My son gets $750 a month in SSI. His supported housing costs $338 a month. That includes utilities and staff oversight. Plus transportation to his job. His only other expenses are $20 a month for a tablet, $50 a month for internet, and a few dollars in copays for meds. He also gets foodstamps which cover most of his food (his case manager takes him to a food pantry once a month). So he is saving about $300 a month that we put into an ABLE account for him, which doesn’t count as an asset for Social Security eligibility. His medical expenses (including 70 days in the hospital and 16 ECT treatments recently) are covered 100% by Medicaid. As messed up as a lot of our government is, the system is working really well for him.
Oh, and when my husband starts collecting SS in five years, DS’s monthly SSI payment will go up at least by a factor of two (since he was classified as disabled before the age of 22).
Some of this problem on the west coast is self-inflicted. Not only are there incentives for the homeless that attract them from across the country, but there are incentives for illegals as well. @scubadiver tried to raise the topic, but it was ignored.
Large numbers of low-skilled illegals depress wages for low-income Americans. They also increase demand for housing, driving rent prices higher. Funds that could be used for homeless Americans are used to educate illegals, feed them and provide healthcare.
Would removing illegals immigrants and stopping illegal immigrants from entering the country solve the homelessness problem? No, but higher wages, more affordable housing and additional funds for services would certainly help some of the homeless.
And yes, wealthy elites that advocate for the homeless while fighting low-income housing in their neighborhoods are simply virtue signaling. The thought police do not get to dictate vocabulary that provides an accurate description.
@mom2collegekids The description of your sister’s situation is exactly why some markets - San Francisco and surrounding area - have housing units sitting empty. Owners do not want to risk this type of scenario.
I know of a handful of homes currently empty. They are managed by the kids of elderly parents who are now in assisted living or other type of arranged housing. While it would be nice to rent out the parents home, those that do not absolutely need the income will keep them vacant. Why. Because if either the parent or the child needed that home - to live in or to sell - removing the tenant is a nightmare.
Not very many. The San Jose Metro area vacancy rate is the lowest in the nation, and San Francisco is not far behind. And this is because in our tight, expensive housing market, a landlord can rent any property at all to a good, reliable tenant for a lot of money.
Landlords are not letting housing sit vacant in our area, because if they do, they’re leaving $$$$ on the table. They’re either renting out the housing, or using it for AirBnB.
Since the units to which I refer have never been rented they are not included in the ‘vacancy rate’ calculation. One reason the vacancy rate is so low is that a not insignificant % of housing stock is simply kept off the rental market due to draconian tenant rights laws.
You only need to hear a few stories - such as the high school class mate who spent many $$$ and lost over a year of time - trying to get a renter out of her now deceased mom’s in-law unit before one simply doesn’t consider the parents house rentable.
Mild weather, high tolerance of vagrants and their activities are what brings the numbers up for homeless vagabonds. In the area I worked, plenty of low income housing. Illegal immigrants, immigrants, in general, not a big factor. Those here are employed at minimum wage at jobs that these problem people cannot do, will not do. Not like they are bringing up the wages or keeping them down. This is not a problem caused by immigration.
The homeless who are causing the problems in terms of hygiene and safety, have reduced any area where they live into a stinking cesspool. Many of them were in homes until they ruins them. They want no regulation of their lives but do not live in a way that makes it tolerable to most of us. It’s dangerous, when there are so many of them.
This is where individual rights vs those of the majority of residents come to a clash. More draconian rules about how you can live publicly need to be made sndcrnfirced. Though not allowing to squat and leave excrement around hardly seems draconian to me. Or shooting up and leaving the needles right there. Littering and other broken windows rules ignored can lead to dirty chaos
Jail or prison for whatever legal violations they make would be very expensive for taxpayers.
Putting them in supervised housing (as mentioned upthread) may cost significantly less than jail or prison, but there will be political resentment at providing free housing and services for those commonly seen as undeserving of anything, so that such programs will be targeted for cuts whenever governments have budget problems.
I feel there’s a mental health crisis in the country, and the problem won’t really be solved until science finds ways to treat mental illness and addiction more easily. But in the meantime I think the reasonable decision might be to create a graduated system of housing with counseling services for the homeless, from regular small apartments for those who just need a little help to get back on their feet to psychiatric facilities with involuntary confinement for those who repeatedly break the law or endanger public safety.