Oh golly gosh darn I guess we ve done it again.

When you say;

they will have case managers who will encourage them to seek treatment through HRM if that's the best move for that individual (not all chronically homeless are addicts).

Do you mean that for the residents that do need addiction Counseling, that they will have to travel to the HRM facility off of North Central, no matter where their Permanent Supportive Housing facility is located around the city?

If that is what you are saying, it doesn't sound like the Ten Year Plans idea of "Supportive Housing" is very Supportive

"Yeah, come and live in our PSH, and we will tell you where to go to get the Mental Health and Addiction services that you need."

How is this supportive? The Ten Year Plan might as well just give their residents the Yellow pages, and say, "Here you go, good Luck"

I was thinking the KNS might have a more extensive article about the round table discussion yesterday based on the info on the TYP web site.

The Knoxville News Sentinel has invited participants to a round table discussion at the News Sentinel’s offices on August 25. This round table will focus on the TYP. Participants will include Roger Nooe, Professor (Emeritus) U.T. Knoxville College of Social Work; Bill Lyons, Sr. Director, City of Knoxville Department of Policy and Communication; Jon Lawler, Director, Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness; Ron Peabody, leader of TYPChoice, a group that opposes the TYP; and Stephanie Matheny, leader of ProTYP, a group that advocates for the TYP. We look forward to the round table, and appreciate the News Sentinel’s interest and invitation.

Please at least attempt to correctly quote people. If you are going to mis-represent what people say, and try to make it look like they said something that they didn't, you might want to be sure that people can't check your information.

From the KNS Online edition, come this tidbit-

Clarification: Ron Peabody's position on the estimated cost of his solution to the homeless problem was unclear in an earlier version of this story. Peabody doesn't know the cost but does not discount a city estimate of $50 million to $100 million.

And this-

Earlier Wednesday, Ron Peabody, who wants to do away with the Ten Year Plan, proposed his solution to the homeless problem. City officials estimate it would cost $50 million to $100 million. Peabody said he has "no idea" of the cost, but did not discount the city estimate. He proposes building a central facility to house all the homeless.

We know you don't like Peabody, but Geez.

The whole article here;
(link...)

really,which theories are those?

You may not be aware of this, but in Knoxville, once an individual is listed as Homeless by the CAC, or by VMC, then they go on a priority list for these very same Housing Choice, or Section 8 Housing Vouchers.

That means, that the 900 plus individuals, and families that have signed up for Housing assitance with KCDC since they opened their Waiting List back up, in July, will be seperated, by who, is quote "Certified as Homeless", and those that are not. And the "Certified Homeless" will take proprity for those precious Housing vouchers, when they start being issued.

Some cities including Chattanooga, stopped prioritizing The Homeless for Housing vouchers, because they believed that it incentivised people to be listed as Homeless.

On page 36 of the "The Blueprint to End Homelessness in the Chattanooga Region" Revised in 2007, from the 2004 Blue Print plan, comes this-

Until a few years ago, the Chattanooga Housing Authority gave homeless families priority for housing placements and subsidies. While this allowed some homeless families to move more quickly into public housing, it also inadvertently encouraged ill-housed (but not yet homeless) families to declare themselves homeless and enter shelter in order to gain access to affordable housing. To be sure, many of these families had serious housing needs; in some cases, placement into subsidized housing was the correct answer. But it is important not to create incentives that encourage people to become homeless to gain access to housing and services.

Families should come first in the priority of government funding. The idea that children are are suffering while the chronically homeless are getting housing shows the problems with HUD. Too many social experiments. Children should come first.

"In order to compete for homeless-assistance dollars, many homeless service providers have written their funding requests in a way that emphasizes permanent housing for the chronically homeless, even when other homeless populations may be in greater need or alternative housing options are more appropriate to their particular cities or regions. This frustrates housing advocates like Paul Boden. “Communities are writing their own plan, but the federal government already predetermined the priority,” he says."

...you missed the real story in this 3 year old article, misrepresented its content, and shown yourself once again to be one of the Universe's perfect nexus of incomprehension and disingenuousness.

You make it sound like this article says housing first is the main cause of the crisis in affordable housing. That's not true.

You didn't apparently read down to the last paragraph. It kind of encapsulates the issue. Check it:

“The emergence of the Housing First model has occurred simultaneously with a continued assault on public housing, housing subsidies, Section 8,” the report reads. Poppe agrees: “The big piece that is missing is that we need more affordable housing available, so people don’t need to be homeless in the first place.”

See that word "simultaneously," Ron? It says something important about how housing first bubbles in the whole affordable housing soup kettle.

Affordable housing of all kinds is a scarce resource right now and housing first didn't cause that to happen. The supply of affordable housing can't meet the demand for it. That means some people who need it are not able to get it. You may think there are some people who deserve to suffer more than others. You're entitled to your opinions, but I think it is preferable to solve the damn problem instead of demagoguing the issue.

From my POV, tenants have the advantage. First there is the 30-day notice, then the landlord has to take the tenant to court, that takes a while, then they have 10 more days after the judge gives possession, then it really gets contentious if they don't move. Then there is the damage that will be done...

I failed to act as promptly as I should have and got stiffed on about 4 months rent altogether. I have a "judgment" for the amount (whoopee), but I lost big-time. Now we are subsidizing rent for a disabled relative, because selling the property is not likely... I'm just saying there are risks and the risk-taker should have some expectation of compensation/reward/profit.