50% of temporarily sheltered homeless people are employed.
Many of the rest have untreated mental health and drug addiction problems. With proper medical treatment, the remainder could also achieve financial independence, while the rest would likely need permanent care.
Do not forget, the homeless are people. You should help them because we need to look out for each other.
If you need another reason, then the Housing First model drastically reduces homeless populations, and is significantly cheaper for taxpayers than how we currently deal with them.
If 90% of them have jobs, why are most of them in a $20 tent and tarps in Washington Jefferson Park or similar park, or a burnt out 40 year old RV in a neighborhood.
They have no real expenses, yet you say they have jobs, where is that money from the job, huh?
I don't think that's any of our business, wouldn't you agree?
You're trying to use a moral, subjective argument to paint homeless people as irresponsible or to blame for their lack of shelter.
I prefer facts and statistics. Like the fact that Housing First is the most effective method of reducing the number of homeless people that has ever been developed to date, as well as being cheaper for taxpayers.
If you're really that stirred up at the existence of homeless people, then fight for the most effective method of reducing them. Either that, or continue hating them while also not helping, but that seems like cutting your nose to spite your face. The choice is yours.
I don't think that's any of our business, wouldn't you agree?
No, I would not agree.
If they are homeless while having income, yet you are giving them free homes, there is a problem there. Why are they not using that income on a home? What is it being used on?
When you are getting free public services, your income and it's amount and it's usage becomes our business. That's how OHP works, that's how Oregon trail works, that's how disability works.
Should a person who has an income from a job but only can afford a tent not be questioned when it comes to giving them free homes? Are they truly unable to afford housing or is there.... something that is higher priority than housing to them...
In order to start renting you need to have at the very minimum $2000 up front in cash (first and last month plus deposit). Which at Oregon minimum wage full time employment is at least an entire months wages. Keep in mind there's expenses like food, hygiene, insurance, phone bill (required for jobs), and possible medical bills and/or debt.
So in order to begin renting the cheapest possible places in Eugene, when homeless, most would have to be working and homeless for a minimum of 2 months.
There's also other factors considering that rental companies are biased against the unhoused, because they have most likely been a previously evicted tenant, which would cause them to be denied rental access in favor of people who have shown more reliable income.
There's also the catch-22 for those who don't have jobs; where most jobs require the employee to have a residence, and all rental companies require tenants to have a job. So you can't get one without the other, but you begin with neither. This is how a lot of people stay homeless, because the system is slanted against them very heavily when they are at their most vulnerable.
You are talking to someone that charges those crazy deposits and profits off of working class people. They have no interest in changing anything while profiting big time.
6
u/Relative_Fee8962 Aug 04 '22
40% of unsheltered homeless people are employed.
50% of temporarily sheltered homeless people are employed.
Many of the rest have untreated mental health and drug addiction problems. With proper medical treatment, the remainder could also achieve financial independence, while the rest would likely need permanent care.
Do not forget, the homeless are people. You should help them because we need to look out for each other.
If you need another reason, then the Housing First model drastically reduces homeless populations, and is significantly cheaper for taxpayers than how we currently deal with them.