my idea to help poor people

[Deleted]

It takes someone with money to start things.  Some person willing to donates a few million $ starts a charity that buys houses for people in need.  That person agrees to not take any public welfare for twenty five years (number of years is arbitrary).   The guy who buys the house holds title for those 25 years.  The person taking the house is free to get any private welfare offered to him and is free to exit the agreement any time he wants. If he decides to take public welfare he exits the program.  The agreement would limit the number of people in the house like most rental agreements.  The guy getting the house is responsible for taxes, insurance and upkeep.  That is all explained in contract.

For some the plan would be a great deal.  For some others, not so much a great deal.  But it is a free choice to get in or not.  In many parts of the country houses can be bought for < $100k.  If a person needs to move and is in good standing the charity could allow that.  All rules are agreed to before house is bought.

This is the part that needs government.  If the plan works, then people who donate to the charity giving out houses get a tax credit of 50% of what they donated to the charity. (50% is arbitrary number, whatever works best)  If it doesnt work the program ends.  This could work at the state level, local level or national level, anywhere that taxes.

What I think this accomplishes:  Housing is a big part of most people's budget.  Someone with a lot of need could start a new life with that part taken care of.  Welfare encourages some people not to work, others is does not.  This plan takes that worry out.  You don't want to work, then don't but you do not get a monthly check.  Have however many kids you want, you don't get more cash unless you leave the agreement you made.  The amount of time you live in your house is sort of vested. So it would encourage people to work through hard times.  We are a generous nation. People in real need would be able to go to private charities and not lose the time invested in the program.

Is this a dumb idea? or no? 

[973beachbum]

The Denver Housing First Collaborative, operated by the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, provides housing through a Housing First approach to more than 200 chronically homeless individuals. A 2006 cost study documented a significant reduction in the use and cost of emergency services by program participants as well as increased health status. Emergency room visits and costs were reduced by an average of 34.3 percent. Hospital inpatient costs were reduced by 66 percent. Detox visits were reduced by 82 percent. Incarceration days and costs were reduced by 76 percent. 77 percent of those entering the program continued to be housed in the program after two years.

Researchers in Seattle Washington, partnering with the Downtown Emergency Service Center, found that providing housing and support services for homeless alcoholics costs taxpayers less than leaving them on the street, where taxpayer money goes towards police and emergency health care. Results of the study funded by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (SAPRP) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation[13] appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association April, 2009.[2] This first US controlled assessment of the effectiveness of Housing First specifically targeting chronically homeless alcoholics showed that the program saved taxpayers more than $4 million over the first year of operation. During the first six months, even after considering the cost of administering the housing, 95 residents in a Housing First program in downtown Seattle, the study reported an average cost-savings of 53 percent—nearly US $2,500 per month per person in health and social services, compared to the per month costs of a wait-list control group of 39 homeless people. Further, stable housing also results in reduced drinking among homeless alcoholics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First

The approach is called housing first.  There have been very good cost benefit results from the use of it.  From a human standpoint it seems to also help stop the things that made them homeless to begin with like alcohol and drug use.   This is from wiki but there are many other links out there and I pulled this part because it did show the research cutting the costs using this method.

[kittensaver]

Thanks so much 973beachbum for posting about the EBP (evidence-based practice) Housing First. Its outcomes nationwide are pretty spectacular. We have been using it for two decades now for our homeless MI population. It is so effective that HUD is now requiring CoCs (continuum of cares - the consortium of folks who run federal housing subsidies at the local and regional level) to include it in all its disabled housing programs (formerly Shelter Plus Care, now simply called Permanent Housing).

But the problem is not necessarily the need for more housing. The need is for more AFFORDABLE housing. To wit: I attended a regional meeting in La La Land yesterday where they presented some jaw-dropping statistics: today, in order to house all the homeless folks in this region, we (the Big We) would need to build 48 new buildings. Where the heck are you going to put 48 new (very large) buildings? Even the whole of downtown La La Land doesn't have 48 buildings this size. And the price tag for such buildings? Something slightly north of 600 million. SIX HUNDRED MILLION. Who's going to pay for that? And that's completely ignoring the many and problematic economic and social issues that come with warehousing poor and disabled folks together .

You know what would solve the problem of poor folks (not disabled, just those living in poverty) and the need for housing? A decent living wage. A person making minimum wage here ($9 per hour x 40 hours per week x 3.34 weeks per month) grosses just slightly over $1,200 per month (that's before taxes. AND this assumes that same person can actually GET 40 hours from their employer). When FMR for the average one bedroom apartment is $1,200 to $1,400 per month and the average take-home pay of someone earning minimum wage is +/- $865 well - do you see the glaring problem?

Same for disabled folks living on SSI: when FMR for a ZERO bedroom (a studio or single apt) is $901 per month and the average SSI check is $795 - do you see the glaring problem?

The problem is soooooooo much larger that what a local or regional charity "could do." It is a problem that needs to be solved on a political level. Unfortunately, we seem to lack the collective will to do much of anything. We toss a disability check at someone, and then stigmatize and blame them for being disabled. (We blame them for eating crappy food and getting obese; we blame them for making 'poor' choices at the store; we blame them for staying home with their kids when finding safe and decent childcare is impossible on their crappy wages; we blame them for "sucking" the medical system dry; we blame them for not wanting to be warehoused into housing projects and other modern ghettos; we tell them that they should be "grateful" for the crumbs we toss them and ridicule them when they push back - - - should I go on?)

I'm so sick and tired of the folks in the political arena in this country who are hellbent on criminalizing poverty. And housing in a HUGE piece of that.

<<< kittensaver steps off her soapbox and puts on her flameproof suit >>>

[Robert not Bobby]

Old Chinese proverb say:

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

[Deleted]

I like anything that helps people to help themselves but I'd have 3 concerns with this. First, they need a training class like the one Habitat for Humanity offers. Some owners may have had landlords their entire lives. They need to know about cleaning gutters, not ignoring leaks or critter infestations, etc.

Second-maintenance costs money. They almost have to have a job and know how to save. Finally- what about the awful temptation do do a cash -out refi? Maybe forbid it?

DS bought his house in Des Moines 5 years ago through Neighborhood Finance Corp, which was partly funded by bonds, partly charitable. He got a good interest rate with a low down payment, plus a $12k forgivable loan if he stayed there a certain number of years. (He did but was quite annoyed when the tax bill came as it was forgiven.).

It was meant to stabilize neighborhoods after the financial crisis; he bought in a university area and it's in good shape. He was exactly what they were looking for: not much credit history but a good job, and planning to live there.

[Deleted]

I agree with Athena to a large extent.  In addition to maintenance, which is really expensive in older homes (which are all you would get even in my relatively low cost area for $100k), you have taxes and insurance.  These "buyers" aren't used to paying this so you'd have to escrow for them because a large end-of-year bill would likely be beyond their ability to save.  So then you get to a monthly "payment" that might be cheaper than rent but doesn't eliminate the expense.

I think these houses have the potential to cost almost as much as renting a cheap apartment.  That's particularly true when you add in utilities; these tend to be high in older houses.

I like the Habitat for Humanity model better.  The buyers have to attend financial classes and put in sweat equity.  They are screened to make sure that the community effort won't go to waste.  There are mortgages on these houses, but they are affordable.

This doesn't solve the homeless problem, but it does help the working poor.

[gregintenn]

Your heart is in the right place, Hickle. I admire that.

What mechanism keeps the tenant from trashing the house? In my experience, a lot of people won't take care of something they didn't have to work and pay for.

There's usually a reason people are homeless. Often, it's due to drug or alcohol abuse, or mental illness. Treating these problems might be more beneficial than providing a free house.

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2016 17:56:36 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Your heart is in the right place, Hickle. I admire that.

What mechanism keeps the tenant from trashing the house? In my experience, a lot of people won't take care of something they didn't have to work and pay for.

There's usually a reason people are homeless. Often, it's due to drug or alcohol abuse, or mental illness. Treating these problems might be more beneficial than providing a free house.

I think you are wrong that tenants would trash the house. Some might, but not most.  But if you are right, people would not give to this charity and it ends.  973beachbum answered some of your concerns in her post.

I agree with Athena to a large extent.

I do too.

[tallguy]

Seattle has opened some tiny house villages for the homeless.  link

There have been many people living in RV's and campers which has caused a lot of consternation among neighbors and other residents.  There will also now be essentially an urban RV park set up in what has been a chained-off parking lot.  

I like the idea of the tiny house villages.  It gives the homeless a place to be safe and also to use as a base for getting their lives back together, as well as building a sense of community that may have an even larger effect.  I think we should continue doing things like that before we start trying to give houses to the poor.  Not that I think it is necessarily a bad idea, but just a lower priority. 

[souldoubt]

Jan 29, 2016 18:24:57 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Jan 29, 2016 17:56:36 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Your heart is in the right place, Hickle. I admire that.

What mechanism keeps the tenant from trashing the house? In my experience, a lot of people won't take care of something they didn't have to work and pay for.

There's usually a reason people are homeless. Often, it's due to drug or alcohol abuse, or mental illness. Treating these problems might be more beneficial than providing a free house.

I think you are wrong that tenants would trash the house. Some might, but not most.  But if you are right, people would not give to this charity and it ends.  973beachbum answered some of your concerns in her post.

I used to work for a non-profit company that managed section 8 and HUD housing.  Some of the properties and the units themselves were very well maintained but others were completely thrashed by tenants, had issues with tenants letting drug dealers in to gated communities to set up shop, high crime rates and the list goes on.  There's no way to police all the unites and you'd run into the same problems in your proposal which is good in theory but hard to put into practice because the cost of oversight would be huge.

Furthermore to what tallguy said if you're talking about random houses here and there you're introducing a different element into some areas and people living there aren't going to like that and will vote against it.  I liken it to when people discuss homeless shelters which everyone can support but not necessarily when it's in their neighborhood.  Fact is that shelters, low income housing and so on can bring a different element to an area that isn't welcomed.  I'm not saying you don't ever allow them but people who pay for those houses and are trying to raise families don't want the safety of their family at risk and I don't blame them. 

  

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2016 18:42:18 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

Jan 29, 2016 18:24:57 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I think you are wrong that tenants would trash the house. Some might, but not most.  But if you are right, people would not give to this charity and it ends.  973beachbum answered some of your concerns in her post.

I used to work for a non-profit company that managed section 8 and HUD housing.  Some of the properties and the units themselves were very well maintained but others were completely thrashed by tenants, had issues with tenants letting drug dealers in to gated communities to set up shop, high crime rates and the list goes on.  There's no way to police all the unites and you'd run into the same problems in your proposal which is good in theory but hard to put into practice because the cost of oversight would be huge.

Furthermore to what tallguy said if you're talking about random houses here and there you're introducing a different element into some areas and people living there aren't going to like that and will vote against it.  I liken it to when people discuss homeless shelters which everyone can support but not necessarily when it's in their neighborhood.  Fact is that shelters, low income housing and so on can bring a different element to an area that isn't welcomed.  I'm not saying you don't ever allow them but people who pay for those houses and are trying to raise families don't want the safety of their family at risk and I don't blame them. 

  

If a charity wants to spend its money and not look to see if it was well spent, I would hope that charity would fail. I think donors would want some idea on how things work out. Some charities will fail and be wasted money though.

Do people who buy  houses normally ask the neighbors for permission?  Unless it is a co-op or something, charities are free to buy just the same as you or I, or at least I think that is so.  I am not proposing government do this other then as a tax credit. Home owners can lobby the charities and that would work out however it does.

[tskeeter]

Jan 29, 2016 16:39:40 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Thanks so much 973beachbum for posting about the EBP (evidence-based practice) Housing First. Its outcomes nationwide are pretty spectacular. We have been using it for two decades now for our homeless MI population. It is so effective that HUD is now requiring CoCs (continuum of cares - the consortium of folks who run federal housing subsidies at the local and regional level) to include it in all its disabled housing programs (formerly Shelter Plus Care, now simply called Permanent Housing).

But the problem is not necessarily the need for more housing. The need is for more AFFORDABLE housing. To wit: I attended a regional meeting in La La Land yesterday where they presented some jaw-dropping statistics: today, in order to house all the homeless folks in this region, we (the Big We) would need to build 48 new buildings. Where the heck are you going to put 48 new (very large) buildings? Even the whole of downtown La La Land doesn't have 48 buildings this size. And the price tag for such buildings? Something slightly north of 600 million. SIX HUNDRED MILLION. Who's going to pay for that? And that's completely ignoring the many and problematic economic and social issues that come with warehousing poor and disabled folks together .

You know what would solve the problem of poor folks (not disabled, just those living in poverty) and the need for housing? A decent living wage. A person making minimum wage here ($9 per hour x 40 hours per week x 3.34 weeks per month) grosses just slightly over $1,200 per month (that's before taxes. AND this assumes that same person can actually GET 40 hours from their employer). When FMR for the average one bedroom apartment is $1,200 to $1,400 per month and the average take-home pay of someone earning minimum wage is +/- $865 well - do you see the glaring problem?

Same for disabled folks living on SSI: when FMR for a ZERO bedroom (a studio or single apt) is $901 per month and the average SSI check is $795 - do you see the glaring problem?

The problem is soooooooo much larger that what a local or regional charity "could do." It is a problem that needs to be solved on a political level. Unfortunately, we seem to lack the collective will to do much of anything. We toss a disability check at someone, and then stigmatize and blame them for being disabled. (We blame them for eating crappy food and getting obese; we blame them for making 'poor' choices at the store; we blame them for staying home with their kids when finding safe and decent childcare is impossible on their crappy wages; we blame them for "sucking" the medical system dry; we blame them for not wanting to be warehoused into housing projects and other modern ghettos; we tell them that they should be "grateful" for the crumbs we toss them and ridicule them when they push back - - - should I go on?)

I'm so sick and tired of the folks in the political arena in this country who are hellbent on criminalizing poverty. And housing in a HUGE piece of that.

<<< kittensaver steps off her soapbox and puts on her flameproof suit >>>

I agree with you that increase wages would help reduce homelessness.  One of the ways to increase wages is to reduce the number of poorly educated people willing to work for low wages.  A large supply of low cost labor is one of the benefits of not enforcing our immigration policies and importing lower cost labor from around the world.

[zibazinski]

Jan 29, 2016 19:35:25 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Jan 29, 2016 18:42:18 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

I used to work for a non-profit company that managed section 8 and HUD housing.  Some of the properties and the units themselves were very well maintained but others were completely thrashed by tenants, had issues with tenants letting drug dealers in to gated communities to set up shop, high crime rates and the list goes on.  There's no way to police all the unites and you'd run into the same problems in your proposal which is good in theory but hard to put into practice because the cost of oversight would be huge.

Furthermore to what tallguy said if you're talking about random houses here and there you're introducing a different element into some areas and people living there aren't going to like that and will vote against it.  I liken it to when people discuss homeless shelters which everyone can support but not necessarily when it's in their neighborhood.  Fact is that shelters, low income housing and so on can bring a different element to an area that isn't welcomed.  I'm not saying you don't ever allow them but people who pay for those houses and are trying to raise families don't want the safety of their family at risk and I don't blame them. 

  

If a charity wants to spend its money and not look to see if it was well spent, I would hope that charity would fail. I think donors would want some idea on how things work out. Some charities will fail and be wasted money though.

Do people who buy  houses normally ask the neighbors for permission?  Unless it is a co-op or something, charities are free to buy just the same as you or I, or at least I think that is so.  I am not proposing government do this other then as a tax credit. Home owners can lobby the charities and that would work out however it does.

You have the NIMBY crowd to deal with. Some section 8 vouchers try to spread the "wealth" into various residential areas so as to not create ghettos. I'm sure there are some successes.

[973beachbum]

Jan 29, 2016 17:56:36 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Your heart is in the right place, Hickle. I admire that.

What mechanism keeps the tenant from trashing the house? In my experience, a lot of people won't take care of something they didn't have to work and pay for.

There's usually a reason people are homeless. Often, it's due to drug or alcohol abuse, or mental illness. Treating these problems might be more beneficial than providing a free house.

That is exactly what was always though and why there was so much resistance to housing first.  If we take a drug attic or mentally ill person and not fix that first then housing won't help.  There is not only no evidence to support it there is overwhelming, to me at least , evidence to support housing first as better for helping their problems like mental illness and drug addiction.

Our results attest to the effectiveness of using the Housing First approach in engaging, housing, and keeping housed individuals who are chronically homeless and dually diagnosed. The Housing First program sustained an approximately 80% housing retention rate, a rate that presents a profound challenge to clinical assumptions held by many Continuum of Care supportive housing providers who regard the chronically homeless as “not housing ready.” More important, the residential stability achieved by the experimental group challenges long-held (but previously untested) clinical assumptions regarding the correlation between mental illness and the ability to maintain an apartment of one’s own. Given that all study participants had been diagnosed with a serious mental illness, the residential stability demonstrated by residents in the Housing First program—which has one of the highest independent housing rates for any formerly homeless population—indicates that a person’s psychiatric diagnosis is not related to his or her ability to obtain or to maintain independent housing. Thus, there is no empirical support for the practice of requiring individuals to participate in psychiatric treatment or attain sobriety before being housed.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC14483