> > 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. Of course Hoffman's book had a rationale of not supporting the military-industrial complex, but the behavior it engendered was indistinguishable from a common thief. 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
