Regarding the claim: "Improving the safety net = more people jump in."
This is a claim repeated like a mantra by many folks on this thread and others. I'd love to see some empirical (heck, I'll settle for ANECDOTAL) support for the argument that providing adequate shelter cots for folks to avoid sleeping outside in the winter makes more people either:
a) Give up their housing to "take advantage" of the "sweeter" shelter system, or
b) relocate to the Twin Cities since they can now be assured of a spot in a temporary shelter.
Or, let's try it from the opposite direction. Let's see some evidence for the claim that inadequate shelter beds cause those turned away to turn their life around, and become "productive citizens," ceasing to suck money that SHOULD be used to provide massive subsidies for the already super-rich owners of professional sports teams and a more ambient environment for their primarily middle and upper class patrons.
Aaron Klemz
Hale
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Some clarification please/Do-goodin' fun & Profit
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 12/3/03 8:30:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Why can we afford things like a new stadium, block E, downtown target, etc. when we have so many people homeless and in need of basic life elements?
>>
Keith says; Clearly they are not the funders for the above mentioned projects. In fact supporting them costs tax payers a lot of money. If
those
people could pay to feed and house themselves, we could afford two DT Targets. The sweeter we make the safety net; the more people, from far and wide, will show up to jump into it. And the more poverty venders will suck fifty grand a whack out of a mat on the floor at the Love Temple.
Keith Reitman NearNorth
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
