Ship the homeless out of the cities to the countryside towns

centralchill

What is the point in the homeless people hanging around city streets, homeless people should be sent to the countryside and provided with accommodation.
The cost of accommodation is so much cheaper in small to mid sized towns. So there would be more money to provide more accommodation.

They would have more space, a cleaner environment, and it would help to socialise, give a second chance etc.

Why is everything so urban focused, we need to think outside the box more in this country to solve our problems.

L1011

Many of the street homeless have significant addiction problems and require other supports, which those countryside towns cannot supply. This idea has been tried before here and in other countries and turns in to an utter, utter disaster every time.

professore

L1011 wrote: »

Many of the street homeless have significant addiction problems and require other supports, which those countryside towns cannot supply. This idea has been tried before here and in other countries and turns in to an utter, utter disaster every time.

a worse utter utter disaster than the current situation?

Effects

L1011 wrote: »

Many of the street homeless have significant addiction problems and require other supports, which those countryside towns cannot supply. This idea has been tried before here and in other countries and turns in to an utter, utter disaster every time.

I think he's talking more about the non addict homeless.
The Margaret Cash type homeless. Most of them don't even want to move across the city.

L1011

professore wrote: »

a worse utter utter disaster than the current situation?

Effectively yes. You have people dying due to drug withdrawal, people spending vast proportions of their welfare on transport to return to their old social circles and neglecting food/other essentials item due to that, other similar issues

The 'countryside towns' with suitable facilities and transport to the cities are not particularly cheap or plentiful for accomodation so you end up looking at villages with nothing in them basically.

Effects wrote: »

I think he's talking more about the non addict homeless.
The Margaret Cash type homeless. Most of them don't even want to move across the city.

They said streets. In those cases there are still issues, albeit a lot less. The UK does this to a significant extent already - quite common for your emergency accomodation to be in Birmingham when you report to a London Borough Council. If you do it right its not a huge issue, but its also not the cheap quick fix it may be seen as - e.g. there would need to be guaranteed long-term provision of housing in new areas or else you end up with kids having to change school multiple times and year.

zell12

Rules dictate you have to remain in the Council area, otherwise you get removed from their housing list and other Councils tell you to back to where you're from.
Cities have more people, therefore more homeless people.

The only obligation the State has towards a homeless person is to register them as homeless.

Ush1

Quite a few people living on the streets have the option of accommodation but choose not to avail of it for a number of reasons.

centralchill

There should be an option for people to be put on a housing list for accommodation in rural areas.
In order to put your name on this list, you would have to complete a mandatory course on something that would help prepare the individual for living on their own in a rural area. Basically a second chance for a new start away from the city.

I guarantee there are people out there on the streets who would bite my hand off for an opportunity like that.

centralchill

Ush1 wrote: »

Quite a few people living on the streets have the option of accommodation but choose not to avail of it for a number of reasons.

Ok, but what about the people who want a house, but are trapped in a cycle in a city, and need a way out?

Definitely a lot of these people out there too who shouldn't be forgotten.

splinter65

Effects wrote: »

I think he's talking more about the non addict homeless.
The Margaret Cash type homeless. Most of them don't even want to move across the city.

They just will refuse to move. Totally dig their heels in. PBP SF etc have told them that they have a right to be housed exactly where they want and that they are entitled to a forever home of their choice and lots of people support this idea.
It’s just that the lots of people think Margaret should be housed near somewhere else, not beside them.
We created the welfare state and now that it’s not working out very well we can’t just dump people in Bansha or Suxmilebridge and tell them to get on with it.

L1011

centralchill wrote: »

There should be an option for people to be put on a housing list for accommodation in rural areas.
In order to put your name on this list, you would have to complete a mandatory course on something that would help prepare the individual for living on their own in a rural area. Basically a second chance for a new start away from the city.

I guarantee there are people out there on the streets who would bite my hand off for an opportunity like that.

And the cost of all this + ongoing supports is going to be how much less than just providing housing in/near the city precisely?

Those living on the streets need a lot more than "a mandatory course", most need lengthy residential rehabilitation treatment before they could even consider living without constant assistance, e.g. in a sheltered accomodation unit close to their support network

If an idea seems simple and cheap, the reason it's not being done is that it doesn't work out the way you think it will. We tried rural resettlement from the social housing list in the 60s and the 80s and both were a mess - and these were generally families living in rented accomodation.

People turned up back at the City Council offices with whatever they could carry in a suitcase on a bus demanding to be housed in the city, sometimes within weeks.

the dark phantom

centralchill wrote: »

What is the point in the homeless people hanging around city streets, homeless people should be sent to the countryside and provided with accommodation.
The cost of accommodation is so much cheaper in small to mid sized towns. So there would be more money to provide more accommodation.

They would have more space, a cleaner environment, and it would help to socialise, give a second chance etc.

Why is everything so urban focused, we need to think outside the box more in this country to solve our problems.

You really thought this out well:rolleyes:

centralchill

the dark phantom wrote: »

You really thought this out well:rolleyes:

Thanks for your input.
Do you have anything else to add? Or have you gone over your quota of fantastic and thought provoking input for today ?

Please enlighten me

7znbd9xmoiupye

The country towns cannot house the locals who are homeless whether due to addiction or other reasons. not much point being on a housing list when there are no houses

pwurple

Homelessness is rarely the lack of an actual house.

It means you've a shed load of other problems.

splinter65

pwurple wrote: »

Homelessness is rarely the lack of an actual house.

It means you've a shed load of other problems.

Nail on the head. I’d actually go as far as to say that we don’t have a “homelessness” problem at all.
The country is full of empty houses.
It’s a failure of the welfare state problem we have.

Eric Cartman

pwurple wrote: »

Homelessness is rarely the lack of an actual house.

It means you've a shed load of other problems.

usually caused by your own poor choices both in the past and continuing. Building houses will do nothing for the current rough sleepers who refuse dry beds because they'd rather be on drugs.

A detox focused treatment center that they can be involuntarily submitted to by a judge if found in possession or voluntarily of their own free will , built in the middle of nowhere with a residential care center is the best bet for solving that problem.

centralchill

Eric Cartman wrote: »

usually caused by your own poor choices both in the past and continuing. Building houses will do nothing for the current rough sleepers who refuse dry beds because they'd rather be on drugs.

A detox focused treatment center that they can be involuntarily submitted to by a judge if found in possession or voluntarily of their own free will , built in the middle of nowhere with a residential care center is the best bet for solving that problem.

Yeah that sounds about right, then resources for when people come out the other side of treatment etc, which could be based outside of an urban area in a more rural area.

L1011

centralchill wrote: »

Yeah that sounds about right, then resources for when people come out the other side of treatment etc, which could be based outside of an urban area in a more rural area.

If you're looking for cheap, as your original post suggested, this is as far away from cheap as you can get of course.

centralchill

It would be a cheaper then building it in Dublin City or another urban area, but my original post and what i was aiming at by saying cheaper was regarding general housing prices not talking about treatment centres.

As in if there was a homeless person who did not have addiction issues, did not want to live on the streets of a city, and would like reintegration to "normal" life in a rural area.

Eric Cartman

L1011 wrote: »

If you're looking for cheap, as your original post suggested, this is as far away from cheap as you can get of course.

the saving on health and crime and on not exposing future generations to streets of junkies, easier reforming of 'bad areas' , making tourism and business more attractive in our cities, lowering insurance costs .

Upfront its quite expensive but the fringe benefits to society are massive.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I think the best thing to do is to move on from the so called "homelessness crisis". A lot of those affected have either addiction issues or don't want to help themselves. Much better for the government to focus on preparing for Brexit, bringing more FDI to Ireland and trying to resolve the issues with our health system.

L1011

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the saving on health and crime and on not exposing future generations to streets of junkies, easier reforming of 'bad areas' , making tourism and business more attractive in our cities, lowering insurance costs .

Upfront its quite expensive but the fringe benefits to society are massive.

I know - but the OP was written in a manner of looking for an easy win cost reduction only; however on their further clarification of who they thought it would work for:

centralchill wrote: »

As in if there was a homeless person who did not have addiction issues, did not want to live on the streets of a city, and would like reintegration to "normal" life in a rural area.

They basically don't exist

7znbd9xmoiupye

pwurple wrote: »

Homelessness is rarely the lack of an actual house.

It means you've a shed load of other problems.

true. it is in the country towns too. some people are not able to live independently and take resonsibility for bills etc.

lovehathi

I just don't understand. Why most of the welfare people think , its ok for working class people(Who wake up early to work hard and save money, put child in childminding )to commute far for work. But one good capable person on welfare should not be housed far??

I have no issue those are totally dependent i.e medical, physically, should given priority to live in centre. Iam not saying welfare people should have no right to live in centre, but demanding that its birth right and should be given free should be clamped.

What will happen, suddenly all working class decided to go on welfare. Who will fund the economy. At the moment, some people think its a free ride , just take a mic in hand shout, just sort them self out and open the gate for others to do the same.

Just what are we telling and encouraging our young generation. To work or just wait you will get any way from state..

Just as a side point; cousin of mine lived in Louth. Played the homeless card, but wanted out of Louth for a 'fresh start' (addiction issues galore, etc.). And got housed in Kildare.

So it does seem like it's possible to move from one Council/County to another.