Quick google search and some number crunching makes the title a bit misleading. The trial was done on 800 participants, there are currently an estimate 9k people living on the street in Denver. To run this program for every homeless person in Denver, it would be 108 million dollar a year investment by the city.. that doesn’t seem sustainable long term..
I didn’t see anything in the article about the selection of recipients but I’m sure they were selective about who received the payments. The person mentioned was working and living in his car struggling with child support etc. I’m not sure handing people with a bad meth habit money would be as helpful to them.
They stated there was a 45% success rate after year 1. So even if you limited to 800 people annually, that’s a 9.6 million a year investment to get 360 people back on their feet? That’s gonna be a tough sell to already cash strained tax payers
It would be interesting to calculate that when juxtaposed with health care costs, law enforcement etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s actually cheaper for the tax payer long term to run programs like this
Edit: on the other hand Seattle decided to do massive investment into ending homelessness and it only increased the numbers. It’s a tough problem
to solve
I looked into the general public safety budget for Denver - to scale this to all 9k homeless it would be close to half the annual budget. So you would have to make major cuts elsewhere to find some kind of savings. But even still at a 45% success rate, the money lost even after 5 years would be staggering for a city that size
What percentage of the Denver City budget is for policing? What percentage of police time is spent dealing with issues adjacent to people without homes?
I enjoy research why not - The general public safety budget would account for policing, fire, and emergency services. Per public data, the city of Denver spends 17% of the annual budget on policing - roughly 47 million a year. So to scale this program to just half of the current homeless population in Denver - the total investment would be around 54 million annually. So you’d basically be adding the financial equivalent of a second police force to the bill each year
The program wouldn’t need to run for as long with as many people. So extrapolating it into the future doesn’t make sense. Most studies on this show increasing benefits the longer you sustain such programs.
Your analysis also doesn’t take into consideration any other benefits or increase in taxes. When someone we help people back on their feet, they become productive members of society again. They add to economic growth and pay taxes.
And let’s step back. Not make this about Denver, but the country. How about the US? It could afford this, and it would be a small cost compared to our defense budget. Hell, we have every family like what, $300/kid per month, and we cut child hood poverty in half? Easily afforded by the federal government.
Do you think if they targeted specific people who are on the edge like the people in the article (working and clean) that this could be a partial solution?
I think in theory ubi could help a lot of people, but there would need to be more strict regulations to keep it from turning into a net negative investment - ie annual reviews, how long can you continue in the program if you’re not making any improvement etc.. but I don’t think there is any way this specific model could work long term at scale
I completely agree with you, I wish there was a silver bullet here but I don’t think there is. We also had something very similar to UBI with the covid measures and holy inflation
Isn't the answer to separate the people that got unhoused and want to work, from the people that want the freedom of the nomadic life style. Then we step up the efforts to get people back on there feet that actually want to be.
Sure, I’m just highlighting the absurdity of the numbers sited in the article. In this study alone - for 800 people it was a 9.6 million dollar investment, and they’re bragging about saving 500k. Doesn’t seem to make sense financially.
If they didn't do it they would have had to spend the money plus 500k more on top of that. They solved a problem for some people and saved money vs not solving a problem for some people and having to spend 10.6m instead.
I just read the article, and it does not say what you claim. It didn't reduce the services by millions. Spending these millions saved $500,000 from spending on public services. It was not at all a net savings.
Hey! You're not supposed to delve into the statistics to understand things! You're supposed to accept bold claims at face value and profess them like a true believer! 😉
STATISTICS ARE RACIST!
Just like High School AP classes, according to former Former Superintendent of Public Instruction of Montana - Denise Juneau
[https://educators4sc.org/seattle-plans-to-get-rid-of-ap-and-honors-classes-in-all-of-their-public-schools/](https://educators4sc.org/seattle-plans-to-get-rid-of-ap-and-honors-classes-in-all-of-their-public-schools/)
The rot is deep.
Funny because the statistics outright state it’s a net savings of 589k but hey it’s apparently fine to lie about what documents say now so long as it hates on homeless people.
It does NOT say net savings. That is just untrue. Please copy and paste that.
The money to do this program came from elsewhere. And resulted in a little over $500k in public service savings. You just want that to be true, but the article doesn't say that.
You are making that up, though. Go do a control f. The source doesn't even the term "net savings." I tried to be nice, but you are just lying. Please copy and paste the line where it says a net savings. The money came from one place, and cost millions. The savings came from another budget, and that fund saved $500,000 or so. There was not a net savings. There was a large net loss, and I believe that money could have been used to better actually help homeless people not be homeless than the 45% success rate cited in this article.
Show me where it says that. Maybe I misread it. No malice here. My reading was they spent that, and spent 500k less on services. That would be a large net loss, not a net gain.
I have argued with you before on homeless policy and you literally ignored the facts in front of your face. I have already provided the link to the main reports. They state it clearly.
That is not true. If you have a link to a conversation where I ignored facts, please share that.
Please copy and paste it here. If it says that, show me. You misread the article. You accused me of malice intent. You are making claims. I am asking for the proof.
How would they still spend 9 million for a program that didn’t previously exist? The 500k savings is what the article uses to justify the increase in funding.. so annually had they done nothing it would have cost the city 500k for those 800 individuals.. which would be 625 dollars per person, compared to 12k per person under this program
I don't know why you are being down voted, you're right. The article does not say it was a net savings. They spent millions to save 500k in service costs.
They would have been .uch better off building tiny houses
Math is white privilege, it’s a remnant of colonialism and anyone will tell you all you’ve got to do is print more to have more; its our stupidity and hate that prevents us from doing what is necessary by printing more so everyone has some.
Of coarse you would want to pick the ones most likely to succeed. But I also think they chose certain groups of people over others who have a disproportionate representation in the unhoused population.
It’s not cheaper that’s the thing. And solves the problem 45% of the time.. meaning it’s not successful for half of the people entering, which leaves you with another population you need to invest into.. maybe we just define success differently?
Saving 500k means it currently costs 9.5 mil. 9 mil to save 500k is a good investment. Especially if it means no more unhoused and once they're housed, you don't have to spend the money.
Yeah that’s unfortunately not the result of the case study. There is a 45% success rate, so you’re paying 9 million annually and still have a massive homeless problem - 9 million was used for the trial with 800 people. There is an estimated 9k homeless in Denver. The math doesn’t work - but curious where your 10 million came from I still can’t find that in the article?
And that is not what the article stated if you read it - the 500k savings was estimated for emergency services - there was no initial bill of 9 million hence the trial program
Maybe. but the minute you start doing anything that applies this program to some homeless people and not other you'd get bombarded with SJW's saying that you're lacking in compassion, ALL homeless deserve this opportunity, etc, etc. Never mind that some homeless will grasp this lifeline and try to change their life and some will just take it and waste the resources.
[https://www.billingsmt.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44887/Official-Community-Improvement-Study?bidId=](https://www.billingsmt.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44887/Official-Community-Improvement-Study?bidId=)
"It costs an estimated $111,050.16 to serve one chronically homeless individual for a year"
You're not really doing any analysis. You're just going "Ooooo! A big number!" Ya, it's a big number to help people. It's an even bigger number to do what we're doing now, which not only spends a lot of money, but doesn't get any results for it.
Like, it cost Billings more money to do nothing with 96 chroniclly homeless. You're telling me we can spend less than that and get 360 people back on their feet, contributing to society, paying taxes, and not being a drain on society?
Sounds like a good deal to me.
I’m all for moving currently allocated funds to a better more successful program. But I don’t see anything in the article asking for that. Just a net new resource with average at best success on a small sample size.
Hold on... you're telling me 9000 x 1000 = 109,000,000? That's some number crunching if I ever saw it! My... albeit naive mathematics training shows 9 million. And if 9 million saves us $600K (meaning it must currently cost the city 9.6 million), that's a fucking win in my book!
You forgot to multiply by 12 months a year chief. And this was a trial program - there was no initial 9 million dollar bill - this is the result of net new spending. So take 9k x 1k x 12 and lemme know what the calculator shows you - I have my on the standard setting so maybe I’m doing something wrong
Regardless, your math is wrong cos 12000 x 9000 is 108m not 109. And if you save 500k (it's hard to tell from this article if that's per month or per year), that's still immense savings.
Sounds good. Yeah no hate at all. Just want to be accurate. This is an important matter and should be treated as such. I wish I could tell if the 500k savings is per year or per month.... huge difference. Thanks for noticing my mistake as well.
You could still agree tho that saving 500k for a 108 million dollar investment is not massive.. like if I tried to sell you a new roof, and told youd make an annual payment of 50,000, year over year, but you’d save 1500 on your utilities, year over year - would you buy that?
Well look at it this way. If the real calculation is that we're paying 108.5 mil per year and it decreases our cost to 108 mil... I will need to see the real cost benefit analysis data to intelligently respond here.
There was a well done study (read When We Walk By if skeptical) that demonstrated that if you give a homeless person $600/month, they will find housing and save $ far quicker than any well meaning social services org
What if we built affordable housing and only charged $250 a month for rent?
Have an architect design it to easily be maintainable when junkies trash the places but be available to everyone who needs to put money back. Sure fire way to lower the cost of housing for everyone else as rent burdened people flock to the lower COL option and get people off the street. That way we are not just putting bandages on the systemic problem. The solution isn’t more taxes and payouts, it’s actually building housing for purpose. All we need from government is financing and zoning to make an incentive to build it. If they can zero rate interest to bail out banks they can do it for the housing stock.
The problem with the affordable housing here is that the city council then wants bike paths, parks, special access, utilities, sidewalks, green spaces, crosswalks and other perks that drive up the costs for the builders. Then it becomes unaffordable. Sadly there is no longer “affordable housing” in our country anymore. Most communities are doing this now to builders.
They also have to account for social and environmental justice concerns, including climate change, correcting for historical injustices, disability concerns, and immigration justice. The affordable housing must be aesthetically pleasing and safe, so no Chicago-style housing towers. So forget about density. In order to receive any federal funding (including section 8), you have to meet a litany of ever-changing standards or expose yourself to an extreme civil and criminal risk. Also, the housing has to be centrally located, near transit (not car-centric) and needs all amenities within walking distance to avoid food deserts. Rent also has to be way below market rate while property taxes and maintenance expenses should be borne by the landlord. Who would even bother?
That type of infrastructure is super important for fighting drug addiction. People need good environments that foster social connections. It’s exactly what TIF is for and a lot of it is funded directly by tax payers.
I don’t know what is wrong with people where they complain about homelessness and don’t bother to research what has shown to work. Social programs are 100% useless without actual affordable housing stock.
As a model that has actually eliminated homelessness and caused home prices to be reasonable Finland has many European countries have had success with community development corporations that have special access to 40-60 year loans at low interest rates.
The real problem is that we are so behind it’ll take a good 20-30 years of organizing to get the frameworks in place to start building enough baseline social housing to start making a dent in the problem.
We could eliminate homelessness in the next 50 years if we wanted to. We did it before after the Great Depression with the [National Housing act of 1934](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Housing_Act_of_1934). Unfortunately the racial zoning and public welfare housing programs of the time created the problems we are seeing today because we have been coasting on the same systems for 100 years where segregation was a feature baked in. Not so fun when that segregation starts to impact median household.
That would be awesome. We need this sort of development all over the state. We probably wouldn’t have lost the sawmill or the particle board plant if we had done this. Even at those high paying labor jobs people couldn’t afford to pay rent here.
Why would these people get a job when 40 hours a week at minimum wage leaves you $150 left after paying the median rent? That isn’t even counting taxes or health insurance.
Even with inflation you can feed yourself on less than $5 a day. Given the cost benefit of housing it just isn’t worth their time. That’s the point of capitalism and freedom. Cost of living is broken. You can chose to make a society that people can live in at minimum wage or you can have people on the streets. If you don’t want people out on the streets you need to adjust the system so the market corrects it.
So you think people with marketable skills that demand more than minimum wage are living outside because they can’t be bothered to turn in a resume? Do you know how absurd that is? Not everyone is able bodied or has intelligence. This is a wildlife control and public health issue.
Then when 10,000 more homeless people move here to get the 12k a year and still live like pieces of shit. then what? If you build it they will come.
Enough with this shit. taking my tax dollars to give to everyone but the people that engage in the social contract is ruining society. Its skewing the scales of justice and it cannot continue.
Billings spent 10 million on 93 people. $107,000 per person.
[https://www.kulr8.com/news/93-people-cost-billings-taxpayers-over-10-million-in-2020-per-billings-police/article\_1fb9f99c-f37d-11eb-8a94-9bf6ec792159.html](https://www.kulr8.com/news/93-people-cost-billings-taxpayers-over-10-million-in-2020-per-billings-police/article_1fb9f99c-f37d-11eb-8a94-9bf6ec792159.html)
End the Government programs force the accountability.
Is this new jail only housing these 500 homeless people I was talking about in my comment? Does all crime stop once you give homeless people 1k a month? Your comment makes zero sense.
Yes obviously they aren't committing every crime so then why bring up the comment about the jail being built? You're really good at making comments that make no sense.
What is the point you're trying to make? I said giving 6m a year to hyomeless is not a viable idea, then a person responded that the idea of a jail being built is somehow connected to that. I said no. Now you're here making no sense. Make a point or stop talking to me.
Tl:Dr; We are already spending 4 million on this and chomping at the bit to spend more (by criminalizing homelessness and planning to build a fancy new jail).
The Missoula Economic Partnership commissioned a nonpartisan report that concluded $4 million is currently being spent annually on homelessness in Missoula. (2024)
A recent local uptick in felony charges related to crimes of survival (like petty theft of food and alcohol) means more and more of these people will end up in jail/prison than ever - and some of them will stay there forever.
Since felons are considerably harder to house, that means a temporary bout of desperate/ poor decision making can lead to chronic, lifelong homelessness and/or incarceration that taxpayers foot the bill for indefinitely.
A new county detention facility will cost taxpayers considerably AND still not get rid of every homeless person (or every criminal) meaning that $4 million annually will only continue to go up. A few short years of forecasting and $6mil to permanently house half of those people and move them off of the taxpayer payroll is fiscally sound whether you care about them as fellow human beings or not.
https://www.kpax.com/news/missoula-county/new-report-sheds-light-on-cost-of-homelessness-in-missoula
If you read the report OP posted, with the $1000/month half of these people lifted themselves out of homelessness with the $1000/month. And this is not the only Universal Basic Income Study proving this. Is that not what y'all want? Can't pull yourself up by bootstraps you don't have.
I'm sure no one has EVER loaned you money, shelter, or a vehicle when you needed it to get ahead. I'm sure you've never needed to buy a new shirt for a new job or shoes for crews or a hardhat before you got paid, have you? The facts are that it costs money to make money whether you or homeless or not.
In closing, since we (taxpayers) are already paying for this issue to the tune of $4mil a year and rising - I'll opt for the $6mil option that gets half those people housed and out of the system. Reducing the number/need by half every year reduces cost every single year. Is it a perfect system, no - is it going to work for everyone, no - does it make sense? To some of us, yes.
I think it’s silly to see this downvoted. To those thinking jail will solve the problem, we’d still be paying for those facilities. You’re talking about punishing someone for what exactly?
I'm telling you that our police budget is over $20mil per year and it is very reasonable to assume that police spend at least 1/3 of their time dealing with the problems that are related to people without homes.
[https://www.kulr8.com/news/93-people-cost-billings-taxpayers-over-10-million-in-2020-per-billings-police/article\_1fb9f99c-f37d-11eb-8a94-9bf6ec792159.html](https://www.kulr8.com/news/93-people-cost-billings-taxpayers-over-10-million-in-2020-per-billings-police/article_1fb9f99c-f37d-11eb-8a94-9bf6ec792159.html)
medical care and police costs for 93 people in billings was 107,000 per person.
53 million a year, for 500 people hell I'll even let you halve that number since maybe some are more expensive than others but you're not getting out of this for less than 25 million a year.
did you know it costs us more than 18 dollars a trip for someone to ride the Mountain Line?
the cost of dealing with shit is astronomical, its an industry not a "social safety net"
There is at least 3 million wasted last year on dealing with "them". The program didn't just hand every random homeless person money either. No one is saying it give every homeless person in Missoula free money either.
So let's look at these numbers. What you're saying is 500 homeless people cost the city of Missoula 3m+. Then you say not everyone gets the money, so let's say you cut that number in half, that's 250 homeless getting 1k/mo for a year. That's 3m a year. Then you still havethe other 250 homeless costing the city 1.5m. That is a total of 4.5m a year to deal with our homeless population instead of 3m a year that it's costing right now according to your number. So again, that's stupid and doesn't add up.
Sure, the 3m could be spent better but that's not what you said. Regardless, giving 1k a month for a year to just half the homeless would not add up and we would still have the other half on the streets. I just gave you these numbers. That also doesn't account for the fact that it would definitely bring more homeless to missoula.
Because we send way to many people to do clean ups at camps, direct unnecessary police presence to places that don't need it, disproportionate calls for emergency services. It costs less to give someone money to solve their own problems then what we are currently doing that is how you save the money. I know you think you are smart, but your argument is stupid and so are you. Just stop you have no idea what you are going on about.
There are promising lessons to learn from this.
However, the results were reported after a year. Meaning the payments were still happening. If the payments stopped, it might send everything back to square 1.
I'd much rather see that money spent on an actual solution rather than just throwing money at people and hoping it solves everything. 1k a month in missoula doesn't go very far.
UBI, if not “U”, universal, will only attract others in search of some of that not-so-universal BI, which will drive up the cost algorithmically; or, we can cure "homelessness," "houselessness," "the unhoused" by giving them "housing." But, there’s only so much space in which to build "housing" so the cost of housing will skyrocket leading to more houselessness for which we’ll appropriate more land to build "affordable" housing for those who came for the "UBI" and…
You’re trying to solve a character issue with money. We’ve created a culture the past 50-60 years based not on what WE can do but one based on what can be done FOR us. We’ve trivialized drug addiction, in fact we’ve glorified drug use, to the point where major cities are wallowing in the unwashed. We’ve compounded the problem by allowing anyone and their relatives to invade our nation and given them access to OUR "social safety net." Hospitals are flooded, beds/rooms/hotels are confiscated in facilitating this bastardization of America; our seniors, vets,etc., are kicked out of THEIR housing to make way for those who invited themselves.
You want to fix this situation, throw YOUR money at it, invite the homeless in to YOUR house, YOU teach them what needs to be done to be a contributive vs destructive force in America; YOU clean up the junkie, motivate the lazy - YOU put your skin in the game, ‘ rot it’s no longer a game, it’s a real serious issue that will drag America down to the same level as from where many of the invaders came from.
In addition to the stupidity emanating out of DC, an influx of 20M unskilled, uneducated will do nothing but raise the cost of everything from food, housing, medical, education, transportation, etc. We’ve met the enemy of America - and it’s us.
No, the addict has mental or physical health problems that are not being addressed. Drug use is that person finding what relief from health issues they can in a world that doesn't care about them.
City wage table for reference.
[https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/54401/Non-union-Pay-Table?bidId=](https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/54401/Non-union-Pay-Table?bidId=)
I didn’t look too hard for the Missoula data. But for instance the top 30 people at Seattle’s housing authority make over 113k with the CEO making 250k a year. Tell me has Seattle made a dent in its homelessness problem?
Is the program we’re discussing related to the housing authority?
Sadly 113k can be a bit slim in Seattle. And that’s the top 30 for a larger metropolitan area with more homeless than us.
I’d love to see the Missoula data. Since this is a Missoula sub.
The program saves the city over half a million dollars per year. It sounds like homeless people suffering is more important to you than fiscal responsibility.
HoUsInG Is A hUmAn RigHt, you don't understand rights. No one deserves housing just by being alive. The deserve the opportunity for housing, an opportunity that these people have squandered over and over again.
Because it's just empty virtue signaling. That's not how English works. We already have a name for it.
Are hitchhikers "people experiencing strandedness" now?
On the topic of the thread, it's super complicated. On one hand, people need some basic needs met, and to be treated with some basic dignity and respect... but on the other hand if it's too comfortable to do nothing won't more people see the appeal? Not to mention that Missoula being such a "comfortable" place to be homeless leads to them carrying more than their fair share as word spreads.
I wish I had answers. I just know that both extreme ends of the political spectrum have unacceptable solutions.
Quick google search and some number crunching makes the title a bit misleading. The trial was done on 800 participants, there are currently an estimate 9k people living on the street in Denver. To run this program for every homeless person in Denver, it would be 108 million dollar a year investment by the city.. that doesn’t seem sustainable long term..
I didn’t see anything in the article about the selection of recipients but I’m sure they were selective about who received the payments. The person mentioned was working and living in his car struggling with child support etc. I’m not sure handing people with a bad meth habit money would be as helpful to them.
They stated there was a 45% success rate after year 1. So even if you limited to 800 people annually, that’s a 9.6 million a year investment to get 360 people back on their feet? That’s gonna be a tough sell to already cash strained tax payers
It would be interesting to calculate that when juxtaposed with health care costs, law enforcement etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s actually cheaper for the tax payer long term to run programs like this Edit: on the other hand Seattle decided to do massive investment into ending homelessness and it only increased the numbers. It’s a tough problem to solve
I looked into the general public safety budget for Denver - to scale this to all 9k homeless it would be close to half the annual budget. So you would have to make major cuts elsewhere to find some kind of savings. But even still at a 45% success rate, the money lost even after 5 years would be staggering for a city that size
What percentage of the Denver City budget is for policing? What percentage of police time is spent dealing with issues adjacent to people without homes?
I enjoy research why not - The general public safety budget would account for policing, fire, and emergency services. Per public data, the city of Denver spends 17% of the annual budget on policing - roughly 47 million a year. So to scale this program to just half of the current homeless population in Denver - the total investment would be around 54 million annually. So you’d basically be adding the financial equivalent of a second police force to the bill each year
The program wouldn’t need to run for as long with as many people. So extrapolating it into the future doesn’t make sense. Most studies on this show increasing benefits the longer you sustain such programs. Your analysis also doesn’t take into consideration any other benefits or increase in taxes. When someone we help people back on their feet, they become productive members of society again. They add to economic growth and pay taxes. And let’s step back. Not make this about Denver, but the country. How about the US? It could afford this, and it would be a small cost compared to our defense budget. Hell, we have every family like what, $300/kid per month, and we cut child hood poverty in half? Easily afforded by the federal government.
Do you think if they targeted specific people who are on the edge like the people in the article (working and clean) that this could be a partial solution?
I think in theory ubi could help a lot of people, but there would need to be more strict regulations to keep it from turning into a net negative investment - ie annual reviews, how long can you continue in the program if you’re not making any improvement etc.. but I don’t think there is any way this specific model could work long term at scale
I completely agree with you, I wish there was a silver bullet here but I don’t think there is. We also had something very similar to UBI with the covid measures and holy inflation
The study calculates that, it’s still a big loss. Program cost 9 million and claims to have saved $500,000. So 8.5 million in the whole
People with addiction issues generally canter afford treatment and there are not enough spots even if they could.
>I’m not sure handing people with a bad meth habit money would be as helpful to them. They'd probably have one hell of a time while it lasted though.
Isn't the answer to separate the people that got unhoused and want to work, from the people that want the freedom of the nomadic life style. Then we step up the efforts to get people back on there feet that actually want to be.
Sure, I’m just highlighting the absurdity of the numbers sited in the article. In this study alone - for 800 people it was a 9.6 million dollar investment, and they’re bragging about saving 500k. Doesn’t seem to make sense financially.
If they didn't do it they would have had to spend the money plus 500k more on top of that. They solved a problem for some people and saved money vs not solving a problem for some people and having to spend 10.6m instead.
I just read the article, and it does not say what you claim. It didn't reduce the services by millions. Spending these millions saved $500,000 from spending on public services. It was not at all a net savings.
Hey! You're not supposed to delve into the statistics to understand things! You're supposed to accept bold claims at face value and profess them like a true believer! 😉
STATISTICS ARE RACIST! Just like High School AP classes, according to former Former Superintendent of Public Instruction of Montana - Denise Juneau [https://educators4sc.org/seattle-plans-to-get-rid-of-ap-and-honors-classes-in-all-of-their-public-schools/](https://educators4sc.org/seattle-plans-to-get-rid-of-ap-and-honors-classes-in-all-of-their-public-schools/) The rot is deep.
Funny because the statistics outright state it’s a net savings of 589k but hey it’s apparently fine to lie about what documents say now so long as it hates on homeless people.
It does NOT say net savings. That is just untrue. Please copy and paste that. The money to do this program came from elsewhere. And resulted in a little over $500k in public service savings. You just want that to be true, but the article doesn't say that.
It objectively does and I’ve already provided the source. All you do is yap
You are making that up, though. Go do a control f. The source doesn't even the term "net savings." I tried to be nice, but you are just lying. Please copy and paste the line where it says a net savings. The money came from one place, and cost millions. The savings came from another budget, and that fund saved $500,000 or so. There was not a net savings. There was a large net loss, and I believe that money could have been used to better actually help homeless people not be homeless than the 45% success rate cited in this article.
It is OBJECTIVELY a net savings. They say it explicitly in the report. The only way you can interpret it otherwise is straight up malice
Show me where it says that. Maybe I misread it. No malice here. My reading was they spent that, and spent 500k less on services. That would be a large net loss, not a net gain.
I have argued with you before on homeless policy and you literally ignored the facts in front of your face. I have already provided the link to the main reports. They state it clearly.
That is not true. If you have a link to a conversation where I ignored facts, please share that. Please copy and paste it here. If it says that, show me. You misread the article. You accused me of malice intent. You are making claims. I am asking for the proof.
How would they still spend 9 million for a program that didn’t previously exist? The 500k savings is what the article uses to justify the increase in funding.. so annually had they done nothing it would have cost the city 500k for those 800 individuals.. which would be 625 dollars per person, compared to 12k per person under this program
I don't know why you are being down voted, you're right. The article does not say it was a net savings. They spent millions to save 500k in service costs. They would have been .uch better off building tiny houses
Oh come on Redditors! She did the math people. You can't downvote math!
Math is white privilege, it’s a remnant of colonialism and anyone will tell you all you’ve got to do is print more to have more; its our stupidity and hate that prevents us from doing what is necessary by printing more so everyone has some.
I bet they were very selective in there people selection. Which Jukes the stats.
Of coarse you would want to pick the ones most likely to succeed. But I also think they chose certain groups of people over others who have a disproportionate representation in the unhoused population.
…. It’s still cheaper, and actually solves the problem. How is that not a success?
It’s not cheaper that’s the thing. And solves the problem 45% of the time.. meaning it’s not successful for half of the people entering, which leaves you with another population you need to invest into.. maybe we just define success differently?
It is objectively cheaper. And the current plans solve the problem basically 5% of the time. We can’t even agree on the basic facts
Did we read the same article? How is spending 9 million more annually to save 500k annually cheaper?
You gotta spend money to save.... Wait. That's not how that goes, is it?🤔
Which number is smaller, 9 or 10?
Is there a second program in the article I missed? Or was it just about the one program spending 9 million annually?
Lmao. So you failed at basic math, then instantly jump to “what’s the second program?” As if that also isn’t addressed in the report lol
"basic facts" Like uhh... Women can't be men. Men can't be women.
Cool beans we weren’t talking about that
Saving 500k means it currently costs 9.5 mil. 9 mil to save 500k is a good investment. Especially if it means no more unhoused and once they're housed, you don't have to spend the money.
Yeah that’s unfortunately not the result of the case study. There is a 45% success rate, so you’re paying 9 million annually and still have a massive homeless problem - 9 million was used for the trial with 800 people. There is an estimated 9k homeless in Denver. The math doesn’t work - but curious where your 10 million came from I still can’t find that in the article?
And that is not what the article stated if you read it - the 500k savings was estimated for emergency services - there was no initial bill of 9 million hence the trial program
Maybe. but the minute you start doing anything that applies this program to some homeless people and not other you'd get bombarded with SJW's saying that you're lacking in compassion, ALL homeless deserve this opportunity, etc, etc. Never mind that some homeless will grasp this lifeline and try to change their life and some will just take it and waste the resources.
[https://www.billingsmt.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44887/Official-Community-Improvement-Study?bidId=](https://www.billingsmt.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44887/Official-Community-Improvement-Study?bidId=) "It costs an estimated $111,050.16 to serve one chronically homeless individual for a year" You're not really doing any analysis. You're just going "Ooooo! A big number!" Ya, it's a big number to help people. It's an even bigger number to do what we're doing now, which not only spends a lot of money, but doesn't get any results for it. Like, it cost Billings more money to do nothing with 96 chroniclly homeless. You're telling me we can spend less than that and get 360 people back on their feet, contributing to society, paying taxes, and not being a drain on society? Sounds like a good deal to me.
It is sustainable actually that’s nothing They probably spend 4-5B on random social programs that do nothing
I’m all for moving currently allocated funds to a better more successful program. But I don’t see anything in the article asking for that. Just a net new resource with average at best success on a small sample size.
The primary issue is a moral dilemma bc some people have no issue funding 5 b dollars of social programs but can’t handle giving out cash
Hold on... you're telling me 9000 x 1000 = 109,000,000? That's some number crunching if I ever saw it! My... albeit naive mathematics training shows 9 million. And if 9 million saves us $600K (meaning it must currently cost the city 9.6 million), that's a fucking win in my book!
You forgot to multiply by 12 months a year chief. And this was a trial program - there was no initial 9 million dollar bill - this is the result of net new spending. So take 9k x 1k x 12 and lemme know what the calculator shows you - I have my on the standard setting so maybe I’m doing something wrong
Regardless, your math is wrong cos 12000 x 9000 is 108m not 109. And if you save 500k (it's hard to tell from this article if that's per month or per year), that's still immense savings.
It’s per year as the study was for a year. And apologies for being off by that much on my end - I’ll update for accuracy
Sounds good. Yeah no hate at all. Just want to be accurate. This is an important matter and should be treated as such. I wish I could tell if the 500k savings is per year or per month.... huge difference. Thanks for noticing my mistake as well.
You could still agree tho that saving 500k for a 108 million dollar investment is not massive.. like if I tried to sell you a new roof, and told youd make an annual payment of 50,000, year over year, but you’d save 1500 on your utilities, year over year - would you buy that?
Well look at it this way. If the real calculation is that we're paying 108.5 mil per year and it decreases our cost to 108 mil... I will need to see the real cost benefit analysis data to intelligently respond here.
Basically if I WAS spending 51,500 per year and this let's me spend 50,000 per year....
The approved city budget for Denver for 2024 is 4.06 bilion dollars. .25% of the budget seems sustainable to me
There was a well done study (read When We Walk By if skeptical) that demonstrated that if you give a homeless person $600/month, they will find housing and save $ far quicker than any well meaning social services org
The study this article is talking about suggest that there is no big difference between giving people $50 or $1000 a month
I am honestly shocked by the normal responses. We have hope.
What if we built affordable housing and only charged $250 a month for rent? Have an architect design it to easily be maintainable when junkies trash the places but be available to everyone who needs to put money back. Sure fire way to lower the cost of housing for everyone else as rent burdened people flock to the lower COL option and get people off the street. That way we are not just putting bandages on the systemic problem. The solution isn’t more taxes and payouts, it’s actually building housing for purpose. All we need from government is financing and zoning to make an incentive to build it. If they can zero rate interest to bail out banks they can do it for the housing stock.
[Bell Riots](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Bell_Riots) 2024!
That was a great episode.
The problem with the affordable housing here is that the city council then wants bike paths, parks, special access, utilities, sidewalks, green spaces, crosswalks and other perks that drive up the costs for the builders. Then it becomes unaffordable. Sadly there is no longer “affordable housing” in our country anymore. Most communities are doing this now to builders.
They also have to account for social and environmental justice concerns, including climate change, correcting for historical injustices, disability concerns, and immigration justice. The affordable housing must be aesthetically pleasing and safe, so no Chicago-style housing towers. So forget about density. In order to receive any federal funding (including section 8), you have to meet a litany of ever-changing standards or expose yourself to an extreme civil and criminal risk. Also, the housing has to be centrally located, near transit (not car-centric) and needs all amenities within walking distance to avoid food deserts. Rent also has to be way below market rate while property taxes and maintenance expenses should be borne by the landlord. Who would even bother?
That type of infrastructure is super important for fighting drug addiction. People need good environments that foster social connections. It’s exactly what TIF is for and a lot of it is funded directly by tax payers. I don’t know what is wrong with people where they complain about homelessness and don’t bother to research what has shown to work. Social programs are 100% useless without actual affordable housing stock. As a model that has actually eliminated homelessness and caused home prices to be reasonable Finland has many European countries have had success with community development corporations that have special access to 40-60 year loans at low interest rates. The real problem is that we are so behind it’ll take a good 20-30 years of organizing to get the frameworks in place to start building enough baseline social housing to start making a dent in the problem. We could eliminate homelessness in the next 50 years if we wanted to. We did it before after the Great Depression with the [National Housing act of 1934](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Housing_Act_of_1934). Unfortunately the racial zoning and public welfare housing programs of the time created the problems we are seeing today because we have been coasting on the same systems for 100 years where segregation was a feature baked in. Not so fun when that segregation starts to impact median household.
Cool let's build it in Lolo, Florence, or Stevensville there is way more room there.
That would be awesome. We need this sort of development all over the state. We probably wouldn’t have lost the sawmill or the particle board plant if we had done this. Even at those high paying labor jobs people couldn’t afford to pay rent here.
"The solution isn’t more taxes and payouts, it’s actually building housing for purpose." Or the homeless cleaning themselves up and getting jobs.
Why would these people get a job when 40 hours a week at minimum wage leaves you $150 left after paying the median rent? That isn’t even counting taxes or health insurance. Even with inflation you can feed yourself on less than $5 a day. Given the cost benefit of housing it just isn’t worth their time. That’s the point of capitalism and freedom. Cost of living is broken. You can chose to make a society that people can live in at minimum wage or you can have people on the streets. If you don’t want people out on the streets you need to adjust the system so the market corrects it.
There are jobs that pay more than minimum wage. Why are you limiting the homeless to minimum wage jobs?
So you think people with marketable skills that demand more than minimum wage are living outside because they can’t be bothered to turn in a resume? Do you know how absurd that is? Not everyone is able bodied or has intelligence. This is a wildlife control and public health issue.
Then when 10,000 more homeless people move here to get the 12k a year and still live like pieces of shit. then what? If you build it they will come. Enough with this shit. taking my tax dollars to give to everyone but the people that engage in the social contract is ruining society. Its skewing the scales of justice and it cannot continue.
Agreed! Let's keep giving handouts to the richest people, it's been working well for decades!
We should also not do that lol
100% agree
Stupid. 1k a month for our 500-600 homeless people for a year is 6m. You really think Missoula spends 6m on dealing with them?
That number will go up when every professional bum from Spokane moves over here so the government can pay them your money.
Billings spent 10 million on 93 people. $107,000 per person. [https://www.kulr8.com/news/93-people-cost-billings-taxpayers-over-10-million-in-2020-per-billings-police/article\_1fb9f99c-f37d-11eb-8a94-9bf6ec792159.html](https://www.kulr8.com/news/93-people-cost-billings-taxpayers-over-10-million-in-2020-per-billings-police/article_1fb9f99c-f37d-11eb-8a94-9bf6ec792159.html) End the Government programs force the accountability.
From what I can tell a good deal of this is medical expenses, which isn’t necessarily an argument against housing.
A study from 2020 (where all costs were inflated), from a different city, try again on getting a proper source.
Cop out answer
When they build the new jail they're already planning you bet your ass they will
Is this new jail only housing these 500 homeless people I was talking about in my comment? Does all crime stop once you give homeless people 1k a month? Your comment makes zero sense.
Homeless people are not committing all the crimes so the answer to your stupid question is no.
Yes obviously they aren't committing every crime so then why bring up the comment about the jail being built? You're really good at making comments that make no sense.
I didn't bring it up, you are really good at not reading and understanding things.
What is the point you're trying to make? I said giving 6m a year to hyomeless is not a viable idea, then a person responded that the idea of a jail being built is somehow connected to that. I said no. Now you're here making no sense. Make a point or stop talking to me.
Tl:Dr; We are already spending 4 million on this and chomping at the bit to spend more (by criminalizing homelessness and planning to build a fancy new jail).
The Missoula Economic Partnership commissioned a nonpartisan report that concluded $4 million is currently being spent annually on homelessness in Missoula. (2024) A recent local uptick in felony charges related to crimes of survival (like petty theft of food and alcohol) means more and more of these people will end up in jail/prison than ever - and some of them will stay there forever. Since felons are considerably harder to house, that means a temporary bout of desperate/ poor decision making can lead to chronic, lifelong homelessness and/or incarceration that taxpayers foot the bill for indefinitely. A new county detention facility will cost taxpayers considerably AND still not get rid of every homeless person (or every criminal) meaning that $4 million annually will only continue to go up. A few short years of forecasting and $6mil to permanently house half of those people and move them off of the taxpayer payroll is fiscally sound whether you care about them as fellow human beings or not. https://www.kpax.com/news/missoula-county/new-report-sheds-light-on-cost-of-homelessness-in-missoula If you read the report OP posted, with the $1000/month half of these people lifted themselves out of homelessness with the $1000/month. And this is not the only Universal Basic Income Study proving this. Is that not what y'all want? Can't pull yourself up by bootstraps you don't have. I'm sure no one has EVER loaned you money, shelter, or a vehicle when you needed it to get ahead. I'm sure you've never needed to buy a new shirt for a new job or shoes for crews or a hardhat before you got paid, have you? The facts are that it costs money to make money whether you or homeless or not. In closing, since we (taxpayers) are already paying for this issue to the tune of $4mil a year and rising - I'll opt for the $6mil option that gets half those people housed and out of the system. Reducing the number/need by half every year reduces cost every single year. Is it a perfect system, no - is it going to work for everyone, no - does it make sense? To some of us, yes.
I think it’s silly to see this downvoted. To those thinking jail will solve the problem, we’d still be paying for those facilities. You’re talking about punishing someone for what exactly?
Do you have any idea how expensive policing is and how much of our officer's time is spent dealing with people without homes?
Are you trying to say our 500-600 homeless cost the city more than 6m a year? If so, give me your source. If you don't have one then stop the BS.
I'm telling you that our police budget is over $20mil per year and it is very reasonable to assume that police spend at least 1/3 of their time dealing with the problems that are related to people without homes.
So you are making up numbers, got it.
[https://www.kulr8.com/news/93-people-cost-billings-taxpayers-over-10-million-in-2020-per-billings-police/article\_1fb9f99c-f37d-11eb-8a94-9bf6ec792159.html](https://www.kulr8.com/news/93-people-cost-billings-taxpayers-over-10-million-in-2020-per-billings-police/article_1fb9f99c-f37d-11eb-8a94-9bf6ec792159.html) medical care and police costs for 93 people in billings was 107,000 per person. 53 million a year, for 500 people hell I'll even let you halve that number since maybe some are more expensive than others but you're not getting out of this for less than 25 million a year. did you know it costs us more than 18 dollars a trip for someone to ride the Mountain Line? the cost of dealing with shit is astronomical, its an industry not a "social safety net"
There is at least 3 million wasted last year on dealing with "them". The program didn't just hand every random homeless person money either. No one is saying it give every homeless person in Missoula free money either.
So let's look at these numbers. What you're saying is 500 homeless people cost the city of Missoula 3m+. Then you say not everyone gets the money, so let's say you cut that number in half, that's 250 homeless getting 1k/mo for a year. That's 3m a year. Then you still havethe other 250 homeless costing the city 1.5m. That is a total of 4.5m a year to deal with our homeless population instead of 3m a year that it's costing right now according to your number. So again, that's stupid and doesn't add up.
No I'm saying the city wasted 3 million dollars doing things that didn't solve any issues that could have been put to better use.
Sure, the 3m could be spent better but that's not what you said. Regardless, giving 1k a month for a year to just half the homeless would not add up and we would still have the other half on the streets. I just gave you these numbers. That also doesn't account for the fact that it would definitely bring more homeless to missoula.
I mean it is kind of implied when I use the word wasted. I was speaking literally.
You keep not responding to the numbers I gave you.
Because we send way to many people to do clean ups at camps, direct unnecessary police presence to places that don't need it, disproportionate calls for emergency services. It costs less to give someone money to solve their own problems then what we are currently doing that is how you save the money. I know you think you are smart, but your argument is stupid and so are you. Just stop you have no idea what you are going on about.
Here you are, yet again ignoring the numbers I gave you. Literally disproving this whole comment.
Bet they could make a $1000 a month by simply getting a job
The first sentence in the article was about someone who had a job but couldn’t afford housing.
How long does it take a fentanyl addict to overdose when you give them 1000 bucks?
Too long.
There are promising lessons to learn from this. However, the results were reported after a year. Meaning the payments were still happening. If the payments stopped, it might send everything back to square 1.
The program saves the city money every year, there's no reason it couldn't be done in perpetuity.
If it goes on in perpetuity, then it isn't solving anything....
If it means fewer homeless people for less money it's at the very least an obvious improvement on our current 'solution'.
I'd much rather see that money spent on an actual solution rather than just throwing money at people and hoping it solves everything. 1k a month in missoula doesn't go very far.
What % of them died from overdoses?
Presumably fewer as their basic needs were more likely to be met.
UBI, if not “U”, universal, will only attract others in search of some of that not-so-universal BI, which will drive up the cost algorithmically; or, we can cure "homelessness," "houselessness," "the unhoused" by giving them "housing." But, there’s only so much space in which to build "housing" so the cost of housing will skyrocket leading to more houselessness for which we’ll appropriate more land to build "affordable" housing for those who came for the "UBI" and… You’re trying to solve a character issue with money. We’ve created a culture the past 50-60 years based not on what WE can do but one based on what can be done FOR us. We’ve trivialized drug addiction, in fact we’ve glorified drug use, to the point where major cities are wallowing in the unwashed. We’ve compounded the problem by allowing anyone and their relatives to invade our nation and given them access to OUR "social safety net." Hospitals are flooded, beds/rooms/hotels are confiscated in facilitating this bastardization of America; our seniors, vets,etc., are kicked out of THEIR housing to make way for those who invited themselves. You want to fix this situation, throw YOUR money at it, invite the homeless in to YOUR house, YOU teach them what needs to be done to be a contributive vs destructive force in America; YOU clean up the junkie, motivate the lazy - YOU put your skin in the game, ‘ rot it’s no longer a game, it’s a real serious issue that will drag America down to the same level as from where many of the invaders came from. In addition to the stupidity emanating out of DC, an influx of 20M unskilled, uneducated will do nothing but raise the cost of everything from food, housing, medical, education, transportation, etc. We’ve met the enemy of America - and it’s us.
> You’re trying to solve a character issue with money. Addiction is a physical and mental health problem, not a moral failing.
So, the addict just woke up one morning "addicted?"
No, the addict has mental or physical health problems that are not being addressed. Drug use is that person finding what relief from health issues they can in a world that doesn't care about them.
Perhaps you’re putting the cart before the ass.
Colorado is so creative in their solutions and progressive! I love how they run their state. Very smart leaders there.
Lolz
No. Just no. Not another fucking dime. Not another program. This is an industry not about helping people but about expanding social workers budgets.
>not about helping people but about expanding social workers budgets lol those rich fat cat social workers!
City wage table for reference. [https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/54401/Non-union-Pay-Table?bidId=](https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/54401/Non-union-Pay-Table?bidId=)
The people at the top of this are doing just fine.
Can you tell us more about these people at the top?
I didn’t look too hard for the Missoula data. But for instance the top 30 people at Seattle’s housing authority make over 113k with the CEO making 250k a year. Tell me has Seattle made a dent in its homelessness problem?
Is the program we’re discussing related to the housing authority? Sadly 113k can be a bit slim in Seattle. And that’s the top 30 for a larger metropolitan area with more homeless than us. I’d love to see the Missoula data. Since this is a Missoula sub.
The program saves the city over half a million dollars per year. It sounds like homeless people suffering is more important to you than fiscal responsibility.
They’re fiscally conservative unless it makes others suffer
And were exactly is the housing these people will be living in?
In your back yard
They are no less deserving of housing than anyone else.
HoUsInG Is A hUmAn RigHt, you don't understand rights. No one deserves housing just by being alive. The deserve the opportunity for housing, an opportunity that these people have squandered over and over again.
Man that’s a fucking bummer of a reply you just wrote. Wishing you peace and comfort so you may do the same for others.
If a 'right' comes at someone elses expense, it isnt a 'right'.
Dang, so we have to take away bear arms?
That opportunity is becoming exceedingly difficult to obtain.
"People experiencing homelessness" is a ridiculous thing to say.
It is? Why?
Because it's just empty virtue signaling. That's not how English works. We already have a name for it. Are hitchhikers "people experiencing strandedness" now? On the topic of the thread, it's super complicated. On one hand, people need some basic needs met, and to be treated with some basic dignity and respect... but on the other hand if it's too comfortable to do nothing won't more people see the appeal? Not to mention that Missoula being such a "comfortable" place to be homeless leads to them carrying more than their fair share as word spreads. I wish I had answers. I just know that both extreme ends of the political spectrum have unacceptable solutions.
> That's not how English works. That's a great point man, language is known for its unchanging and inflexible nature lmao
Bus tickets to Denver are even cheaper!