U.S. homeless numbers decline - NATIONWIDE: 'Supportive' housing seen as good start

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 5/14/6 | Kevin Fagan

[SmithL]

Denver -- Three years after the launch of the most aggressive nationwide strategy in a generation to solve homelessness, there is evidence that it may be working: The number of street people in cities across the United States has plummeted for the first time since the 1980s.

The drop-off reflected in street counts of the homeless taken over the past year has ranged from 30 percent in Miami and 28 percent in Dallas to 20 percent in Portland, Ore., and 13 percent in New York. In all, 30 jurisdictions reported declines in their homeless populations, including the 28 percent dip recorded in San Francisco a year ago and a 4 percent drop reported this week in Denver.

The figures emerged as more than 250 civic and social program leaders -- all of whom are behind 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness across the nation -- gathered in Denver last week to compare notes for the first time since the Bush administration began pushing for creation of the plans in 2003. They all agreed on at least two things.

One, they need more funding,

[SmithL]

One, they need more funding,

but, of course they do.

[kinoxi]

Bush's fault?... oh no, better clip that and hold for a few months.

[C210N]

10-year plans...

Ah, but of course. Its the long lag time phenomena, where Clinton's policies are finally coming to fruition.

[goldstategop]

So if you're an addict, a gambler or mentally impaired, do you have what it takes to get and keep a home? The homeless are usually people who have a serious problem that make them incapable of sticking around one place for long.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[The Cuban]

What the heck is wrong with more funding? What homelessness does not exist? What does the bible say about sheltering the poor? Oh thats, rights, the bible only speaks about sins none of us on this board commit like homosexuality, not the failure to give charity.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

The funding referred to was probably "public" funding. I thing the homeless problem is best addressed by Churches, Synagogues and charitable institutions, not government.

[popdonnelly]

Oh, I thought Clinton solved the homeless problem. Along with AIDs, breast cancer, and hives.

[popdonnelly]

I left out Clinton solving the terrorist problem. Just ask Richard Clarke. Ain't no terrorists going to attack the U.S. while Clinton was President, no sirree.

[Zeroisanumber]

So if you're an addict, a gambler or mentally impaired, do you have what it takes to get and keep a home? The homeless are usually people who have a serious problem that make them incapable of sticking around one place for long.

True, but others might benefit from the chance to have a place of their own. If the numbers that are being reported are correct, then this experiment is worth the time and money.

[SmithL]

It's not charity if it's a government program.

[ClaireSolt]

To me, this is wonderful news. This morning, while I was pumping gas I was approached by a mentally ill woman who wanted to sell me two beers so she could buy some shampoo. Although she takes two meds, they don't help her much. Some program pays housing and $500/mo to live on. I gave a donation to the shampoo fund, and I thanked God that my medicine works better than hers.

[Rakkasan1]

[hermgem]

Don't worry this gets treated just like the most successful economy worldwide, as a non event with lots and lots of more in dire need.
Recall how Kerry belittled, mimicked, berated G.W. when forecasting these two million new jobs and how the MSM gleefully came up with their improbability prognosis.