Libs want a "homeless problem" they can point at to beg for federal funding.

Artificially inflated housing costs with substandard wages are only part of the problem. It was decided back in the 1980s to cut funding to mental health programs that caused a huge upsurge in homelessness. Those same cuts have gone across the board, which is why today's homeless community grows due to veterans with PTSD. What you're proposing is to remove all the politicians that fail to support the austerity programs that were put into place 40 years ago. Of course, then there would be the funding of getting these homeless people the mental health care, and housing, that they need. That would cause taxes to go up. Glad you're okay with paying more taxes.

You sure read a lot into what I am supposedly "proposing". And the fact is that, depending on which studies you look at, in the US there are anywhere from 7 to 24 vacant homes /per homeless person/. Two states (I can't remember which ones offhand, I think Idaho might have been one) decided to just start giving some of those empty homes (foreclosed homes and such) to homeless people, to give them a stepping stone. What they found was that doing so ultimately cost the taxpayer far less than all the programs established to provide day-to-day assistance for those homeless people; shelters and food kitchens and such.

That I could live with. But we're talking about a small number of states. When the real estate bubble burst in '08, a lot of homes were foreclosed and the banks did little but to leave them sit empty. Just like in the great depression, houses fell into disrepair, becoming eyesores for the neighborhood. I'd be interested in those studies: can you point me in the right direction? We have food banks around here, as well as soup kitchens, but housing? We have the mission, but getting into government housing can be a years long process.

It comes down to what numbers the studies use to count homelessness. In some, they count the number of homeless people per night who stay in shelters (~600,000), in others they estimate the overall number of homeless people, including those who don't go to shelters. (~3.5 million, per the Urban Institute).

Now it's estimated that there are approximately 18.9 million vacant homes in America, so depending on which number of homeless you use there are either around 6 or 31 vacant homes per homeless person. (I was going by info from a few years ago when I first heard about it).

I will admit that I never looked at any actual studies myself, but I didn't look at one single headline and take it on faith, I googled and came up with numerous articles citing different numbers, but all pointing to the fact that there are numerous vacant homes per homeless person.

Here's one google search you can look at to point you in the right direction:
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-1&q=there+are+18.6+million+vacant+homes+in+america+there+are+3.1+million+homeless+people&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq9trexY_cAhWj2YMKHe6PD3sQ1QIIwwEoAw&biw=1680&bih=864

Thanks for the effort. What I was looking for was the states that had transferred the empty houses over to the homeless. I know you're not BSing, because I just now remembered something one city did in, IIRC, California, and foreclosed houses. I want to get the numbers ready because I've already seen two local factories in the moving out of the area mode. about 170 workers will be idled. Right now, those workers shouldn't have a problem with finding new jobs, but probably not in the range they were making. I see it as another recession coming up, and when those hit, this area is one of the hardest because we deal in leisure products. It's been like that since I was a teen. I remember, we'd just moved back to Ohio about a year earlier and I saw on 60 Minutes that the RV industry in this area was in the tank. It had rebounded a couple years later, but it was feast or famine here. One reason why we have the Mission, food banks, and soup kitchens.(multiple on those last two items, although some say that business has been down due to lack of clients. They say that's a good thing because their regulars, for the most part, are those of us that slip through the cracks. Me, I'm close to poverty level, and in most states, I'd qualify for food stamps as a single person. I was on them when I was still with my wife, but, with just my Social Security for two people, we got $16 a month. It helped a little, but...)

The reason why I'm looking at stats on putting the homeless into the empty homes is simple: the next recession is coming, I want the city to be prepared. As it is, most banks will raze the houses and donate the property to the city. Major loss of tax revenue. Most cities will turn that property over to groups like Habitat for Humanity, but HfH isn't involved with the homeless. With most of the materials donated, you can imagine some of the things you'll find there. A green toilet with a purple sink with a white tub in one bathroom, and, if there's a second bath, just as color coordinated. But it's the tenant's home they pay for.

To get back on track, while reading some of those articles, I did a bit of digging and found that article I mentioned at the top of this reply. From the American Bar Association: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/california_city_seeks_eminent_domain_to_bail_out_foreclosures/
(part 1 of 2)

One other thing, California is not a great state when it comes to /actually/ doing something about the homeless. It's one of those liberal states that /wants/ a homeless problem they can point to, to get more federal funding.

That's obviously my anti-SJW bias talking, but they don't make a great case for themselves. In LA, for example, there was a guy using a kickstarter project to build small little "box homes" for homeless people. They were tiny little cubes made of wood, for a person to sleep in and get a good night's rest. They included a single electrical outlet in case power was available, so people could take care of some personal grooming or plug in their phones, first steps to making themselves feel a bit better, and look more presentable, for the purpose of job searching.

LA didn't like these box homes, called them a hazard and untidy looking (as opposed to the tents and personal clutter littering the sidewalks, with homeless people living in them... assuming they had any tent at all.)

The city seized most of those box homes and had them destroyed. This was done by the liberal governing body of LA, because homeless people living out of tents or on benches looks better when they point to it and say "This is the homeless problem we're trying to combat! Stop supporting Trump!"

I don't think the reasoning is that they "want" a homeless problem, It's that they take an "all or nothing" approach to solving problems, which leaves many with nothing. In many liberal areas, there are occupancy limits (city imposed, not landlord) that prevent people from living within thier means. When I look for apartments for my family, it has to be a two bedroom, even though we could live comfortably in a one bedroom (we've done it). That extra bedroom costs about 200 per month. That's not exactly chump change.

same effect, different perspective. I live in the RV capital of the world. while there's been an occasional democrat for governor or congress, it's pretty much a red state. In the last century, FDR got the electoral votes two out of four times, LBJ got it once and Obama got it once. Every other time, a republican walked away with the votes. Pretty much a red state. Conservative, religious right. Hard working people for the most part. Wages to housing costs, though,are out of balance for not only unskilled labor, but semi-skilled labor. One reason why, here in the RV capital of the world, we have a homeless problem is that the powers that be do not allow mobile homes on private property unless the property is zoned a mobile home park. Vacant lots are okay, boarded up houses are fine, but you can't put a mobile home on private property. Even a double wide that looks pretty much like a standard ranch style home are verboten. Inside the city, one landlord, who had a rental burn to the ground, got in trouble for putting a Modular home on his property. Using the same logic that the city government uses today, most of the homes built within the city would never have been built because they were Sears & Robuck Prefab houses. (mostly camelback shotgun houses) the local slumlords love those places a lot. Most are in a state of disrepair, nowhere near up to code. In an area where you can buy a decent Mobile home for a couple grand (sometimes, it's a Haul away free type) but the city doesn't want it. One council member says it's because the city doesn't receive any property tax on them other than for the land. It's more about they own property in the Older, dilapidated neighborhoods and don't want affordable house brought in enmasse. The city would like to tear down the house where I live: they've already torn down two neighboring houses the first year I lived here, and I suspect more will fall after the recent flooding.

In the long run, it's all about the Benjamins, regardless of being on the right or the left. Whoever profits the most will fight the progress.

I forgot to mention that in digging, I found one of the states that was giving homes to the homeless, it was Utah. Though I'm not sure if I confused that one with Idaho, or if it was the other state I'd heard about.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utahs-strategy-homeless-give-them-homes-n352966

From that article:
"The Homeless Task Force reported it costs Utah $19,208 on average per year to care for a chronically homeless person, including related health and jail costs. Pendleton found that to house and provide a case worker for the same person costs the state about $7,800."

Thanks again. Funny, a foreclosure costs the city about the same as taking care of a homeless person. but saves more the 10K by getting people off of the streets (actually, due to the rent charged and the costs associated with foreclosed properties, you're looking at a savings of nearly $30K per person/family.

Now for the fun part: putting together a plan so it's ready.

No problem, glad I could be of assistance :)

In many cases, the cost will mainly come from inspections, to make sure those homes are "adequate". To many liberals it would be "better" to have someone on the street than in a house that doesn't meet some arbitrary standards.

When I was in college, I worked for a company that was contracted to check the assessors information against the actual housing. I saw a lot of major violations in houses in the two cities in the county. Not so much in the smaller towns or out in the rural area. I've seen radiator hoses for sink drain pipes, houses that had infestations of rats, mice, roaches, and raccoons. (one house had raccoons chewing up the electrical wires) open wells (these were old homes, but the wells just had loose covers on them) Plaster falling from the ceilings. Holes in the walls. I won't even get started on the peeling lead paint.

Some houses should be condemned. What we have, now, though, is slumlords that don't care. When I was in court for a recent parking ticket, one such slumlord was fighting a ticket that gave him 30 days to paint the door on his storage garage. No biggie. A $12 can of paint would easily take care of it. Instead, he chose to fight it. Spent more time waiting for his case to be called, that day than it would have taken to paint the door. This was about a year after he was first cited. He still hadn't done it. Cost him $1000 plus court costs. Mind you, this isn't a liberal community.

Still, a lot of local slum lords don't even keep the minimum standards, as I've seen. Leak roofs, exposed electrical outlets, and other infractions are pretty bad. If they took care of their property, then it wouldn't be a problem.

They're using eminent domain to keep the foreclosures at bay, basically refinancing the homes. It costs local government about $19K per foreclosed house. Social services that have to pick up the slack and help the newly displaced home owners, then they lose tax money because the banks raze first then donate land to government and non-profits. Razed property generates very little in taxes. Once the city owns the property, it has to pay workers to cut the grass, in snow country, snow removal on the sidewalks, as well as liability insurance. For what? A vacant lot. Getting eminent domain wouldn't be difficult: Refuse the property demolition permit, and something has to be done. The banks don't want to pay taxes or upkeep on foreclosed houses. I know, it sounds like the old "$1 houses" that used to be advertised in local papers. There's a germ of an idea here, now I have to talk with a friend of mine that helped people get into housing during the recession. Then see what it would take to get that rolling here.

Thanks for your input. You were helpful.

I would argue that if you do this, it only creates a space for homeless drug addicts to have a place to shoot up out of the weather. I'm not suggesting that all homeless people are drug addicts, but a good majority of them are, whether it be from early addiction or from mental problems. Giving someone a house doesn't give that person incentive to better themselves. Again, I'm not saying everyone who gets a free house would take advantage of it by doing nothing, but a good majority would.

It's like giving everyone a participation trophy for just showing up.Why work hard at something if you're just going to get the same thing for winning as the kid who came in last?

If you're going to give someone a free house, give it to them for a limited time. Maybe a year or so. If the person doesn't work at getting a job, getting cleaned up, etc, then take the house away.

I believe that's the whole point of the plan. They get a social worker and everything. It's not just "here's a house, now you're on your own."

That is an awesome idea...and many homeless who are clean and sober wantan opportunity to have a home.
But fact is many more don’t want to be clean and sober and are content living on the street.
Many are Vets with ptsd who can’t stomach a roof over their head. Others a deadbeats running from their adult ing responsibilities, trying to fly under the radar.
Until we tackle the mental health issues first and ongoing after they move in, , then you won’t have success.

Our Vets NEED mental health so bad!!
I split my time between Las Vegas and Salt Lake City... both have terrible homeless Vet problems...and homeless problems in general.
Many of these guys, and some women, live from drink to drink, or high to high ( although some do downers)
The government uses them then drops them like dead weight.
What we need to do is get them rehab, counseling whatever they need to function in society and be a productive member.
That is a start.

There are reasons most Americans don’t understand WHY there are homeless.
It is multifaceted.

Some owe ex’s spousal/ child support and don’t want to pay, or can’t pay cause they have an addiction.
Some have a criminal record and can’t get a job or a driver license cause too many DUIs.
Majority have mental illness, including laziness and entitlement attitudes.
Most Vets have PTSD, paranoia of some sort, and schizophrenia.
Most have an addiction that needs to be fed... cigarettes, alcohol, drugs.

If someone is clean and sober, and wants a place to sleep, there are places... but they are limited and have overcrowding and problems within their walls too.

Then their are the homeless kids... runaways and abandoned AMERICAN kids, some little, real little, and they slip through the cracks of society and social services.
Many are preyed upon by sexual predators and I have seen a young boy who was “used up” sexually by older men for months and dumped to die when his internal parts wore out from being so damaged!
Had he lived, I am sure he would have needed severe counseling and multiple survives for the rest of his life... this happens daily and no one talks about this... unless they are kidnapped from someplace other than America. But this boy was born in California and was alatchkey kid who was lured online, seeking someone to talk to him while his mom worked 2 jobs, and his dad skipped town years before and never paid a dime of child support.
There needs to be a way for working moms, dads to get food stamps so at least that could alleviate so stress and help them stay home with kids.
Also have community centers and recreational programs that are free or low cost for families to go to and latchkey kids to get help with homework, learn a new hobby, skill, sport, or service projects( kids like to help and it de
This will empower our next generation to be more than vouch potatoes playing video games literally from the time they get home from school til the time they go to bed

If you're looking for an argument from me, all you'll get is my agreement with everything you've said.

The military leadership, which include Congress and the Executive office that guide their policies, must step up to meet the challenge of our vets. Years can be spent training fresh faced Johnny, turning him into a killing machine. Not a single cent is spent to deprogram him when he rejoins civilian life. They've just spent months, or years, on edge, knowing they are a target, so when they return, the foundation for the PTSD. One lady saw it in her son when he returned home from Iraq. They were at McDonald's but he was looking for snipers. She knew he was acting strange, but nobody else did. Imagine if a metal tray had been dropped in the kitchen: that would have been enough to trigger him, and, while he did not have a firearm, he would have been able to do a lot of damage. Many veterans feel this way, and are actually more comfortable on the battlefield than a peaceful field of daisies.

A few cities have gone proactive on how to handle their homeless vets: housing, training, and counseling: a package deal. But more is needed.

To be honest, one main reason why the homeless don't get as much help as they could, or should, is because most of them are male, and despite the feminist narrative, society doesn't give a shit about men, as evidenced by this picture from a newspaper article.

The fact is a large number of homeless men are homeless /because/ of women, and the systems set up to support them at men's expense.

I wouldn’t put it that way:::: more like most chronically homeless people are men:
Women make up about 25-30% of chronic homeless::: but women are usually homeless for different reasons than men.
Usually because of change in marital status or abuse.
There are quite a few programs for women experience in DV::: and the hope is that they go from a DV Shelter into a variety of housing programs available through federal, local and private funding.
This includes men who experience DV too...
but our Vets don’t have the same regard from the public,,, perhaps left over feelings from vietname. Idk,,,,, what I do know is I have a ton of ideas to help alleviate the homeless problem and get people who want REAL help the help they need to become self sufficient and regain dignity

It's fine to watch people starve to death, as long as you're not racist!

... or a biggot. Lol.

Everyone is a bigot to some degree.

California loves to make Americans homeless. Once they lose their homes they give them to illegals.

Erm, no. Gentrification displaces the poor who had remained in Cali neighborhoods that were in decline for decades with recently arrived yuppies from elsewhere hired to work burgeoning tech & social media company jobs that locals just never seem to qualify for no matter what the education and credentials.

Same happening in NYC. Brooklyn and Harlem are being turned into souless trust fund hipster havens while Allentown PA gets a rebirth from South Bronx PRs shoved out of slums that suddenly are witnessing vast improvement in city maintainance and services.

Don't know what the going rate is now, but in Bronx ghettos, there are apartments that illegally rent 8 hr shifts on cots to illegals for $35 per. Not a one is in a gentrified area, not a cent comes from gov't. If anything, the city shuts those down when they find out.
Some illegals even sleep in the basement of restaurants they work at, or are homeless.

Those tents in Cali are probably are probably more expensive than a medium size house in Tenesse. ROFL. And then Californians want to bring in more illegals! HAH.

We NEED to take care of AMERICANS FIRST!!!!
Once we make America stronger and better, no child goes to bed hungry, no vet sleeps on the street and gets the medical and mental help they need, parents who struggle get help they need so they don’t have to work 3 jobs and can actually enjoy their kids, instead of denying them food stamps and giving it to illegals with anchor babies, who do nothing all day except watch tv and do drugs.
We need to clean up the prison system and deport any illegals.
If they sneak back in again and are caught committing a felony, it is a capital offense with capital punishment.
Ha Rae... but after the first few executions...the illegal criminals will stop trying to rape, rob and murder Americans on American soil!

I know I sound harsh.... but they are here ILLEGALLY, doing violent things!!

No housing is affordable if you’re not willing to work your tail off. Also, whose to say that relocating is off the table. The homeless people I see in Seattle are not homeless because of housing costs. They are homeless because anything would be better than having their existence dependent on being accountable to stay off drugs, get up early, work hard all day and repeat the cycle over and over again. At least refugees come here from places where real poverty and hardship exist and when they see the opportunities here, capitalize on them by working their tails off and making whatever sacrifices are required to achieve a better life.

I was with you for the first portion of your comment, then you lost me on the second portion.

I've seen the homeless in Seattle and Portland (Oregon) and agree that many of them are lazy. They beg on the streets and if you don't give them anything, they follow you and yell at you for being an azzhole. They're what I call the "fake homeless." They're only homeless because they decided to get into drugs or they are just lazy 20-somethings who either got kicked out of their parent's home or they ran away to pursue their "arts degree" that eventually gets them nowhere. Or they just know that begging for money on the streets gets them way more drug money than if they got a job.

The second part though is wrong...to some extent. Many refugees will come here with good intentions, but then our government will give them free stuff and "free" money, then they do nothing but take up space and deplete the tax payer's money. And giving away free anything isn't helping them accomplish anything.

We need to start helping our homeless veterans first. Then we need to help the homeless people who truly want or need the help. The drug addicts and the lazy aren't going to want help, so don't deserve the help. You can only try so many times before you just need to give up on someone who refuses to be helped.