also, you didn't answer any of my questions.

 

Which question doesn't it answer, were you looking for dollar amounts?
If so you would need to pick an area.

 

You responded to a post which was all questions. Go back and check.

 

I see you've been paying attention to the obvious goals. Call me an optimist (or maybe a fantasizer...) but I like to think we still have a chance at reversing Feudalism 2.0 peacefully before we get to the bloodshed such a situation would lead too. Maybe not much of a chance tho...

 

It answers them all..almost in order too.

 

Ok, start with not being a putin apologist...maybe they will stand a chance.

 

Maybe if you pulled your own head in, that'd be a great start.

 

Feudalism 2.0. That's a good name for it!

I'm an optimist also, but I don't see the answer in the hands of the very people driving the thing. I suspect the only rebellion open to us is to refuse to sell them our homes, and/or refuse to rent homes from them. Empower the working and middle classes not already in property, to secure their own patch. The more individuals who own a little piece, the less able they are to buy up entire districts, and the less able they are to force us all into rent-slavery.

 

You didn't say whether it would be entire neighbourhoods, or just some of the buildings in a given neighbourhood. You didn't say how people qualify beyond income (which is no measure of need). You didn't say what makes a given person entitled, while someone on the same income who accepts they must house themselves, misses out.

 

1. It would be up to the owners,
2. Anyone who qualifies for HUD,
3. as for the entitled, that's up for debate based on the tier factor.

The lower the tier, the more the owner who leases to the government gets subsidized.

Lowest tier would be individuals who trash units, crazy, etc. Most likely these would be corporate institutions that apply for those subsidies to house those induviduals. It would be too much hassle for small investors, or people looking for help to keep their house.

Highest tier would be good credit individuals with a job who just can't afford high rent.

All that was in the post you quoted.
Edit: I apologize if i did not write that to be obvious.

 

Let's remember that homeless does not mean unemployed.

Also, there are reasons that people don't want to move out of encampments. For example, they depend on each other for mutual support that they can't afford to lose. You can give a free apartment and still not attract many who live in encampments.

As for those with mental deficits, an apartment isn't necessarily a viable solution.

In other words, we're not going to find a "one size fits all" solution.

 

Oh I know, this is a personal size fits personal solution.

The higher tiers are people that are employed, with credit taken into account.
Some times credits the only issue. Other times it's lack of organizational skills, mental illness, children, communication and social issues, etc.

 

1) That wasn't what I was asking. I'm asking if this is some Govt initiative to make entire neighbourhoods subsidised housing. That would be a first in a democracy - more usually seen in totalitarian regimes (communist, fascist, whatever).

2) What qualifies them beyond income? Where is the justice and equality, when others on the same income must live wherever they can afford?

3) Income is no measure - after all, a rich man could gamble all his money away and qualify for cheap housing, while his hard working and honourable neighbour doesn't.

4) This comes back to justice and equality. Why should someone who simply wants (and it's always a want, in a democracy) to live in an expensive city, be entitled to cheap rent? The vast majority of us live where we can afford.

 

Unfortunately the current model is lazily predicated upon income. That's why it's so terrible.

If individuals were obliged to meet a criteria similar to that of mortgage applicants, then it would be personal size fitting personal solution. For example, to qualify for subsidised housing in a location allocated (it should never be a location of choice, that's part of the injustice of the current model), the applicant would need to have a history of stability, frugality, nil addictions or criminal records, and a pattern of consistent saving - no matter the amount. It should not depend upon income at all. Some welfare recipients might not qualify (in fact many wouldn't), while some on a decent working class income would.

 

When I say up to the owners...If an owner owns an entire neighborhood, qualifies for leasing to HUD. Then yes an entire neighborhood could technically end up being subsidized...it would not be profitable to aim for that goal, as it's meant more as assistance to keep what you have.

 

So the injustice remains. One tenant pays x amount of dollars just 'cause, and his next door neighbour (on the same income) pays double that.

 

It would be quicker and more humane to just line them up in a row and execute them.

 

Are there successful countries or large cities where the problem is not a problem?
What has worked in the past?

 

Injustice?