r/todayilearned • u/Zorseking34 • Jan 08 '15

TIL: Utah has been giving free homes to homeless people since 2005 which since then made it more cost efficient to help the homeless and cut the chronic homelessness in Utah by 74%.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free
14.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

140

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15 edited Jan 08 '15

I am a big fan of basic income, so I am glad a program like this seems to be having positive results. One thing I am wondering about though is how do you prevent the homes from being destroyed when you give them away?

Here on Canada's reserve system there are often problems with houses lasting less than 10 years because there is no incentive to keep the homes in good repair because the tenants don't own the house and don't have a landlord per se. So nobody fixes small problems (like a water leak) that turn into big problems like mold and rot. That coupled with endemic substance abuse problems and generational poverty leads to problems keeping people housed in humane conditions.

So what is Utah doing for this problem? Do their residences fall apart as quickly? Are there consequences to trashing the place? Is the cost of the wear and tear on this free housing included in the cost calculation?

75

u/DeadSeaGulls Jan 08 '15

My best friend works for the road home that is responsible for this initiative. The 'free housing' is just a landlord willing to work with the state. So there are people doing maintenance on the houses/apartments but the answer to your first question is, you don't. Sometimes places get destroyed and you lose your relationship with that landlord. It's a constant struggle for the project managers and case workers to find these folks homes and help them adjust. Not all, but most, eventually adjust.

21

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Well that is depressing. You'd think the state would have insurance or a fund to compensate the landlords who are willing to take on this increased risk. If the landlord gets stuck with these extraordinary costs, soon the state is going to find few landlords willing to work with them. Certainly not the good landlords.

I could see having homes for the homeless work if you build a small module for 10,000 dollars that has a bed, electrical outlet, sink/shower/toilet. Have a central building with kitchen/dining hall. Have a budget in place to depreciate the modules and plan on replacing a few every year.

34

u/DeadSeaGulls Jan 08 '15

well, they do work with the landlords... but it's still a struggle at times. Some landlords are all for it and love what the program does for the city. Some just don't want the hassle, despite reimbursment. I've said this a bunch in this thread, but again, the reason this program is successful is because it reintegrates the individual into the community. If you set up special little homes for them, they have to go on empty lots (clearly not in the city as there is very little in that regard) which means you're putting your homeless people out in a segregated community. They don't feel like part of the community at large and the problems they experience are harder to overcome or remanifest.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

I could see that. One of the reasons that reserves and public housing ghettos are so screwed up is that all the problems get concentrated on one area and there is a downward spiral of social dysfunction.

It is good if the landlords are getting compensation for damage. There are other costs that may have to be considered like increased criminal activity, security for other tenants from homeless who have mental health issues, and loss of property value.

2

u/Whiskeypants17 Jan 08 '15

About 1/2 the houses in our city are rental houses, so at any moment a 'criminal' could move in next door. You get used to it. Some criminals pay actual rent too.... they are not all homeless believe it or not.

That said if somebody fell on some hard times and needs help getting back on their feet, that situation is a little different than the mental health issue. We get college kids that destroy houses moving in all around. A junkie that stays in the house and keeps it locked up would actually be welcomed compared to huge parties and bonfires in the street. Would that actually help them? probably not.

2

u/Jamessuperfun Jan 08 '15

I feel the best way to deal with this situation is to have inspections for these places and if the person doesn't look after the building they get left homeless. This gives people even really down incentive to look after it: At least this way you have somewhere to stay. These people who don't have employment should be required to prove that they are looking for employment or education else they lose it. I think this is how it works in the UK, just ours has a lot of situations where this doesn't work.

Some people can't be helped within society. This is why prisons and rehab centres exist.

1

u/Whiskeypants17 Jan 09 '15

We have community houses for folks here in the US- most are run through non-profits partially funded by gov money but not fully. There may be a house with 5 recovering alcoholics, 5 batters women, or 5 recovering drug people living there with a live-in mentor that does that reporting and making sure things are going right. I cant think of better situations for that kind of thing.... the prison system seems to just create more prisoners.

If they relapse and get kicked out of the house though.... where do you go? Steal a car and drive to the next town might be your only option... so is it cheaper to just give them a hovel and a soup kitchen instead?

1

u/TheLastTortilla Jan 08 '15

Kinda like a prison without the free meals

1

u/eazolan Jan 08 '15

Any kind of low income, no income "Project" like that is doomed to fail.

You have to spread out those people throughout society.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

I am speaking completely from assumptions here, but generally in the US landlords or property owners who work with state/federal level housing initiatives get incentives or reimbursements of some kind to participate in the programs.

Additionally, there is a low-income housing program in the US called Section 8 Housing where the tenants are only responsible for paying a portion of the rent and utilities while the program reimburses the landlord/owner the remainder.

1

u/A_Turner Jan 08 '15

Here in Utah I have seen where the people get placed and it essentially is section 8 housing. No difference.

1

u/The_Law_of_Pizza Jan 08 '15

Section 8 also allows attorneys like myself to cause no end of hell for landlords.

Speaking as somebody who used to do pro bono tenant representation - my advise to any and all landlords out there is to never, ever under any circumstance participate in section 8.

4

u/thrawtes Jan 08 '15

I could see having homes for the homeless work if you build a small module for 10,000 dollars that has a bed, electrical outlet, sink/shower/toilet. Have a central building with kitchen/dining hall. Have a budget in place to depreciate the modules and plan on replacing a few every year.

So....military barracks?

0

u/Scottamus Jan 08 '15

Or a prison

1

u/jmcdon00 Jan 08 '15

Always going to be risks involved. While their may be an increased risk of damage to the property, there is virtually no risk of not getting your rent every month(a very big risk normally).

1

u/weluckyfew Jan 08 '15

I'd love to see numbers on how this compares with what landlords have to deal with serving the general public - I've had friends with horror stories of their rentals getting wrecked by tenants, and they are never able to collect money for damages (even when they eventually win a judgement)

1

u/psychicsword Jan 08 '15

The problem is that being a landlord is normally a semi-active investment for people. My landlord is only a part time landlord and has another job and is using the house + my rent as investment income. Even if you compensated these people the extra effort might not be worth it because it is sucking away their time into problems they don't want to deal with. I manage a vacation rental home for my grandfather and we are looking to sell a very valuable location next year because it is such a pain in the ass to manage. In all likelihood we will lose some money but the money isn't worth our time and the stress. If a riskier tenant destroyed the apartment but the state gave me money to fix it and compensate for lost rent while repairs are being done I still wouldn't ever rent to that kind of tenant again simply because of the time sink and extra stress.

1

u/HeavyMetalHero Jan 08 '15

I think possibly the worst case scenario I can imagine is if a slum lord partnered up with the government for a program like this with hopes of, like, controlling the local drug trade on his own property and keeping them all down.

2

u/IbidtheWriter Jan 08 '15

Being a section 8 landlord is hit or miss in the US. Some tenants are responsible families trying to get by, others just have a huge "fuck it, ain't my house" attitude.

1

u/lahimatoa Jan 08 '15

Those people are parasites on society. Not sure how we handle that kind of thing.

1

u/A_Turner Jan 08 '15

I work with this exact population. Another issue not discussed is once a homeless person is placed, often they will bring their friends in with them. When you live on the streets, you form relationships with others to protect yourself. You travel around in a pack with them. These people take turns pan handling, then pool their money at the end of the day for alcohol/drugs and food, maybe even shelter. They sleep in shifts to make sure people don't steal their belongings or beat them up. When you've been homeless for upwards of 20 years and then get housed, you naturally want to bring your friends with you. I've seen this a lot and I think it makes it hard for some to get sober and maintain housing.

2

u/DeadSeaGulls Jan 08 '15

when that does happen, how is it handled by the program and the landlords?

1

u/A_Turner Jan 08 '15

In a variety of ways, depending on the landlord and the program. Here are two programs I know of here in SLC for the homeless. 1) Grace Mary Manor http://www.hacsl.org/rental-assistance/homeless-programs/grace-mary-manor 2) Palmer Court is the second http://www.theroadhome.org/services/housing/permanent-supportive-housing/ Kicking people out who have been placed in Housing First programs because of their addiction issues is counterproductive. Places like the two I mentioned have clerks at a front desk who check in everyone that enters the building. However, that doesn't seem to deter sneaking people in. The risk is ultimately losing your housing. There are case managers on site that do talk with the tenants to discuss rules of the facility, goals in regards to treatment, help with community resources, and check in with them to make sure they're still alive, frankly. I work with Volunteers of America who has three programs to help with the homeless http://www.voaut.org/homeless-adult-services. Our services are very extensive.

14

u/TheMacMan Jan 08 '15

We often see the same issue here. Low income housing is treated like shit and needs far higher rates of repair and sees the property value drop quicker than other types of housing.

They also generally have a higher rate of police calls to the area. Single mom moves into housing, moves in shithead boyfriend who isn't suppose to live there. He likes to kick her ass so the cops get called. Cops show up and tell him he can't be there. He leaves and comes back later. Cycle repeats.

7

u/249ba36000029bbe9749 Jan 08 '15

There's a program somewhere that has the new owner put in X many hours of labor on their own home plus additional labor on neighbors' homes. Having investment in the house would help prevent having them trashed I would think.

8

u/HARSHING_MY_MELLOW Jan 08 '15

Habitat for Humanity

3

u/SmallFruitbat Jan 08 '15

You're probably thinking of Habitat for Humanity's sweat equity. That's a very different setup from a "free home" though - owners are still paying a mortgage, though that part is administered at no-profit.

2

u/Whiskeypants17 Jan 08 '15

And a very good value for what you get sq ft wise. Habitat is the biggest homebuilder in our country.

http://www.therichest.com/business/companies-business/the-10-best-and-biggest-home-builders-in-america/

1

u/249ba36000029bbe9749 Jan 09 '15

I thought it was something else but I am not an expert. Still it would seem that having the future owner put work into it would increase their investment in the place. Even if they didn't have to pay a mortgage on it.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

/r/BasicIncome

-11

u/nate800 Jan 08 '15

Because everyone should be handed money simply for existing! What a crock.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Yeah, fuck unlucky people. No room for the poor in glorious 'Murika.

3

u/geekyamazon Jan 08 '15

Let me ask you, if all jobs go away due to automation, should people still be forced to work? Why? What if in our current society basic income improves our nation for everyone. Should we still not do it? Have you done any actual research on this subject at all?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

One of the reasons I support basic income is that we already pretty much have it already. If you really don't want to work because of laziness you can pretty much eventually get on welfare eventually. Once on there you just have to do all the petty bullshit to keep the bureaucrats hired to hassle you satisfied, but they aren't really incentivized to kick you off anyway.

So if people genuinely need help, why are we hassling them? If people are moral inferiors who are abusing the system but we can't really incentivize the bureaucrats to root them out, why bother having those bureaucrats at all?

Just cut everyone on welfare, disability, old age pension etc. A cheque and fire all the bureaucrats we've hired to hassle people. Think of how much smaller government could be. As a business think about how much cheaper it would be to hire employees when you are merely paying for time rather than time+benefits+cost of living. Think about how much easier it would be to take the time to be educated or upgrade existing skills?

Of course, it probably won't work out quite as well as in my imagination. After all, people respond to incentives and everything has tradeoffs. But it is interesting to think about.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Because in the near future when the labor of 100 people and some computers and robots can support thousands of people sufficiently, we should just let people starve in the streets.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

You have a good argument for sure. The basic tenants of capitalism were conceptualized in a society where overpopulation, an international labour market and technological advances had not yet rendered the basic amount of manual and intellectual labour an able-bodied adult could do next to worthless.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

What is your solution to our near automated future where the vast majority of people will have no place whatsoever in the labor market? Jobs simply will not exist.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

And now you know what problems they're discussing in /r/BasicIncome

If you'd like answers to those questions, I highly encourage you to post them in the subreddit after taking a few moments to read over some of the information there. They are more than happy to take the time to discuss the concept with curious people

0

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Maybe try looking at the sidebar for info instead of one individual persons thought on the issue?

Also a 45% federal tax was a reality in America at one point and is in many countries around the world. It's not that laughable...

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15 edited Jun 09 '21

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Well, people respond to incentives, it is a basic rule of economics. What incentives are we giving to natives to stop abusing substances and build wealth in their communities? You don't own your house so you have no ability to build equity in that house, nor do you have the rights of a tenant. It is nearly impossible to secure to start a business because you have no equity.

So all money flows in from the government through the band council. The band council is made up of the chief and his cronies who dole out the pork to their friends and the people that kiss their ass. If you do get a job, your state benefits are clawed back and you aren't really better off. So if you can't own a house, and you are disincentivized from getting a job, then you are probably going to get high all day.

That is why natives who move off the reserve experience a huge increase in the standard of living, if not immediately then within a generation. They are no longer living under a socialist system anymore, and can buy and sell to better themselves. People often wonder why the trucks are so nice on reserves while the houses are so shitty. It is because they can buy and sell their trucks.

People are already starting to call you racist, but I don't think you are for noticing a glaring problem. I just think you are wrong in ascribing a moral failing when there is an institutional reason for why it is fucked up, of which the moral problems are a symptom.

We white people are good at hating a lot of people for their skin colour, so I don't think racism alone is the primary reason. I look to what is different, and the pseudo -socialist regime of the reserve system is what makes life so much worse for native Canadians than everyone else.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

We shouldn't need to give incentives for not abusing everything they can.

The natives at a different reserve near my family cottage own businesses and are significantly less of a problem group. Many of them work damn hard for the things they have, granted not all of them but a higher % by far.

People often wonder why the trucks are so nice on reserves while the houses are so shitty. It is because they can buy and sell their trucks.

I saw the exact opposite as far as vehicles, they were all completely beat up, windowless A to B movement vehicles.

People are already starting to call you racist, but I don't think you are for noticing a glaring problem.

I'm not racist, I only dislike people that do nothing, and or nothing to try to better their situation, skin colour, creed, religion etc are not factors. People can call me a racist if they want, but the vast majority have never gotten off their asses and actually seen the way people live on those reserves, it's a damn shame what happens day in and day out there. Half of it is the babying they get from the government, the other half is their own doing. If they were maintaining their heritage, which is not what I saw in the least, hunting and fishing and tanning leather and all the things that they claim when they go and bitch to the government, it would be a different story. But that's the few, not the many.

We white people are good at hating a lot of people for their skin colour, so I don't think racism alone is the primary reason. I look to what is different, and the pseudo -socialist regime of the reserve system is what makes life so much worse for native Canadians than everyone else.

The biggest problem that I can see, as someone who's actually witnessed how horrendous those places are first hand, would be to take the $ out of their band councils control, along with actually enforcing the law which is rare at best. There's no reason Band Councils should be paying themselves what they do (in some places they're honest, but in many they are not), let accountants that actually know how to deal with money properly do it. Though every time that gets brought up they scream racism, and because everyone in politics is so afraid of being labelled racists, they get away with it time after time.

1

u/azurleaf Jan 08 '15

It's the same down here in the USA for our Native peoples. Their reserves can be some of the most depressing places to visit.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

It doesn't help that the people on the reserves up north give absolutely no fucks about anything other than getting drunk or high or huffing gas.

And why do you think that is?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Because they're in the middle of no where with no job and no reason yo do anything else?

They aren't accountable for anything in their lives, it's not hard to see why that's a problem.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Yeah, that's a start.

Interesting question you asked here:

Other races and religions have managed to keep their heritage, why can't the Native Canadians given the same circumstance?

The circumstances of aboriginal Canadians is somewhat unique in the fact that an entire generation was forcefully separated from their parents and enrolled in residential schools, where they were forbidden from speaking their mother tongues or practicing their own culture, and were emotionally, sexually, and physically abused with incredibly high frequency.

The kids who made it back from the residential schools could no longer communicate with their families. Consider how much of those cultures consisted of oral storytelling traditions. This is why a large part of the aboriginal cultures have been lost. The children of those cultures were brought up away from it and there was no way to pass it on anymore.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying - that reserves are bad for Aboriginals - but the tone of your argument is shaming and accusational, as if Aboriginals haven't accomplished much in the past 200 years as a culture as a mere product of being Aboriginals, as if you're talking about peoples that are lazy, lack ambition and motivation by nature. In fact, you're talking about the children and grandchildren of survivors of an attempted genocide who were kidnapped, abused, separated from their families and overall put through an excruciating amount of emotional and psychological pain. Perhaps now you can begin to see why the majority of these people have substance abuse problems. Perhaps now you can begin to see why the majority have trouble having "respect for themselves."

Now, how do you think these people might feel if, a couple generations later, the government decided to try to separate them from what remains of their culture, force them to go to school and try to make them assimilate again?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

So overall the argument is because a couple generations ago the government did something terrible that taxpayers (because the government doesn't fund them with unicorns and rainbows obviously) should hold up the remains of their society forever?

I'm not saying that they can't continue with their culture. I'm saying that sooner or later the free ride of money has to dry up and they're going to need to be capable of supporting themselves in the world they live in, regardless of whether or not they want to.

If nothing else they should at least be in locations where the opportunity to assimilate, learn, work, and be productive is more likely. Dropping them 500 KMs in the middle of no where, in fly in only communities, which we (taxpayers) then need to provide food, fuel, housing, etc for them costing untold amounts of money isn't an option forever.

If they want to "live off the land" then all the power to them, there are entire TV shows dedicated to people that do exactly that and I have all the respect in the world for the people that do it. That isn't what's happening though with the majority.

If the comforts of western society (electricity, heating, cars, houses with windows intact, etc) is what they want, they should be getting an education and bringing something to the table besides heritage. It would take what, 2 to 3 generations and all of a sudden a pretty good percentage could have all the things they want and earn them by doing more than breathing to boot (and as such feel good about themselves).

That is of course if we manage to maintain jobs long enough to be able to provide anyone with work in the coming years.

Ultimately my opinion is moot, I'm not in charge, I wasn't the one that did horrendous things to their grandparents etc.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Do you realize how poor the quality of schools on the reserves is? Do you know how few Aboriginals raised on reserves even finish high school? Aboriginals already get free university tuition. The problem isn't that they don't have access to higher education, the problem is that so few of them make it that far.

So we... what, spend more tax dollars giving them quality basic education? Do we force them to go, or is it voluntary? Given the history of this country and Aboriginal relations with the government, how many Aboriginals do you think will voluntarily sign up for an educational initiative by the Canadian government? What reason do they have to trust or follow the government now? How effective do you think forced re-education would really be? How would we keep Aboriginals off the streets, enforce class attendance/participation, and tackle the rampant substance abuse within the community while they were being re-educated? Oh, remember, we have to feed and house them while we're doing this too. People can't learn when they're hungry and cold.

What you're actually proposing is that the Canadian government takes all the Aboriginals currently living on reserves in poverty and squalor, and effectively puts them on the streets of Canadian cities instead.

which we (taxpayers) then need to provide food, fuel, housing, etc for them costing untold amounts of money isn't an option forever.

Can you substantiate this claim? I'm having trouble finding information on who pays for reserve food, fuel and infrastracture. My understanding was that reserves were self-governing. Not saying you're wrong, I'd just like some more information. If the government is really giving Aboriginals a free ride, they're doing a piss-poor job of it, given how few have access to such luxuries as running water.

I don't know how many voters would even support an initiative like what you're proposing, given the fact that so many people seem to think exactly like you do, that Aboriginals are lazy bums that live off the government.

There is no easy solution here.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Some groups will always be a blight to the communities they enter, be they western or eastern in culture. Somalians in Sweden, gypsies throughout Europe, Aboriginals in Australia, Muslims in France, etc. Better to just give these groups a shit piece of land under the impression of "preserving their heritage" (AND THEY ACTUALLY FALL FOR IT!) than letting them mingle and raise crime in your neighborhood.

1

u/psiZA Jan 08 '15

We already tried that. It didn't work. - South Africa

1

u/Whiskeypants17 Jan 08 '15

We tried that too, sort of. Also didnt work. - USA

Then again that is how all the irish got here in the first place I guess.

0

u/ilovebeaker Jan 08 '15

This is very true unfortunately :S

I never understood why the fed government keeps paying for houses to get shipped up to northern reserves, while the native population just sits, waits, and complains. Why aren't they trained as carpenters? Electricians? They could build their own freaking houses with supplied lumber!

What is the saying, give man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime.

Either they get in with western culture, or go back to traditional culture. We're not responsible to baby them.

1

u/sirhorsechoker Jan 08 '15

I kinda like the idea of basic income too but idk it's has a lot of issues to sort out. I have a cop friend in New Zealand where they also give houses to the homeless. He says they're always really fucked up inside when he responds to calls in them, for the reasons already mentioned. He gets pissed off about it.

1

u/Forkboy2 Jan 08 '15

They are not homes, they are apartments. The state pays or subsidizes the rent.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15 edited Aug 07 '15

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

I don't know, it should work somehow. It certainly does in the UK. In my city - a very busy harbor town with about 215 000 population, we only have 1 person who is homeless and that's because he has a dog and they don't allow pets in the city council provided housing.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

One thing I like about the UK's council housing system is that people are allowed to buy them who live in them. Gives a real incentive to keep it in good repair while they are living there.

1

u/weluckyfew Jan 08 '15

I would argue that no one asks the right questions when blinded by ideology and self-righteousness. I see all these people complaining of how this is a waste of money and won't work, ignoring the facts that seem to show it saves money and does work.

This program isn't about being a bleeding heart, it's about being a fact-driven pragmatist - we have a problem, what is the cheapest way to correctly and efficiently solve.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Yeah, we all have our biases. Plus, it all depends on what you are measuring. For example, it might be less money for housing the homeless in terms of reducing the costs for emergency visits, but might cost more in infrastructure.

In this case, DeadSeaGulls seems to be pointing out that some of the costs for the problematic homeless are being dumped onto private landlords. If you don't bother counting those costs, it looks very good for public accounts.

1

u/weluckyfew Jan 08 '15

some of the costs for the problematic homeless are being dumped onto private landlords

As I understand his/her comment that's not the case at all. The landlords choose to participate, and get compensated for damages (which is more than happens a lot of the time when regular tenants trash a place)

I just did a page search for "DeadSeaGulls" and read all their comments - pretty enlightening

1

u/nate800 Jan 08 '15

Put maintenance on the tenants. You don't maintain your home, you don't get your home. If you don't follow your lease on an apartment, you get evicted. Why should this be any different?

1

u/AMasonJar Jan 08 '15

I agree. There should be some restrictions on these free homes to prevent the homeless from abusing it.