The Democrat approach to "homelessness:" Free housing, no conditions. Results?

In the fight against waste, fraud and abuse, one of the biggest cesspools of senseless wastes of tax dollars is the federal government’s sprawling network of failed homeless programs.

For decades the Democrats have been pouring billions into programs that never address the causes of the problem.  Last year the federal government alone poured $50 Billion down this drain.

The problem is drug addiction and mental illness--which is worsened by drugs.

In 2013 Obama and the Democrats pushed through a new mandatory federal policy called "Housing First."  That policy promised free housing for life, with no requirement for staying off drugs, participating in drug treatment or seeking work.

Obama declared that his plan would end homelessness within 10 years.  Of course a few of you may recall that Obozo was also the grifter who repeatedly promised that under Obamacare "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."  Total lie, and he knew it, but geez, it sounded so good!

Instead of ending homelessness within ten years, it has exploded to record levels. Overdose deaths have surged.

The federal government is the largest single funder of homelessness programs, but distributes most of its funds through local governments.  Since cities and counties rely heavily on these federal dollars—which reduce the need to spend more local tax dollars—communities must follow "Housing First" policies to get the funds, meaning you couldn't require clients to stay off drugs or get drug treatment or a job.

Seriously.  Obama's "Housing First" program denied federal funding to programs that required sobriety, workforce participation or mental health treatment.  It also cut funding for shelters and "transitional housing," in order to increase the amount spent on vouchers for private housing for the homeless.

When word got out that you could get a free home or apartment for life, without having to work or stay off drugs or get treatment, can anyone guess what happened?

Sure: the number of homeless in cities with pleasant climates began growing exponentially, constantly outstripping the number of housing units the entire nation could afford to build for them.  No need to stay off drugs, get treatment or get a job.  Couldn't be better.  

The amazing thing is that after Obozo demanded the end to all those requirements, anyone was shocked when homelessness skyrocketed.

Addiction and mental illness make up nearly 80 percent of the homeless population.  And under the Dem policy they never need to seek treatment, never need to work and never need to regain independence.  And that's still federal policy today.

The federal government now spends over $50 billion a year on homelessness programs, and Dem-ruled states like California add billions more.  And like all other massive spending boondoggles, the huge pot of gold attracts grifters:  In Los Angeles the corrupt city government has spent as much as $700,000 per unit to build one-bedroom high-rise apartments for the homeless.

That's documented.  And that figure doesn’t include operating expenses (staff, utilities) for big apartment buildings.

It's been estimated that the lifetime cost of housing just one person in one of these luxury apartments would be over two million dollars.

Meanwhile the number of druggies and mentally ill continue to increase, pitching tents on sidewalks and taking over public spaces.  Encampments proliferate, businesses leave, and politicos demand ever more money for an ever-increasing problem.

The Democrat "plan" of giving drug addicts and mentally ill people free homes or apartments for life, while letting them stay on drugs, fail to get treatment and not get jobs, must always fail to deliver the promised solutions.

Drug overdoses are the leading cause of death among the homeless, and it's getting worse.  Yet Obama's "Housing First" plan refuses to acknowledge that addiction treatment must be a requirement to receive free housing.

San Francisco, under then-mayor Gavin Newsom, is a good example. It embraced “no-requirements housing” for its homeless and addicted population. Two decades and billions of dollars later, the city has housed 13,000 addicts, with 7,000 still on the streets.  Rampant shoplifting has forced businesses to close.

Here the original author writes "We cannot afford another decade or two of such costly failure."  That's a reasonable conclusion: $50 billion a year just from fed taxpayers alone--not even counting extra taxes on residents of Dem-ruled states--over 20 years, is two TRILLION dollars.

But as long as the Democrats run things, and Republicans depend on their votes in congress for changing things, we'll keep doing this forever.

What's that classic definition of insanity again?  Oh yeah: "Doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different outcome." 

The author of the article I drew this from is a gal who'd spent 13 years as CEO of northern California's largest program for homeless women and children.  So she'd been "in the trenches," lots of hands-on experience.  Interestingly, it was posted by The Hill, which is a totally Dem-fellating rag.  So you might think the Democrats could be re-thinking their approach to "the homelessness problem," eh?

What's that classic definition of insanity again?

Source: The Hill

https://thehill.com/opinion/5148666-elon-musk-hud-homelessness/amp/