Clugston admits that when the project began in 2009, when he was an alderman, he was an active opponent of the plan.
"I even said some dumb things like, 'Why should they have granite countertops when I don't,'" he says. "However, I've come around to realize that this makes financial sense."
Clugston says that it costs about $20,000 a year to house someone. If they're on the street, it can cost up to $100,000 a year.
"This is the cheapest and the most humane way to treat people," he says.
This is a step in the right direction. I hope someday every Canadian city copies the Medicine Hat project. There is no reason Canada can not provide every man, woman, and child a roof over their heads.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jets4Life For This Useful Post:
-Ambulance/EMT costs (more likely to use services)
-Police (more likely to be arrested and tie up police manpower)
-Correctional Institutions (more likely to be incarcerated if homeless)
-Homeless Shelters
-Drunk Tanks (more likely to be brought there if homeless)
-Security costs to remove people from warm places at night (parking garages, bus shelters, the +15, Ctrain stations, etc)
There is also hidden costs associated with homelessness, like poor health, substance abuse, mental illness, vulnerability to numerous things like violence, etc.
The figures obtained that show it is five times more costly to taxpayers to have an individual homeless were certainly not done by the Canadian Government. These figures have been known for years, and have been released by NGO's and anti-poverty groups all around the world.
Last edited by Jets4Life; 05-20-2015 at 08:11 AM.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Jets4Life For This Useful Post:
Salt Lake City has been running a similar program with great success from what I understand.
Yah I rad about that. A one tour around Temple Square showed otherwise, unless all those pan handlers had homes. I guess it depends how you're define and end to homelessness.
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
-Ambulance/EMT costs (more likely to use services)
-Police (more likely to be arrested and tie up police manpower)
-Correctional Institutions (more likely to be incarcerated if homeless)
-Homeless Shelters
-Drunk Tanks (more likely to be brought there if homeless)
-Security costs to remove people from warm places at night (parking garages, bus shelters, the +15, Ctrain stations, etc)
There is also hidden costs associated with homelessness, like poor health, substance abuse, mental illness, vulnerability to numerous things like violence, etc.
The figures obtained that show it is five times more costly to taxpayers to have an individual homeless were certainly not done by the Canadian Government. These figures have been known for years, and have been released by NGO's and anti-poverty groups all around the world.
You should go a little easy with the stereotypes
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
Pretty small place but similar plans work around western Europe and while no where has zero homelessness, the numbers in some places are pretty low.
They normalize when you look at poverty levels but still... Being poor with a roof over your head is better than being poor without a roof over your head.
You do know what the term "more likely to" means, right? He's listing the costs associated with homelessness, which are accurate. All of those things increase if you are homeless.
Yeah. Those numbers do not do the real 'truth' any justice.
According to this study, costs are about the same in the overall. And given that, why would you not follow a housing first objective?
The one question I have though is, does it become a regional destination for the destitute? Vancouver has this problem due to climate. Many homeless hitchhike or find other methods of transport to get to Vancouver for help. Does this happen in medicine hat?
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 05-20-2015 at 11:24 AM.
The one question I have though is, does it become a regional destination for the destitute? Vancouver has this problem site to climate. Many homeless hitchhike or find other methods of transport to get to Vancouver for help. Does this happen in medicine hat?
It wouldn't be if other cities adopted similar strategies.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
This only works because nobody wants to be in Medicine Hat.
Outside of a universal system (good luck), the nice cities with nice weather will still get stuck with the destitute from the less nice cities with crummy weather.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
This only works because nobody wants to be in Medicine Hat.
Outside of a universal system (good luck), the nice cities with nice weather will still get stuck with the destitute from the less nice cities with crummy weather.
-Ambulance/EMT costs (more likely to use services)
-Police (more likely to be arrested and tie up police manpower)
-Correctional Institutions (more likely to be incarcerated if homeless)
-Homeless Shelters
-Drunk Tanks (more likely to be brought there if homeless)
-Security costs to remove people from warm places at night (parking garages, bus shelters, the +15, Ctrain stations, etc)
There is also hidden costs associated with homelessness, like poor health, substance abuse, mental illness, vulnerability to numerous things like violence, etc.
The figures obtained that show it is five times more costly to taxpayers to have an individual homeless were certainly not done by the Canadian Government. These figures have been known for years, and have been released by NGO's and anti-poverty groups all around the world.
Except the problems you list (poor health/mental illness/vulnerability) and the costs associated (police/EMS/institutions) are not simply solved by putting a roof over someone's head. These situations still exist in subsidized housing, etc. This is a massive culture change for these people and requires far more then a home. It may be a step, but a far cry to solving these problems.
Except the problems you list (poor health/mental illness/vulnerability) and the costs associated (police/EMS/institutions) are not simply solved by putting a roof over someone's head. These situations still exist in subsidized housing, etc. This is a massive culture change for these people and requires far more then a home. It may be a step, but a far cry to solving these problems.
I never said it would solve the issues homeless people face. It is a step in the right direction, when you improve the quality of life of any person. They are more likely to resolve their personal issues, since they will have more time to do so, instead of being in a constant "survival" mode.
There was a study I was reading up on provided by one of the forum members in the thread:
The study concludes that for every $10 invested in Housing First services resulted in an average savings of $9.30 for high need participants, and $3.85 for moderate need participants. A question I have is, why would anyone be opposed to housing first initiatives, if it is of benefit to society, and saves taxpayer money?
Because a lot of people, rightly or wrongly, will always feel very strongly about "I had to EARN that, why are they just GIVEN it."
That's what I was expecting. Unfortunate that some have that attitude, as nobody chooses to be in a situation where they are reliant on government subsidized housing.
Pragmatically, it saves taxpayers money to implement the program, so we will be paying less in social services. If it saves people money, and makes the community safer, and more attractive, why not experiment?
Medicine Hat eliminates homelessness
