TheLostHippos t1_iz1umai wrote
Its actually an interesting economics problem where local areas can end up saving money by investing in revitalizing an area. My specialty was on how government funding impacts chronic homelessness and how long it would take to repay the costs based on the cost savings found in the reduced use of public and emergency services. It gets even more complex in the long term as the basic prevention of health issues like infections reduces the load on local hospitals resulting in better treatment outcomes for locals.
stiveooo t1_iz30njs wrote
And what has the best impact by $ invested? Best return/reward?
hospitals?
parks?
Public buildings?
Roads?
TheLostHippos t1_iz3ct56 wrote
My work focused on the chronic homeless showed Mixed Income Assisted Housing provided the best long term results.
However there were some unique problems I ran into during my research. Treating homelessness has a unique aspect of game theory to it. If your area adds more services for the homeless population you would expect your area to have less homeless people. But people in other areas hear about the services and travel to your area for access to these services. This means the city/county that enacts programs to fix their homeless population may actually see an increase in the homeless population while surrounding areas see a decrease in their homeless populations.
help1155 t1_iz3j6fz wrote
The last part just described SF in a nutshell
TheLostHippos t1_iz4peqz wrote
It absolutely does. SF was one of the areas I used during my research (However my research is OLD now and it looks like it may be even worse than when I was looking at it.)
stiveooo t1_iz3dsm8 wrote
so the same as singapore, they introduced mixed income housing cause going for low only births villas and favelas.
net positive then
i think limiting the access to it would fix that. Not open to everyone but only for those that are trying to fix their issues. +using Face ID scans
Strazdas1 t1_iz43u0g wrote
>Not open to everyone but only for those that are trying to fix their issues.
Then you end up like California. Homeless housing stands half-empty while tent towns spring up the other side of the street. Why? because according to the people in tent towns "they tried to take my freedom to do drugs away".
stiveooo t1_iz4ufmz wrote
no, thats when you arrest everyone doing drugs like in a normal country.
TheLostHippos t1_iz4z4vf wrote
No.
Arresting them will just cost us all more money in the long run. They'll be put into a system designed around recidivism. They don't try and help these people in US prisons, they want the cheap labor.
If you think the solution to drug use is to put them in prison where drugs are just as common, then you're part of the reason we've ended up in this situation.
stiveooo t1_iz4zkck wrote
yes, its better to build pseudo-jails where you can help them by rehabilitation.
Either way the California way its the worst one cause they spend the most and get almost nothing.
Strazdas1 t1_iz4wu2o wrote
This is united states of america. Acting like a normal country is not allowed.
Strazdas1 t1_iz43q38 wrote
But if you try that then half the neighbourhood will be ready to strangle you with claims of gentrification.
geetarzrkool t1_iz5kn0q wrote
...and/or the decline in your property value if you had a decent place where one of these "experiments" was implemented nearby.
If it "works" it will attract "the poors and other riff-raff", which will, in turn only lower neighboring property values even more.
The folks with the 30 year mortgages have lots more to loose than the gun-toating Junkies, I think we can all agree.
It will also simply become another ever-expanding, govt.-funded, corrupt mess. We all know who is gonna get the contracts for the "renovations" too ;)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments