Utah Is on Track to End Homelessness by 2015 With This One Simple Idea

[Scuba]

http://www.nationswell.com/one-state-track-become-first-end-homelessness-2015/

Give them an apartment first, ask questions later.

Utah has reduced its rate of chronic homelessness by 78 percent over the past eight years, moving 2000 people off the street and putting the state on track to eradicate homelessness altogether by 2015. How’d they do it? The state is giving away apartments, no strings attached. In 2005, Utah calculated the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for an average homeless person was $16,670, while the cost of providing an apartment and social worker would be $11,000. Each participant works with a caseworker to become self-sufficient, but if they fail, they still get to keep their apartment.

MORE: San Francisco’s homeless take free showers on a bus retrofitted with bathrooms

Other states are eager to emulate Utah’s results. Wyoming has seen its homeless population more than double in the past three years, and it only provides shelter for 26 percent of them, the lowest rate in the country. City officials in Casper, Wyoming, now plan to launch a pilot program using the methods of Utah’s Housing First program. There’s no telling how far the idea might go.

[Kaleva]

1. What a great idea!

[Xipe Totec]

89. We should give the program a nice catchy name

like "The Social Safety Net".

Snarkiness aside, caring for the poor and the indigent is enlightened self-interest.

A concept that Republicans have a hard time understanding.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. giving homeless people homes is just fucking crazy.

How is that possibly going to end homelessness?

[geckosfeet]

5. U forgot the sarcasm smiley.. By definition if someone has a home then they are not homeless.

What matter is it how they got the home?

[Warren Stupidity]

6. DU: where sarcasm crawled up its own bunghole and died.

[geckosfeet]

10. I love the smell of poor spelling and grammar in the evening...

Internet message boards are a most illuminating place for mispellings and language misuse. I swear it gets worse by the minute.

[Xipe Totec]

90. It started with Shakespeare and it's gotten worse ever since.

Damn you, Bard!

[Squinch]

81. Do we still have Duzys? Because that's definitely one of them!

[SomethingFishy]

3. But... But.. Bootstraps.. and Work Ethic... and Free rides... and..

Takers... and and... PHIL ROBERTSON Auuuuuuuuugggggggh!

[tina tron]

15. What is Phil Robertsons take on the homeless?

I'll bet he hates all those freeloaders. Get him to spew out his ideas on everything, and he'd hang himself with his own rope.

[yeoman6987]

41. Remember it is the Republicans

Phil Robertson will love this idea because it is a Republican idea to combat and succeed at ending homelessness. He will be praising it all day long along with all other conservatives. However, a Democratic idea…….well you know.

[marshall]

44. His son claims they took in many homeless when he was a boy

Last edited Sun Dec 22, 2013, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I've never seen the show but after the story hit I watched a YouTube video last week about them. It was a religious interview series called "I am second."

[tazkcmo]

28. you forgot

BENGHAZI!!!!!!!

[demigoddess]

54. more likely to get a job if they have an address and a phone

not to mention, a shower, laundry facilities and a bed.

[lastlib]

61. ...and Freedum....and...

...and Bill Clinton's penis.......and......Repeal Obamacare...and *gasp!* VAGINAS!!.....and....................

[demmiblue]

4. K&R

[ProSense]

7. Republican State Gives Free Houses to Moochers, Cuts Homelessness by 74 Percent

Republican State Gives Free Houses to Moochers, Cuts Homelessness by 74 Percent
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/12/20/republican_state_gives_free_houses_to_moochers_cuts_homelessness_by_74_percent.html

Wonder how Utah's Senators Hatch and Lee feel about that?

Is it possible that Huntsman is planning to run in 2016?

[passiveporcupine]

36. They should do this in Detroit n/t

[IdaBriggs]

59. I was just thinking that. We have 20,000 in that city alone.

They give away houses, but they are in poor repair usually. Many homeless have simply moved in to abandoned homes, but with water / electric issues....not always good.

[Demo_Chris]

8. The same should apply to food and healthcare...

There is no reason at all for anyone to be hungry in this country, or to lack medical care. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[etherealtruth]

9. That is my belief

[riderinthestorm]

16. +100000 nt

[ProSense]

17. Actually,

"The same should apply to food and healthcare...There is no reason at all for anyone to be hungry in this country, or to lack medical care. It's absolutely ridiculous. "

...it does apply to health care.

Medicaid for the Homeless
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024090692

Interestingly, Utah rejected the Medicaid expansion.

[Demo_Chris]

30. Sorry Pro, but until EVERYONE has health care then it's a failed system...

The ACA helps some, but there will still be millions who's only health care is prayer and hope. Millions just hoping the pain in their chest isn't a heart attack, millions hoping the lump in their breast isn't cancer, millions practicing do-it-yourself internet medicine because that's all they can do, and who knows maybe snorting Windex really does cure Pneumonia.

Health CARE

Not insurance. Care. And it's freaking ludicrous that here, in the wealthiest nation in history, we have people dying because they cannot afford to see a doctor.

[CreekDog]

35. Yes but there are degrees of failure and success

Medicaid expansion is imperfect but it's better than not.

But as I recall you advocates repeal of ACA even knowing people would suffer as a result.

[Demo_Chris]

38. I do, because mandates are an evil I will never support. nt

[CreekDog]

46. So you want everyone added to Medicaid thrown off

That's something the law does.

By chance do you have health insurance or how do you get care or pay for it?

[Demo_Chris]

60. I want health CARE for all, such as with a NHS type system. nt

[CreekDog]

63. Yes but you want ACA repealed and...

That takes away even single payer health care for many without an NHS system to replace it.

And you didnt answer how you get your own health care, why not? It's an issue since the repeal of ACA without a replacement will take away health care from others -if youre unaffected, that's an issue.

[Demo_Chris]

80. The ACA cannot be repealed without Congress...

Since we are imagining Congress doing this, we can imagine Congress doing anything we like to replace it. Until then the ACA is what we have.

I do not currently have health insurance or health care. So far, for my family, the ACA does not seem to be working. I can get to a selection of policies for myself and my wife, but I have to leave my adult daughter off. Nor is she able to use the marketplace herself, as they seem unable to validate her identity on the website or telephone.

Since I am self employed and poor I am basically entitled to the maximum tax subsidy credit the system has. Even so, because we are on the road for about 10 months a year, the HMO plans offer nothing for us. We would simply be throwing our money away. The only plan that even makes the slightest sense is a base level Silver PPO plan that costs about $200 a month after the tax credit -- or, in other words, about 15% of my reported income just to purchase insurance, if I want health CARE I need to come up with more. And I would still need to insure my daughter separately and add that cost as well.

That said, the ACA still has some potential to benefit my family. Just not very much. Nor is this a shock. It was written by and for insurance companies, and it is intended to benefit them. They get guaranteed customers, by LAW, and all the cash that goes along with that, and then they get a tsunami of federal money in the form of subsidies. We're handing them trillions and getting bloody little in return.

[CreekDog]

94. Thank you for explaining that and telling your story

I'm not against wanting something better than ACA, but I'm glad we agree that in the absence of it, we do need the limited help that ACA provides for.

That said, to me, the ideal system would be:

1) Medicare for all who want to sign up for it
2) Medicaid as "Medigap" insurance for those of limited income

One could buy into Medicare and one could buy into Medicaid. I'd envision a progressive tax or charge for this, with those of little income paying nothing for full coverage of Medicare and Medicaid. I'd have no asset test for it to encourage people to stay covered as they save enough to protect them from falling further into poverty. Perhaps some sort of wealth surcharge, but since this will be cost effective medical coverage, I'd still want to enable wealthy to use and pay into it.

Ultimately, I'd envision a plan in which one could either purchase their way into year to year coverage or opt into a lifetime wage tax that covers guaranteed benefits.

And I'd like an end to losing one's assets as a result of using Medicaid. I don't know what we should do about long term care costs, which are high, but I imagine in other nations, there are models of how to handle it. The insurance plans which cover long term care aren't a solution in my opinion. Too many risks and too many issues of not knowing how much care will cost.

The chances of that happening without some sort of societal change, at least at this point, are small, but we should always be formulating good policies for the time when an opportunity arises to pass them; and in the interim, explain the advantages of such a program.

[Demo_Chris]

95. I think we need to move away from the "buying in" mindset...

Health care should be discussed and reformed as something that is a fundamental human right. Obviously it must be paid for in some way, but this should be viewed as a necessity of society, much in the way we view National Defense or Public Education. These are considered collective responsibilities.

President Obama asked whether we wanted a society in which we were all in this together or alone. I vote together, not simply because this benefits me and my family, but because it benefits society. I would argue that you can hardly call it a society if, having the capacity to care for each other, we elect not to do so.

We need a new enlightenment. The last enlightenment brought us to the industrial age and the triumph and power of machines and capitalism, this new one needs to bring us to the human age. We can solve these problems: healthcare and food and housing and pollution and human rights and all the rest, but we cannot solve them using the old mechanisms and motivations of an obsolete society. We need to start again, and I think (or hope) that people are ready to do that.

[groundloop]

65. I don't disagree, but the ACA was a big improvement in many ways

Yes, it's unfortunate that Joe Lieberman and others pitched a fit and wouldn't let us get true universal healthcare. However, the Affordable Care Act is a huge improvement over what we had and I at least welcome the fact that we've taken a step forward. My kids can now stay on my insurance while they're in college, a friend of mine with cancer in remission can now change jobs because she can't be denied coverage, my self employed step-son can buy coverage on the exchange for a lot less than before, and we all can get a yearly checkup and flu shots at no out of pocket cost. While I continue to push for true universal coverage I welcome the progress that's been made and don't desire to move backwards.

[ProSense]

68. And

Sorry Pro, but until EVERYONE has health care then it's a failed system...

The ACA helps some, but there will still be millions who's only health care is prayer and hope. Millions just hoping the pain in their chest isn't a heart attack, millions hoping the lump in their breast isn't cancer, millions practicing do-it-yourself internet medicine because that's all they can do, and who knows maybe snorting Windex really does cure Pneumonia.

Health CARE

Not insurance. Care. And it's freaking ludicrous that here, in the wealthiest nation in history, we have people dying because they cannot afford to see a doctor.

...because of Obamacare, there will tens of millions who no longer fall into that category.

The Week in Review

The government shutdown dragged into a second week. A growing majority of Democrats and about 20 Republicans in the House favor a Senate-passed resolution to reopen the government, but Speaker John Boehner refused to bring the resolution up for a vote. When House Republicans first forced a shutdown on Oct. 1, they were demanding the defunding of Obamacare as part of any deal. That would be a death sentence for thousands of Americans without health insurance, Sen. Bernie Sanders told a Senate hearing on Thursday. As the week wore on, Republicans shifted their rationale for closing the government and defaulting on the country’s debts. Now they demand deep cuts in Social Security and other programs. The whole spectacle drove public approval of Congress, especially Republicans and the Tea Party, to new lows. As Sanders sized up the situation in a Friday floor speech, he began by citing a piece in The Onion. “Psychiatrists Deeply Concerned for 5% of Americans Who Approve of Congress,” the headline said.

<...>

Obamacare “How many people will die if the Affordable Care Act is repealed?” Sanders asked at a hearing he chaired Thursday on what would happen if Obamacare is repealed. The hearing came on the 10th day of a government shutdown forced by House Republicans insisting that any deal to reopen the government defund the health care law. Watch excerpts from the hearing, Read Greg Kaufmann’s piece in The Nation

<...>

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/the-week-in-review-101113

This Week in Poverty: What ‘Defunding Obamacare’ Really Means

Greg Kaufmann

When the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was in question, independent Senator Bernie Sanders was no easy “yea” vote.

<...>

In the end, Sanders helped to pass the ACA—legislation that Republicans are now so desperate to repeal that they have shut down the government and put the full faith and credit of the US in jeopardy...He noted that “we are (still) the only country in the industrialized world that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to people as a right.” As a result, there are 48 million Americans without health insurance. Under the ACA, 20 million currently uninsured people will finally receive coverage (more if GOP governors get out of the way) and thousands of lives will be saved every year...Sanders pointed to a Harvard study that estimates 45,000 people are dying each year from illnesses that arise due to a lack of health insurance....“For all of those folks saying we have to repeal the Affordable Care Act, what they are doing is passing a death sentence on many of our fellow Americans.”

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a nonprofit organization that advocates for affordable healthcare for all Americans... used a “conservative” methodology—designed by the nonpartisan Institute of Medicine—to determine how many people between the ages of 25 and 64 died in 2010 due to a lack of health insurance.

“We found that approximately 26,100 people between the ages of 25 and 64 died prematurely due to a lack of health coverage that year,” said Pollack...this breaks down to 2,175 people dying every month, 502 every week, and seventy-two every day...between 2005 and 2010, it added up to 134,000 preventable deaths...That’s a number that resonates with Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who shared his personal experience with health being determined by coverage.

<...>

“These deaths occur invisibly,” he said. “They occur one at a time, all over the place, and it doesn’t say in the obituary ‘died because of no healthcare.’ If it happened all in one town, at one time, we would be moving heaven and earth to solve this problem, if we lost anywhere from 26,000 to 45,000 (people) a year. If we lost the town of Augusta in one year, and the next year it was someplace in Colorado, or Vermont, this society would have dealt with this many, many years ago.”

- more -

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176599/week-poverty-what-defunding-obamacare-really-means

[former9thward]

64. The Medicaid expansion would not apply to the homeless.

They would already be covered by the normal medicaid.

[ProSense]

67. Actually,

"The Medicaid expansion would not apply to the homeless.

They would already be covered by the normal medicaid."

...you don't know what you're talking about. California has a special program for the indigent, and even it is very limited.

Housing advocates and social workers across the country are now on a major push to inform impoverished and homeless people that they are eligible for Medicaid in the 25 states that are expanding the program and in the District of Columbia, and to enroll them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024090692

New Law Offers Hope For Homeless Health Care
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/august/20/homeless-health-care.aspx

How Obamacare Helped Paul, A Homeless California Man, Finally Get Insurance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023827703

Medicaid Coverage and Care for the Homeless Population: Key Lessons to Consider for the 2014 Medicaid Expansion
http://kff.org/health-reform/report/medicaid-coverage-and-care-for-the-homeless/

[former9thward]

69. I do know what I am talking about.

You don't. But I guess you think Health and Human Services doesn't know what they are talking about.

http://www.hhs.gov/homeless/research/condensedprimer.html

I post links from the government, not DU or other third parties as you do. Just because CA doesn't have their act together does not mean other states don't.

[ProSense]

73. No, you don't

A 2007 primer on guidelines that states:

Categorical eligibility
In order to secure Medicaid eligibility, a person must fall into a statutorily recognized “category” or “eligibility group.” There are six broad coverage groups: children, pregnant women, adults in families with dependent children, people with disabilities (adults and children), persons who are blind, and older persons.

Not a single person outside of those categories was eligible, and most states made no effort to provide those services to even those who fell into the existing categories.

Look at the California program's limitations.

The reason for the expansion was to extend Medicaid to all low-income Americans.

In fact, federal workers' children and legal immigrants were also excluded from Medicaid/CHIP until 2009.

Until now, legal immigrants have generally been barred from Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for five years after they enter the United States. States will now be able to cover those immigrants without the five-year delay.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/politics/05health.html

Low-income state workers begin to gain access to Children’s Health Insurance Program

By Sarah Barr

At least six states have opened their Children’s Health Insurance Program to the kids of low-income state employees, an option that was prohibited until the passage of the 2010 health-care law.

This relatively small step has as its backdrop years of debate over the program, known as CHIP, including concerns that it encourages states — and consumers — to replace private insurance with taxpayer-subsidized coverage.

Now, as a result of the policy change, families of lower-income state workers who have struggled to pay for family coverage can qualify for the program. CHIP, which is jointly financed by the states and the federal government, provides coverage to the uninsured children of families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance.

The federal government had closed that option to most states when CHIP was established in 1997, because of concerns that it might be an easy way for financially strapped states to shift the costs of some public-employee health benefits to the federal government. Federal employees were allowed to enroll their children.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2011/11/04/gIQAeDvotM_story.html

[former9thward]

74. I post from official sources.

You don't. You post third party reports and anecdotal stories. You love to link to your own posts on DU as some sort of authority. Now you are posting about government workers' children and immigrants which is totally off topic. As usual.

[ProSense]

78. Do you have "official sources"

showing that those outside the categories mentioned in the primer you linked to were eligible for Medicaid before the law?

Do you have an official source showing that legal immigrants were eligilble for Medicaid immediately?

I mean, in the states that haven't expanded Medicaid, those not in one of those categories still aren't eligible. Official source:



http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Medicaid-Moving-Forward-2014/Downloads/Medicaid-and-CHIP-Eligibility-Levels-Table_HHsize3.pdf

[shanti]

34. Absolutely

[gtar100]

49. Yes. Completely agree. (nt)

[Egalitarian Thug]

83. Add education and justice and it just might hang together.

Health care, education, and justice are necessities in a modern society just as surely as sustenance and shelter are.

Anyone that lacks any of these is at a typically insurmountable disadvantage. Change is coming one way or another, we can decide which way it will go.

[Demo_Chris]

84. Yes, and I am embarassed I failed to list them. nt

[HereSince1628]

11. I'm not sure how far it will go, but it won't come to WI with this legislature.

I can't imagine it getting through the legislature, but if it did Scotty, so keen to look very pure in conservative ideology for his presidential run would never sign it.

The only housing he wants to put them in is for-profit prisons.

[warrant46]

23. Scotty is an evil flunky of the Koch Brothers David and Charles

2 twenty first century Robber Barons who employ little cretins like Scotty to carry out their corrupt and depraved fantasies.

[Harmony Blue]

12. The only way this will sink in with economic conservatives is with the value of the dollar

that is why the environmental movement is picking up steam as another example. There is a cost with polluting finite amounts of valuable land or resources and there is an even higher cost to clean up that mess. The entire concept of the greater good is that it is cost effective to help all.

[Diego_Native 2012]

13. If you have not been homeless

you cannot understand, though you may empathize, how many, many seemingly normal tasks are rendered virtually impossible.

You cannot stay clean or groom properly.
You cannot receive mail.
You cannot sleep well.
You cannot be certain your few essential possessions are safe.
You cannot go to the bathroom when you need to do so.
You cannot rest when you have a cold, a flu, or food poisoning.
You cannot wash your clothes and bedding.
You cannot cook food.
You cannot get warm in the winter or cool in the summer.
You cannot avoid the stares and ridicule of strangers.
You can never feel safe in your person.

Everything...everything...starts with a safe place to live.

I hope all states, all communities follow Utah's lead.

[tina tron]

19. Access to basic human needs is a fundamental right

They are inalienable rights, forged in the Declaration of Independence. The conservatives in this country conveniently forget that.

[DBoon]

45. It would be illegal to treat a dog the way we treat the homeless

Nobody should be treated worse than a dog

[Live and Learn]

50. +1 nt

[bvar22]

82. FDR agreed.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
FDR, SOTU, 1944

Please note that FDR specified the above as Fundamental Human RIGHTS,
and NOT a Commodities to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

There was a time when voting FOR The Democrat
was voting FOR the above Traditional Democratic party Values.
Sadly, this is no longer true.

--bvar22
a mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat
now labeled a "Fringe Leftist" in the New Democrat Centrist Party.
I haven't changed.

[Raksha]

85. I can so relate to everything you said, bvar22.

Especially your sign-off:

--bvar22
a mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat
now labeled a "Fringe Leftist" in the New Democrat Centrist Party.
I haven't changed.

Your post is a keeper, because I want to save the excerpt from FDR's 1944 SOTU. I'm sure I'll find many occasions to use it.

--Linda aka Raksha,
Once a New Deal Democrat, now a so-called "hard leftist,"
even though I haven't changed.

[bvar22]

91. Thank You for the kind words.

After 30 years of Bi-Partisan trashing the New Deal and the Great Society,
it is past time for those of us who remember what a DEMOCRAT is supposed to be to start speaking up.

With the exception of Warren, Grayson, and a handful of others,
there are very few "Democrats" who STILL hold true to the values that
built the Largest, Wealthiest, and most Upwardly Mobile Working Class the World had ever seen.

LBJ's War on Poverty was a HUGE success.
We KNOW what works.
It is written in the History Books.
So WHY does the modern Democratic Party Leadership RUN from these Traditional Democratic Party Values?
It is well past time for Working Class & Poor DEMOCRATS to have a Come to Jesus (FDR) confrontation with our Party Leadership.

[font size=3]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]

[LongTomH]

86. +1000 Please consider reposting as an OP

[zeemike]

24. And without all of those things your chance of getting a job is nil.

Absolutely correct...everything...starts with a safe place to live.

[groundloop]

27. I was (somewhat) homeless for a month....

I still had it better than most folks who are homeless though. The place I lived got flooded, I couldn't find anywhere else to live for awhile, so secretly slept in a sleeping bag on the floor in a portable office trailer where I worked. Even that little taste of not having a place to call home SUCKED, and it definitely helped shaped my view of politics forever.

[Left Coast2020]

52. I am still fighting with that delima

My stomach hurts, my chest is having pains from the stress, and I can't find an intelligent person to get help.

I sometimes hate our society for the way most people treat others--especially in a crisis like homelessness. If you don't have family or friends, you feel beyond isolated. Its painful.

One DU'er here was so gracious to offer to buy lunch and talk with me when I put out my SOS. I would still like to meet them later. But now I think so much as to why we allow people to not have basic security like a roof over their head, a warm bed, food, and people who actually care when soneome is in crisis. Its a horribly painful feeling.

I would take that trailer with a bed and hot shower if thats all that was available.

[woo me with science]

32. ^^^^^^This^^^^^^

Excellent post.

[annabanana]

88. +1 .. Welcome to DU

The cruel assumptions made about the homeless breaks the hearts of anyone who HAS one.

[Aristus]

14. This paradigm proved successful when in was introduced in Washington State

back in 2007 or so.

Previously, the plan was to get them clean and sober, or stable on medication, and then get them into housing.

The relapse rate was around 70%.

So they reversed it: housing first, and then work on getting them sober or mentally and emotionally stable.

By reversing the plan, they reversed the failure rate; Success ~70%!

[russspeakeasy]

39. + 1

[freshwest]

47. I remember that.. conservative radio called the housing wino hotels, or something. It is logical and

it is humane. It was also heavily pushed by the Catholic Diocese. When I asked some about it, they explained it was simply the right thing to and a function of government, so they didn't mind paying taxes as individuals to keep up public services. Things have been looking up since then.

P. S. Not Catholic, Just giving some credit to liberals in the state and Catholics. Democrats do a good job, it looked like Utah and Arizona have faced reality and decided to stop ignoring the suffering. And that's the point of it all, not who does it, and does it fairly.

[Major Nikon]

71. It actually started in 15 years before that in NYC by a non-profit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#General_principles

[tclambert]

18. But . . . giving people stuff just makes them dependent!

Ayn Rand. John Galt. Ack. Argle bargle. Socialism! Blarf!

What happened to that Soylent Green business proposal?

[NewJeffCT]

20. this sounds like socialism, communism, fascism, and atheism

all rolled into one.

[legcramp]

21. Leave it to them Mormons to break it down to a business proposition

It saves money, it cuts expenses. Not because it the right, xian thing to do but it takes less money out of their pockets.

Thank DOG Rmoney and his GD 47% crap got his ass kicked.

[yeoman6987]

42. If only everyone would do this

Very embarrassing that the Republicans have this project. Democrats should have been all over this. Now the reddest state in the nation is ahead of the homeless epidemic….great….UGH! (In the big scheme of things, do cares why they are doing it!!!! The question is why aren't Democrats???? Don't tell me they are way too corporate now.

[madinmaryland]

43. If Obama was all over this and trying to promote it, we know what the result would be.

Fucking teaKlanners.

[bvar22]

92. ...but we already have that,

so why not Go for the WIN and push Traditional FDR/LBJ Working Class Democratic Party Policy
instead of starting in the Middle and "compromising" to The Right?

What would be the downside?
Do you think the Right Wing could get any MORE crazy?

[madinmaryland]

93. "Do you think the Right Wing could get any MORE crazy?" Yes and Fuck Yes.

I really don't know what it is going to take to turn the electorate around to believe in working America. Even working Americans vote against their own good, and allow the Oligarchs ship even more jobs overseas and strip workers here of even the most basic rights.

They are more concerned about their guns and gays than about the how they and their families are doing financially.

[freshwest]

48. ? Democrats did this here in 2007. Utah is following our lead:

Last edited Sun Dec 22, 2013, 02:43 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024211169#post14

We have nothing to be embarrassed about. It is not a Republican plan they thought up themselves. Also, there are a number of Democrats in the state of Utah.

[bluestate10]

22. I have always found Utah to be a strange state. It has some of the most developed

community systems, but it is an insular, anti-gay, deep red state. Utah is definitely ahead of every other state on this issue.

[Turbineguy]

25. Simple, practical economics

overruling idealogical purity? Where can this possibly lead? How will the homeless get the fresh air Reagan said they craved?

[Warpy]

26. I hope it manages to get to NM

and once we get rid of our Texas Teabagger governor, maybe it will. We certainly have enough derelict hotels that could be turned into studio apartments with very little capital investment to do the job, getting blighted properties occupied while getting people off the street at the same time.

Republicans, of course, will scream bloody murder about "enabling" without having a single clue what that word really means.

[ConcernedCanuk]

29. Well, that's just creating another class of "poor" people . . .

.
.
.

What about all those slumlords who can't afford their cottages,

their expensive boats,

their trips abroad,

and so on?

Shame on Utah, bypassing the 1% like that . . .

CC

ps: musta listened to Georges rant on the homeless ("houselessness&quot and "those golfing cocksuckers" dozens of times . . . luved George - he left us too soon.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. These apartments will be privately owned, rents collected for profit, not some

publically owned housing. The 1% is not being by passed. They are being given a windfall if they own low income housing. Rent is paid, just not by the tenent. Paid to the property owner, by tax payers. It's a great idea but is sure as hell does not exclude landlords from their lordship.

[JDPriestly]

31. Used to work in the administration of a city homeless shelter. Utah has the right approach.

Homeless people need a place to live, a safe place to live. All the better if it is a sober living apartment or single room occupancy facility. First thing is to have a place to live, to eat and sleep and relax and have friends visit that will be there no matter what.

[woo me with science]

33. Huge K&R

Wow!

[NaturalHigh]

37. Works for me.

[mountain grammy]

40. K & R for common sense.

[Live and Learn]

51. That is great news and so unexpected these days. nt

[daleanime]

53. K&R....

[quaker bill]

55. It has been known for some time

that public housing and counseling are a substantially less expensive approach to this problem than law enforcement and incarceration. The bonus is that it is more humane as well.

Most reports also indicate that it is more effective, in that more people "turn their lives around" with this approach. This has something to do with the cycle of hopelessness being broken.

Having worked with the homeless population for going on 20 years now, once a person is homeless and living close to that edge, it is very easy for them to make one small mistake and end up back there.

[King_Klonopin]

56. It always seemed to me that, in "Red States", they jump to the opportunity

to be nasty, mean, shaming and punitive to the poor and the homeless
because it's such sporting fun, as well as profitable.

Their compassionately conservative joy springs from being a moral bully,
like with food stamps ... until today.

It's a Festivus miracle !!!!

[DeSwiss]

57. See?

- Opening your eyes doesn't hurt. There's no tellin' what we can do if more people would just open their eyes.

K&R

[Enthusiast]

58. But these homeless people don't "deserve" something they didn't work for.

They shouldn't be rewarded for their laziness. They will grow fat and complacent sucking on the government teat. Did I get that right?

[nilesobek]

66. Proving that all the food and shelters

Aren't even close to being as good as having your own place. Bravo Utah.

[Le Taz Hot]

70. I hope Governor Brown is reading this.

There are SO MANY homeless people who are in desperate need here in California.

[Raksha]

87. That's for damn sure. I live in San Bernardino, where it's really bad.

But it was even worse a few years ago, when it seemed like every third house in my formerly middle-class neighborhood was being foreclosed. We still have too many foreclosures, just not quite as many as before.

[harun]

72. Food, Shelter and Clothing should be provided to anyone who can't get that for themselves.

[niyad]

75. UTAH???? a holiday miracle, indeed. I have been advocating for the same thing in my oh-so-red

little burg here for years now, and keep getting told all the dozens and hundreds of reasons why it simply won't work.

copying this, and sending it to every govt official and prominent person I can think of, including the idiot mayor (a true 1%er)

[niyad]

76. when I first saw the title, I assumed that when I read it, it would say that utah was simply sending

the homeless somewhere else.

[Laelth]

79. k&r for good government. n/t

-Laelth

[ProSense]

96. Phoenix Becomes First City To End Chronic Homelessness Among Veterans

Phoenix Becomes First City To End Chronic Homelessness Among Veterans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024217875

Another good program:

The Most Innovative Homeless Service You’ve Never Heard Of
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/10/18/2779251/project-homeless-connect/