Homeless Shelters Are Now Charging Rent! (page 3)

FlyingHighNow

Here is an article written by a liberal in last

A liberal. A being the important word. This man does not speak for all liberals, if he even is a liberal.

BurnTheShips

No FHN, but his facts do. Ignore them if they challenge your worldview, but facts are facts.

BTS

FlyingHighNow

A study. A study. A means one study. Burns, you really hope democrats are secret republicans, don't you?

BurnTheShips

There are several studies in the article. Bleh. Responding to you any further on this isn't worth my time. Your mind is made up, damn the facts.

Later.

Okay, be fair, produce the opposing studies. You know they exist. Which ones are you going to believe? I am sure there are generous people across the political spectrum. I don't think it's isolated in one party. Bottom line? I am most concerned with public policy. On a personal level, I have seen that the culture of an area tends to influence the attitude towards the poor more than the politics of an area. The least kind place I have lived is North Georgia.

BurnTheShips

Okay, be fair, produce the opposing studies.

Go for it, since you are the one asserting that the opposite is true. I am not familiar with any. Bring forth evidence! I don't mean personal anecdotes.

Put up, ball's in your court, FHN.

BTS

Lady Lee

OK Here is how it works in Canada

Every shelter is funded by government money - even religious ones. The Salvation Army runs shelters all over the place and they are paid by the govt for every person they take in. I suspect other shelters are run the same way. In Winnipeg it was thew Salvation Army. In Ottawa it is the YMCA. For every homeless person they give a room to, the government pays them a certain amount per day based on individual or family size.

When people check into a shelter (here in Canada) the very first thing that is done is to check if the person is on assistance. If they are already on assistance and have received their monthly income they better have a really good reason for needing space in a shelter - like their place burned down or there was some safety/abuse/home invasion issue. The Social Assistance office must approve the shelter allowance for the person to stay. If they do not approve the rate then the person must pay it out of their allowance they received at the beginning of the month OR they can stay but the money will be deducted from their next month's check. I know it sounds harsh but there is a reason for it.

The US doesn't have the safety net that Canada has and while ours has a lot of problems comparatively few people live on the streets especially in winter even if we have to lay them end to end on blankets and mats on a floor.

I worked in a shelter for the homeless and yes I lived in one so I know it from both sides.

There were people living in the shelter who had mental health issues that made it difficult to rent an apartment, pay the bills and still have money for food and medication (meds paid if you are on social assistance so you don't have to decide between eating or getting your meds) These people basically were residents. They got their monthly checks and paid their rents immediately. In some cases the rent was taken directly off their cheques before they got them and was sent directly to the shelter.

There were others who got their check and blew it on whatever and would wind up being evicted from their apartments or would claim they were robbed. Social Assistance might help a first time complaint like this if a robbery was reported to the police. They had to have the police file number to show it had been reported (a reported robbery might even get them extra money to help them until the end of the month). Repeat requests like the above were not as likely to get them any assistance. Too many were blowing it on drugs and then be on the streets again.

Families with children were ALWAYS taken in for the sake of the children but they could expect a visit from Family Services to make sure the kids were being taken care of properly.

The two largest groups of people (who often were the same group but not always) were the drug addicts and the hookers (their word). The govt knew they had used up their money or were making it elsewhere. They were less likely to pay for a room for them but most often they had a room for a while as long as drugs and weapons were left at the front desk but were NOT returned for obvious reasons. Bags and clothes were emptied and checked.

And there is one group few people know or hear about - those who prefer not to accept govt assistance but sometimes do need to come in from the cold. Usually they stayed for a night or two when it was really cold and then disappeared again.

People were not denied their assistance cheque because they had no address. They could pick up their cheques at the office or the shelter so they could not say they couldn't get it.

Now for the shelter I lived in. I sort of saw both sides of the shelter here - staff knew I had worked in a shelter so would discuss some of the similarities and differences with me - no personal info was ever exchanged by the staff. The people with mental health issues were often moved upstairs into rental rooms that they would pay for themselves either from their assistance cheques or from their salaries. They just preferred to be in one clean room then in one room in a boarding house.

Most of the shelter's people stayed a day or two and were gone. They came due to fire, home invasions, fleeing abuse or cases like mine - disability with no accessible housing available. People with disabilities often stayed months. The other shelter was not accessible and accessible housing was impossible to find - often space only opening up when new units were built.

The minority were people who simply refused to live by social norms and rent an apartment and be responsible. Does that sound harsh? They were playing the system and the system tolerated it for a short while but staff and social assistance were crawling all over them to find a place and get out. Some were addicts and they were often set to another shelter as soon as possible. There were a few hookers but they often were set out to the other shelter as well.

The two shelters were in different provinces so I suspect most shelters are tun the same across the country.

When people are getting their monthly cheques that includes money for housing the govt is going to be hard pressed to pay for them to be in a shelter over and above what they got that month. Why should they? Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for them twice?

Those people you see sitting on the street with a cup or hat in front of them. Most of the ones I saw were getting their money at the beginning of the month. They were simply begging for more than your tax dollars were handing out.

Now social assistance is a pittance. There aren't enough subsidized housing units to meet the demand. People are sadly forced to live in substandard housing (some of which IS subsidized) but it is still a place to live and it isn't a shelter. The govt won't give you enough to pay for your booze, drugs or smokes. But it will pay for a room (for one person - an apt for a family) and food, heat and electricity.

While I was in the shelter my room was paid for. I was given $17 a day for food - not great but you'd be surprised at what you can do with a bit of creativity. I had a small fridge in my room and there was a kitchen where I could cook. I also received 107$ for "personal needs" during the month. I managed. Meds were paid for.

I am now on disability so what I get is more than 3 times as much monthly so I am comfortable and can treat myself every now and then. But I also have hydro, phone and internet (my treat every month) as well as a bus pass to pay out of that money.

It pisses me off (yup I said that) when I see people with a disability camped out on a corner waiting for people to give them money. I know what they are getting a month. I know what they could be getting based on their personal needs as a disabled person in Canada. There is no way they "need" to be begging for money. Everything they need is paid for - everything. I suspect whoever is caring for that disabled person is making a mint though off the back of a person with a disability. Personally I think whoever is putting them there should be charged with abuse of a disabled person and should never have access to them again.

I can't imagine how people are managing in the US. It's tough enough here. I would like to think no one wants to be homeless. I certainly didn't. And most don't. But some people do prefer it.

We need affordable housing. We need to care for people with mental health issues. We need to deal with employment issues. We need to address the issues that get people involved in lives of addiction and prostitution.

We need action and certianly not more studies.

I'll stop my rant now. I'll bet you have a lot to say

BurnTheShips

Every shelter is funded by government money - even religious ones. The Salvation Army runs shelters all over the place and they are paid by the govt for every person they take in. I suspect other shelters are run the same way. In Winnipeg it was thew Salvation Army. In Ottawa it is the YMCA.

I believe our government cooperates with charities also. There is a great deal more of a safety net here than you realize.

Now social assistance is a pittance. There aren't enough subsidized housing units to meet the demand.

I've placed several rental houses in our US equivalent subsidized housing program. Some pay no rent out of pocket, others pay a small percentage, and the government picks up the rest. Before I get derided as a profiteer, let me mention that I could get higher rents and better tenants otherwise.

With respect to being out of doors in the winter, it is a lot better down here. :-)

BTS

Lady Lee

I know little about the US programs and probably see the worst on the news just like here the worst is the only part that is newsworthy.

It seems to work the same here. I pay part of the rent and the govt makes up the difference. Some tenants will be wonderful and some will make you wonder why you do this. I agree registering homes with subsidized housing can be a pain but glad to hear you do it anyways.

Thanks from me for taking it on

mraimondi

“Arthur Brooks may be the most innovative and creative analyst of public policy in America today. His insights are in a different league and may lead to an entirely new approach to thinking through public policy. Gross National Happiness is a must read for every person who wants to understand what policies America needs.”
—NEWT GINGRICH

Homeless Shelters Are Now Charging Rent!

Share this