Bernardo de La Paz
Bernardo de La Paz's JournalLinks. Try to be progressive. There is no sarcasm about this. People's lives are at stake.
Housing First: get the homeless housing and then all the other problems become more tractable.Medicine Hat: http://www.theplaidzebra.com/a-city-in-canada-tried-giving-free-housing-to-the-homeless-and-its-working/
Other countries have followed suit, with the Obama administration listing the method as a best practice for eliminating chronic homelessness, and Finland and France both instituting similar measures.
Medicine Hat: http://www.mhchs.ca/
Medicine Hat: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/15/medicine-hat-homeless_n_5332531.html
And now Ive become their advocate and have to admit its the right thing to do, its the moral thing to do. And it makes sense financially, he said.
If you can get somebody off the street, it saves the emergency room visits, it saves the police, it saves the justice system and so when you add up all those extra costs you can buy a lot of housing for that amount of money.
And once people are housed, its easier for support workers to help them with a co-ordinated delivery of social services to address issues such as substance abuse and mental health problems, Clugston said.
Utah: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free
Almost free housing in San Francisco ($375 avg): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Housing_Partnership
Still think it is a stupid idea worthy of a sarcasm tag?
Or is it a progressive idea proven to work that is worthy of more serious consideration than you are willing to give it?
+1. Time invested writing a good video summary is a good investment for many reasons
1) Efficiency: When a poster takes 2 minutes to write a couple of paragraphs summarizing the video it saves hundreds of people minutes of time which multiply out to hours. Two minutes to gain hours for others is a good expenditure of time.
2) It takes a lot more time to evaluate a video than the seconds it takes to read a summary. It often takes a few minutes or at least a minute to get a sense of where the video is going and how it is going to make its points. If a person would prefer a documentary approach, they will switch off a rant after a minute or so. But that is a minute lost and when you consider hundreds of viewers that is a lot of time wasted.
3) Most people will not invest 30 minutes to watch a 30 minute video when they can read the summary.
4) If the video is any good, then a decent summary will actually convince more people to invest time watching.
5) If the poster can't be bothered to write a couple of informative paragraphs, then I almost always skip over the video. It certainly didn't inspire the poster so I have little expectation it would inspire me.
6) Not all DU members are perfectly able. Some can't see or can't see well and might use talking browsers. Others can't hear.
7) Reading (and skimming) is very efficient compared to video.
8) Video is very time consuming compared to reading. Time yourself reading a newspaper article. Then time yourself speaking it out loud.
9) There may be a bridgeable generation gap. More seasoned DU members (older members) are not as used to or as demanding for videos for their information. Post a good summary along with the video and you reach everybody: vid fans, readers, deaf, and visually impaired.
10) Even so, there are some times when images and moving images inform people in depth better or more efficiently than a written word. Or when an experience is as important as the information. If that is the case for the video, make the case!
Wherever homeless are giving FREE HOUSING, overall costs go down a lot.
This has been proven multiple times.
What is the biggest barrier to getting a job: having an address and having a place to live, to shower, to rest. Give people a place to live and a large number (half?) end up getting jobs and paying for their own place to live.
You save tax dollars for fewer emergency room visits, fewer police interactions, less crime against and by homeless people, less court costs, less mental health care, better nutrition, longer lives, more productivity, less wasted education dollars, ....
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/13/housing-first-federal-election_n_7949510.html . . . Excerpt:
"He said, 'Why don't we try getting these people into apartments, regular apartments, provide them the psychiatric medical and mental health support that they need and see if it works?' And it did," explains Richter. "It's taken off from there."
It's also become a bipartisan success story because you can help people and save money doing it. The political right has taken the lead on growing the program. George W. Bush's administration picked it up first, bringing it into the mainstream. The man Bush appointed to head up his efforts to combat homelessness Philip Mangano put Tsemberiss housing first theory into nationwide practice and the result was that the "chronically homeless" fell 30 per cent between 2005 and 2007.
The Great Recession hit in 2008, but chronic homelessness fell an additional 21 per cent because Obama picked up the Housing First baton, first with the $1.5 billion stimulus-based Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program and then as the centerpiece of his "Opening Doors" plan. A 2015 update reconfirmed that Housing First "is the solution" and declared chronic homelessness would be eliminated in the U.S. by 2017 and that youth and family homelessness was on track to be ended by 2020.
Homelessness in Utah has fallen 91 per cent since launching its Housing First program in 2005. State housing director Gordon Walker told the Desert News in April that "the remaining balance is 178 people. We know them by name, who they are and what their needs are." To further assist the no-longer-homeless, Utah recently started a pilot program to expunge minor crimes from their records to facilitate finding employment.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Fri Jul 16, 2004, 11:36 PM
Number of posts: 48,988