I Think Electric Vans Are The Most Cost Effective Way Of Housing The Homeless

[BoomerD]

Why should working people have to pay to house people who don't want to work? (or can't get jobs because of drug/alcohol addiction)
A "hand up" is fine...a "hand out" generally only leads to more drugs/alcohol problems.

 

[sandorski]

Why should working people have to pay to house people who don't want to work? (or can't get jobs because of drug/alcohol addiction)
A "hand up" is fine...a "hand out" generally only leads to more drugs/alcohol problems.

What is the difference between Up and Out?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Why should working people have to pay to house people who don't want to work? (or can't get jobs because of drug/alcohol addiction)
A "hand up" is fine...a "hand out" generally only leads to more drugs/alcohol problems.

Do you have any...hard data to support that?

 

[BoomerD]

Do you have any...hard data to support that?

HARD date? Not really...but come on...we've all seen these signs:

Doesn't matter what town or city I've been in...seems like there's one on almost every corner.

What is the difference between Up and Out?

A hand up helps someone regain their feet. (so to speak) Maybe to get them going in life again. A hand out might feed them for a minute...but does nothing to get them back on track.

I've seen it explained like this:

A hand up is what you give to someone who is below you. Let's say someone has fallen and you extend you hand to help them get up to their feet again. In this case, it would mean to help someone reach a higher level than they are on now.

A handout (written here as "hand out" to match with the two words of "hand up") is what you give someone in need, e.g. a free meal. But that only helps them for the moment; it doesn't improve their self-esteem or their confidence and doesn't give them any tools with which to start feeding themselves.

 

[sandorski]

HARD date? Not really...but come on...we've all seen these signs:

Doesn't matter what town or city I've been in...seems like there's one on almost every corner.


A hand up helps someone regain their feet. (so to speak) Maybe to get them going in life again. A hand out might feed them for a minute...but does nothing to get them back on track.

I've seen it explained like this:

That's not really an answer. How are they different in what Actions are used?

 

[cytg111]

HARD date? Not really...but come on...we've all seen these signs:

Doesn't matter what town or city I've been in...seems like there's one on almost every corner.


A hand up helps someone regain their feet. (so to speak) Maybe to get them going in life again. A hand out might feed them for a minute...but does nothing to get them back on track.

I've seen it explained like this:

Not in Scandinavia. Wonder why?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Not in Scandinavia. Wonder why?

contrary to popular belief, scandinavia is not a utopia. there are still poor people. racism exists (my italian coworker, despite being fluent in swedish and being a swedish citizen, gets seen as 'not swedish enough'). the grocery store i went to had people begging outside for help.

BUT in general the scandinavian countries are more equal than we are in the US, yes.

 

[Fenixgoon]

HARD date? Not really...but come on...we've all seen these signs:

Doesn't matter what town or city I've been in...seems like there's one on almost every corner.


A hand up helps someone regain their feet. (so to speak) Maybe to get them going in life again. A hand out might feed them for a minute...but does nothing to get them back on track.

I've seen it explained like this:

so "hand ups" are structural and driven by systems or organizations (charities, non-profits, governments, or a combination), while "hand outs" are more likely to come from individuals. is that a fair assessment?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Why should working people have to pay to house people who don't want to work? (or can't get jobs because of drug/alcohol addiction)
A "hand up" is fine...a "hand out" generally only leads to more drugs/alcohol problems.

The "don't want to work" thing doesn't apply to most homeless people - about half of them have jobs, and many more probably would if they could.

But you do it because it's actually cheaper. It's the fiscally responsible, fiscally conservative thing to do. You can still be against it, I guess, but you'll need to come up with a reason other than "my tax dollars."

It doesn't really matter whether the people in question use drugs or not - only about a third of homeless people do. If it's really some kind of moral concern, then having an address and telephone is a great first step towards getting them enrolled in mandatory addiction counseling. (Which, again, saves public money in the long run.)

But frankly, if a guy living in public housing who works a minimum wage job wants to spend his nearly-insignificant disposable income on some recreational drugs, I have a real hard time getting pissed off about that. Plenty of wealthy people do a lot worse, a lot more frequently, and it's working peoples' money lining their pockets too, directly or indirectly. But instead we crack jokes about wall street traders doing cocaine off of hookers' buttholes and throw tax subsidies at companies whose CEOs smoke weed in public.

If somebody really doesn't want any of that kind of help, I feel no particular obligation to help them with anything else - even in the shitty ways we do now. But we don't even offer the kind of support that we know works best and saves the most money. The current system is just set up to punish people for being poor, and at that, it only does so at significant public expense.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Something needs to be done about the cost of housing. Need to get rid of all the red tape like permits etc or at least tone it down. Also remove sales tax on building materials or anything related to housing. That's 13% off the cost of the house, right there. The permit is usually a big percent too, get rid of that too. Suddently a 400k house is now like 300k. Still expensive but it's a start. These are things don't even require anyone to do any physical work, it's just policy. Change it. Lot of these extra artificial costs are what inflates the cost so much, and makes it not worth building smaller houses, or in some cases smaller houses are not even allowed as there is often a minimum size rule. Change that.

Should be able to buy a small lot for cheap like 25k or so, put a camper or tiny house on it, or even nothing and start building yourself, and do what you want with it without anyone bothering you.

I get a need for rules and permits and codes etc, but it's gotten so out of control now days and that it creates a huge barrier of entry to home ownership. The system needs to be more DIY friendly so that people can buy a lot and build their own small house or live in a temporary camper or w/e without so much red tape. Just make it so that if you decide to sell you need to bring everything up to code. And that's typically how it is anyway, that's what the home inspection is for.

Also need to do everything possible to stop investors. People/companies who just buy houses to use as an investment instrument and who manipulate the market to drive prices up. That should be illegal. I'm not really sure what is the best way to enforce that though without penalizing legit homeowners. Trudeau wants to implement an equity tax but that's just going to screw over everyone not just investors.

 

[Torn Mind]

Something needs to be done about the cost of housing. Need to get rid of all the red tape like permits etc or at least tone it down. Also remove sales tax on building materials or anything related to housing. That's 13% off the cost of the house, right there. The permit is usually a big percent too, get rid of that too. Suddently a 400k house is now like 300k. Still expensive but it's a start. These are things don't even require anyone to do any physical work, it's just policy. Change it. Lot of these extra artificial costs are what inflates the cost so much, and makes it not worth building smaller houses, or in some cases smaller houses are not even allowed as there is often a minimum size rule. Change that.

Should be able to buy a small lot for cheap like 25k or so, put a camper or tiny house on it, or even nothing and start building yourself, and do what you want with it without anyone bothering you.

I get a need for rules and permits and codes etc, but it's gotten so out of control now days and that it creates a huge barrier of entry to home ownership. The system needs to be more DIY friendly so that people can buy a lot and build their own small house or live in a temporary camper or w/e without so much red tape. Just make it so that if you decide to sell you need to bring everything up to code. And that's typically how it is anyway, that's what the home inspection is for.

Also need to do everything possible to stop investors. People/companies who just buy houses to use as an investment instrument and who manipulate the market to drive prices up. That should be illegal. I'm not really sure what is the best way to enforce that though without penalizing legit homeowners. Trudeau wants to implement an equity tax but that's just going to screw over everyone not just investors.

All housing requires a certain degree of character amongst occupants. Housing is essentially a rent of property, answerable to the mortgage company and the government, and thus fiscal management is a skill that people either practice or they don't keep their housing. Those who don't would not be able to keep housing regardless of how many new houses, apartments, or whatever form is made.

Government quietly does not like leaving property "idle", and residential property is far more idle than commercial or industrial property.

A subset of homeless are malevolent system abusers who only know how to obtain perodic free occupancy before being kicked because they break shit in the houses so that they can the get free rent by claiming lack of habitability.

Permits are not going away for any place besdies the truly unwanted areas in Canada. One, government makes bank. Two, government avoids lawsuits. Three, it provides a little bit of accountability that some unscrupulous builder motivated by profit doesn't skimp on some basics like insulation, proper electrical. Don't get wrong, permit inspectors can be utter predators, but the they exist because unchecked forces would rather take extra money than voluntarily build up to some standards.

 

[cytg111]

contrary to popular belief, scandinavia is not a utopia. there are still poor people. racism exists (my italian coworker, despite being fluent in swedish and being a swedish citizen, gets seen as 'not swedish enough'). the grocery store i went to had people begging outside for help.

BUT in general the scandinavian countries are more equal than we are in the US, yes.

Scandinavian Approaches to Begging as a Policy Problem and the Double Insider/Outsider Status of Marginalized Intra-EU Migrants | Journal of Social Policy | Cambridge Core

Scandinavian Approaches to Begging as a Policy Problem and the Double Insider/Outsider Status of Marginalized Intra-EU Migrants - Volume 52 Issue 2

www.cambridge.org

To be fair, they're not usually of Scandinavian descent, point being if you are here legally you'd pretty much just have to present your ID and you will be able to get some kind of housing and enough money to eat and drink. Then there's the social programs to get you integrated into society again, job-training etc.

That was really what I was jabbing at, maybe you could alleviate some of the problem by investing in people as if they were a resource rather than a burden - also, that being said, we could do much more of that as well.

 

[cytg111]

All housing requires a certain degree of character amongst occupants. Housing is essentially a rent of property, answerable to the mortgage company and the government, and thus fiscal management is a skill that people either practice or they don't keep their housing. Those who don't would not be able to keep housing regardless of how many new houses, apartments, or whatever form is made.

Why though? It's pretty straight forward to deduct the rent pre payout.

 

[Fenixgoon]

That was really what I was jabbing at, maybe you could alleviate some of the problem by investing in people as if they were a resource rather than a burden - also, that being said, we could do much more of that as well.

I think that should be the approach to anti-poverty programs. That also means acknowledging that for people to succeed, they need some help to obtain and maintain the basics (food, shelter, stable employment).

 

[VirtualLarry]

It's time for UBI.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Something needs to be done about the cost of housing. Need to get rid of all the red tape like permits etc or at least tone it down. Also remove sales tax on building materials or anything related to housing. That's 13% off the cost of the house, right there. The permit is usually a big percent too, get rid of that too. Suddently a 400k house is now like 300k. Still expensive but it's a start. These are things don't even require anyone to do any physical work, it's just policy. Change it. Lot of these extra artificial costs are what inflates the cost so much, and makes it not worth building smaller houses, or in some cases smaller houses are not even allowed as there is often a minimum size rule. Change that.

Should be able to buy a small lot for cheap like 25k or so, put a camper or tiny house on it, or even nothing and start building yourself, and do what you want with it without anyone bothering you.

I get a need for rules and permits and codes etc, but it's gotten so out of control now days and that it creates a huge barrier of entry to home ownership. The system needs to be more DIY friendly so that people can buy a lot and build their own small house or live in a temporary camper or w/e without so much red tape. Just make it so that if you decide to sell you need to bring everything up to code. And that's typically how it is anyway, that's what the home inspection is for.

Also need to do everything possible to stop investors. People/companies who just buy houses to use as an investment instrument and who manipulate the market to drive prices up. That should be illegal. I'm not really sure what is the best way to enforce that though without penalizing legit homeowners. Trudeau wants to implement an equity tax but that's just going to screw over everyone not just investors.

Some of the very first recorded laws are building codes and associated product liability rules. That isn't going to change.

And frankly, most people have absolutely no business trying to build a house. When they do, you end up with shantytowns.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I think that should be the approach to anti-poverty programs. That also means acknowledging that for people to succeed, they need some help to obtain and maintain the basics (food, shelter, stable employment).

And maybe the realization that if they screw it up or fail once, that doesn't mean you dump them.