Here's another of my posts that disappeared into Mpls List Purgatory: > > > Aaron Klemz writes: > > > 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.<<< > > > > MG Stinnet responded: > > > It's a pretty basic fundamental principle of economics that whenever you > > > provide a product (or service) for a price below the cost of producing > it, the > > > quantity demanded of that product will rise to consume all of it. This > is why > > > "emergency" food pantries continually report that their numbers of > patrons > > > "are at record levels." > > > > > > It's also why there are always waiting lists for subsidized > housing--which is > > > what shelter beds are. > > > > Mark Snyder adds: > > Somehow, I managed to graduate from the U of MN without taking an > economics > > course. If M. G. Stinnett's characterization above is an accurate > > description of what I missed, I'm now even more glad that I didn't. > > > > To suggest that there are always waiting lists for shelter beds because > some > > economic principle dictates it is pretty silly. While there are > exceptions, > > I'm reasonably sure that most people do not willingly choose homelessness, > > even with the temptation of that chance for a free shelter bed each night. >
> Mark Anderson answers: > Maybe you should have taken some of those econ classes. I am sure that > emergency food shelves are patronized quite heavily by people that simply > prefer to spend their money somewhere else, because the food is free. It's > human nature to accept free stuff if the alternative is to pay for it. I > think most people won't do it because they'd feel guilty about taking > advantage of a charity like that, but there will always be a certain > percentage that don't care. In the case of emergency food shelves, I > certainly agree with MG that we should make it "hard" to accept such food, > so that there is enough food available for the truly desperate. I'm not > sure how to do this. Maybe require some services from the recipients in > exchange for the food. > > However, shelters are another story. I imagine there is little advantage > taken of shelters that limit the number of times someone can stay each > month, other than by people just passing through. Since most places rent by > the week or month, there would be little advantage to stay somewhere free > just occasionally. > > But if the shelter allows someone to stay there every night for an > indefinite period, then I'm sure there are many folks taking advantage of > it. In my more disreputable days, soon after I got out of high school, I > traveled with lots of folks that were always looking for such schemes to > avoid spending any money. Heck, there were several books written in the > '60's and '70's about how how to survive on almost nothing. The one I > remember was "Steal This Book," by Abbie Hoffman. Maybe such books are > still being written, I don't know. > > MG Stinnett wrote: > > > Some may be incapable of such change because of mental illness. Of > these, some > > > can be helped by treatment, some can't. We used to institutionalize the > > > latter; now we don't. > > > > Mark Snyder responds: > > And that begs the question: why do we no longer institutionalize the > > mentally ill who cannot be helped through treatment? I realize that can > > present a different set of problems, but is it worse than letting such > folks > > wander the streets? Did we stop this practice because we wanted to > > demonstrate "caring of the highest sort" or because we decided that our > tax > > dollars could be better spent elsewhere? And if the latter, what are they > > being spent on instead? > > > Mark Anderson answers: > Please please please don't start pushing institutionalization of the > mentally ill. That is one area in which we are much improved over our > forebears. I agree that the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill has > greatly worsened our homelessness problem. But the solution is not to put > such people behind locked doors, as was done in the past. If I was mentally > ill, I can't imagine preferring to be locked in a mental ward my whole life, > over having a difficult time surviving out in the real world. Perhaps we > should have more voluntary mental institutions, where the "inmates" can > leave if they wish. But I don't think that'll help the homeless problem > much, because most mentally ill aren't so crazy that they'd rather live in > prison. > > Mark V Anderson > Bancroft > REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
