Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person
1–10 of 368 posts
Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person
#2They're spending money to build housing, which will be used to house people without homes. The headline makes it sound like they're paying a million dollars in rent, but in fact this is real estate development.
Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person
#3They're spending money to build housing, which will be used to house people without homes. The headline makes it sound like they're paying a million dollars in rent, but in fact this is real estate development.
That's still a mighty expensive unit.
Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person
#4They're spending money to build housing, which will be used to house people without homes. The headline makes it sound like they're paying a million dollars in rent, but in fact this is real estate development.
40000 * 837000 = 33.48 billion dollars. This solution, as implemented, can not possibly solve the problem, ever. The upkeep on the housing alone would be a billion dollars a year!
Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person
#5The sad part is how long such spending has gone on across the state.
They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of "they're homeless because they haven't a home". The mental illness is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies.
Instead of the singular focus on establishing state-paid housing, _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless is far overdue. The option of shooting-up and camping on the streets clearly has not worked in any way -- show me the data for how that helps anybody.
Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person
#6Where's the link to sign up? I'm ready to check out of the rat race.
Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person
#7They're spending money to build housing, which will be used to house people without homes. The headline makes it sound like they're paying a million dollars in rent, but in fact this is real estate development.
On one hand: The program “is producing more units than promised, at a lower cost than expected,” Garcetti wrote.
But I have trouble thinking that’s an efficient use of funds.
Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person
#8The sad part is how long such spending has gone on across the state. They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of "they're homeless because they haven't a home". The mental illness is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies. Instead of the singular focus on establishing state-paid housing, _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless is far overdue. The optio…
Treatment would IMO, include housing while under treatment, and some sort of halfway-housing afterwards.
Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person
#9The sad part is how long such spending has gone on across the state. They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of "they're homeless because they haven't a home". The mental illness is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies. Instead of the singular focus on establishing state-paid housing, _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless is far overdue. The optio…
> They're homeless because they're mentally ill
Some but not all. There are many disparate causes of homelessness and mental illness is just one of them.
> _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless
That is hard to implement in a free country.
Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person
#10The sad part is how long such spending has gone on across the state. They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of "they're homeless because they haven't a home". The mental illness is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies. Instead of the singular focus on establishing state-paid housing, _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless is far overdue. The optio…
Not sure why you're being down voted, this is the most honest statement about so called "homelessness" in the united states. It is affordable housing advocates essentially leveraging the mentally ill while completely ignoring their plight.