[anamax]

> An efficiency apartment in Denver averages $376 a month, or just over forty-five hundred a year, which means that you can house and care for a chronically homeless person for at most fifteen thousand dollars, or about a third of what he or she would cost on the street.

That assumes renters who don't try to destroy the place. However, some renters are considerably more destructive than others.

However, the big problem is that it assumes that homelessness is solely due to a lack of resources to obtain a home. If that were true, SF would have far fewer homeless and the shelters would be full.

Yet, many of SF's shelter beds are empty and folks who could be in the are on the street. Yes, they know about the beds - they prefer the street.

Are you really sure that they'd take an efficiency apartment? Are you sure that they wouldn't try to destroy it?

Someone pitching that as a solution should not only be aware of the possibilities but have reasons better than "an apartment is better than the street" because that's clearly not true for a large fraction of the relevant population.

[jbz]

Did you read the article in full? I know its a rude question to ask but it really seems like you didnt because youre falling prey to exactly the type of thinking it highlights as the problem. The solution doesnt "feel" right, and we humans are without peer in justifying our discomfort avoidance in cloaks of righteousness, truth, etc. That the correct solution just happens to coincide with the solution that avoids self-doubting discomfort is serendipity. Even this serendipity is so rarely noticed, let alone questioned, doesn't this seem odd?

Take for instance healthcare, its spiraling costs. A doctor ordering what some would call excessive tests for a patient is doing the right thing. It is better to be safe than sorry after all. The trial lawyers, insurance companies, government handouts and so on are the reason its skyrocketing.

What about the human fault of judging ones own immoral actions and impropriety on a relative scale of those around us? What about compounding that by generally giving everyone an "i am a good person" foundational belief. To examine it with no intention of challenging it will cause most people to feel a tangible unease because they're treading on some dangerous ground, a sense of fear that its best not to mess around in this place in case you break something accidentally. Each human with an intact "i am good" core applies goodness to all their actions by default, meaning if a person is not truly judging their motives or reasoning they are deemed to be "good" actions with pure motives because they are good and nothing specifically shows they're doing "bad" right that moment.

When the city with one of the fastest rising health costs in the US was examined it was found that the rising costs had a partner along for the trip, medical procedures and tests were rising as well. The doctors were doing nothing illegal, and obviously none of them thought they were doing anything wrong. So why the rise? It was just doctors increasingly exploring that grey area that doesn't challenge your central belief of your own goodness. Patient complains of headaches, and worries about something they read online about brain tumors, the doctor thinks its unlikely but its better safe than sorry, and imagine if he does have a brain tumor not only would i have missed it i might be sued too. Repeat this process over and over and goalposts move, more behavior is acceptable such as "ok so maybe she didnt need hip replacement surgery right now, but she definitely would have needed it soon, and im a far cry from Doctor EvilCompetitor, i cant believe he talked that poor shmuck into allowing brain surgery!".

Consider the complicated medical conditions that homeless contract on the streets with illness on top of illness requiring weeklong ICU visits, it becomes drastically reduced if a person is living in a home. A single avoided hospital visit of that kind alone can justify the free apartment for year or two or three.

Im trying to find that article again, will post link when i find it.

[anamax]

> Did you read the article in full?

My point is that the article doesn't contain all relevant data.

> A doctor ordering what some would call excessive tests for a patient is doing the right thing.

May be doing the right thing. Some people think that my life is worth $X. Who's to say that they're correct?

> Consider the complicated medical conditions that homeless contract on the streets with illness on top of illness requiring weeklong ICU visits, it becomes drastically reduced if a person is living in a home.

Assumes behavior not in evidence. Homeless in SF have "not street" options that they refuse. What makes you think that they'll take different options AND that their risks will chance correspondingly.

I note that lots of folks with homes manage to get "street illnesses" so it's not true that homes solve disease. There's a decent correlation for current "homed" populations, but that doesn't tell us what would happen if we "homed" other populations.

[andrewvc]

I think part of the point was that an apartment creates a sense of responsibility and pride in ownership a shelter bed does not.

I don't think anyone's saying this is the one true solution, but it makes sense, and perhaps should be given more of a shot than it has been to date.

[barrkel]

Have you considered the possibility that many homeless people are specifically uninterested in the responsibility of an apartment? We're not talking about children or immature teenagers here. IMO the bigger risk with homeless people is treating them with condescension, thinking you know best what they should do. Maybe you don't.

[andrewvc]

Yes, I have, which is why I said it wasn't a magic bullet, but something that should be given more of a shot. If it helps 10% of homeless get off the street, that could be a huge victory in and of itself.

BTW, for someone so attuned to the sensitivity of the homeless to condescension, you seem to have no problem saturating your own speech with it.

[anamax]

> If it helps 10% of homeless get off the street, that could be a huge victory in and of itself.

Or, it could be a huge disaster. It depends on the costs.

> Yes, I have, which is why I said it wasn't a magic bullet, but something that should be given more of a shot.

Feel free. As the article points out, the experiment doesn't cost much, so you can do it and tell us how it went. It's <$400/month and it's tax deductible.

What? You're not willing to spend your money to prove your arguments? Then why should I spend mine? (And yes, I pay a lot more than $400/month in taxes.)

[jleader]

Wait, you're taking the example of SF, where you say many homeless people prefer the streets to a shelter, and extrapolating that to conclude that "a large fraction of the relevant population" would prefer the streets to an apartment?

[spoiledtechie]

It is a pitch and would only be an experiment, but what if it works on a small portion of the population of homeless. Then I think its worth it especially to those hardcore offenders.

[barrkel]

Being homeless is offensive?