MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A new government report says homelessness is up slightly in Minnesota and down in Wisconsin.

Data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development pegs Minnesota’s homeless population at about 7,900, an increase of approximately 2 percent in 2010, compared to the previous year. Wisconsin’s homeless population was about 6,300 people, a decline of approximately 3 percent.

HUD’s annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress shows that while the homeless population remained relatively stable in Minnesota and Wisconsin, some states experienced dramatic increases. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports West Virginia’s homeless population increased about 36 percent, Montana approximately 35 percent and Idaho 21 percent.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments (29)
  1. Jake says:

    Wow. Governor Walker’s bill to eliminate public employee collective bargaining abuses has imrpoved things in Wisconsin faster than any of us expected!

    1. Jim says:

      Yeah right. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other, but I would expect the partisans to jump on this news. That’s what they do.

      1. Anita Newhome says:

        Actually it does ..

        Where would you go if you were after free money?

        The land of Dayton or The land of Walker?

        Homeless have just voting with their feet, that’s all

        1. Rico Suave says:

          Amen sister! A triple lutz commentary and she sticks the landing. High five. Go girl!

        2. Jim says:

          For one, the law Jake mentioned is barely on the books and has not had a chance to take effect yet. For two, the bill is about government employees and has absolutely nothing to do with benefits for homeless people.

          People like Anita never miss a chance to prove their partisanship, I guess.

    2. Rico Suave says:

      Right on Jake. Now we have to do what they did here, before all the “urban outdoorsmen” (bums, ie homeless etc.)come here for the handouts.

      1. very interesting says:

        Good luck. After all the teabagging going on by the extreme right it will be forever before we get a completely republican run government again which is the only way to get changes like that pushed through.

        1. me says:

          Kind of like the libs and Obamacare huh?

          1. markH says:

            You’re right, things in the US health care industry were just peachy before Obama’s legislation. We had superior health care, available to everyone, and at a very nominal cost to consumers. Who is the Obama guy to come sweeping in and wreck such a great thing? Peace.

          2. very interesting says:

            Yep, exactly.

  2. Nancy Aleshire says:

    Does this number include those made homeless by the North Minneapolis tornado? My familly became homeless for a similar reason in Okla.

  3. lure_27 says:

    2B dollars is spent per week in Afganistan. So for a year its 104B and for 10 yeras its 1 trilion dollar- all tax payers money. What a joke!

    1. Ted says:

      obama’s wars are expensive!

      What about his other 3 or maybe 4?

      1. Jim says:

        George Bush was president when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I’ll give you Libya. So that’s one. I seem to be missing two or three here. Help me out.

        1. Ted says:

          Bush gets Iraq, obama escalated Afghanistan making it his. Then there is Libya, Yemen and arguably Pakistan.

          So I guess one could even go for a total of 5 current wars under obama.

          1. Jim says:

            I disagree that you can pin Afghanistan on Obama. Bush started the war there, Obama is trying to win it. I support doing everything we can to win a war once we’re involved, including escalating the effort if that’s what it takes.

            Like I said, I’ll give you Libya, and I’m less familiar with Yemen than the other countries. But to call what is happening in Pakistan a war is absurd. We’re not doing anything in Pakistan now that we haven’t been doing since the day we invaded Afghanistan.

            1. Ted says:

              I’m not saying he’s wrong on any of the wars we are currently in its just Obama has gone from “bringing troops home” to at least doubling our involved conflicts.

              In my book when you send an additional 30,000 troops into battle you assume ownership of that war (Afghanistan). It doesn’t make you wrong, just an owner.

              What happened in Pakistan was indeed an act of war. Again, I am just fine with it and am happy it happened but it does not change the fact that an unannounced attack across foreign borders is how a country goes about starting a war.

              1. Jim says:

                Well your original response to lure_27 made it seem that you are critical of the president for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that’s unfair. A president should do everything he thinks he has to do to win a war we’re already involved with. He’s certainly open to criticism regarding Libya, though.

                As for Pakistan, I agree that sending troops over the border to kill someone could be seen as an act of war. But there’s a big difference between an act of war and an actual war, and we are not at war with Pakistan.

                1. Ted says:

                  I’m as critical of the past 2 presidents as they come but not as far as to second guess what they do to protect our national security.

                  I am a critical of Obama’s campaign promises of “bringing troops home” and then doing the exact opposite in sending 30K more troops into Afghanistan.

                  Libya, yep don’t really like it but maybe whoever is advising him knows something nobody else does.

                  Yemen is just more Al-q eliminating exercises acting on questionably gathered intelligence, I can really take it or leave it but if terrorists are dead in the end, then fine.

                  Pakistan doesn’t seem really happy with us after killing old ‘bin on their turf. Who really cares what they think anyways but I wouldn’t assume that they have peaceful intentions towards us right now.

  4. Big Larry says:

    Is this any different than welfare recipients going to the state with the highest payout and benefits? Ben Franklin stated, “you have to drive people out of poverty”. Minnesota enables laziness. If you are able to collect $15 an hour for unemployment benefits, etc…what is the incentive to work?

    1. Reasonable says:

      Being able to earn $20 an hour and have health insurance.

  5. Murph says:

    The fact is that the “no new taxes” argument is all smoke and mirrors.Remember soon to be POTUS Pawlenty (that’s a joke), for every dollar in income tax less,there will be $2 more in property taxes,fees,and revaluing property higher even tho it is worth less! That’s what’s really happening in Wisconsin.It’s all a scam.The sad part it is,it’s a scam to make the rich ,richer.Not the working poor less hungry or sick! P.T. Barnum lives on within the GOP and its party of YES for the rich,NO for the rest of us! Wake up and ignore the evil spell of FAUX and Friends!

  6. Cache says:

    Yet illegals and Welfare rats live in the lap of luxury with free room and board!?!?!?

    1. very interesting says:

      I know someone who gets to live in a brand new apartment for free because they are on welfare.

  7. Sarah says:

    I’m a disabled single mom technically homeless (staying with family) after my rental home was foreclosed on. I sure would like the hookup for a free apartment for welfare recipients!!!! I’ve been on a waiting list for 2 years for a subsidized place & am told it’s about a 7 year wait. But if you’re a refugee it’s only 3-6 months! How is that not racism against Americans?! I busted my butt in the workforce for 17 years & now that I need a little help I find most services are available only to minorities. Where’s the nearest chapter of the NAAWP? Oh yeah, it doesn’t exist. So I guess my white kids & I will remain homeless.

    1. Beer Guzzling Redneck says:

      You must get disability and child support, right? They’re available to you.

      And the other commenter is right. You’re not really homeless. I moved in with a friend, and then with family for almost 2 years after my divorce, until I could put away enough cash for another house.

  8. Willow says:

    Does this figure also include those made homeless by all the natural catastrophes we have had lately, rather then by their own fault? From fires to tornadoes, this year has had a lot of disasters so far.

    I would say that if you have a roof over your head and not living in a shelter, you’re not “homeless.” You have an address. It’s just temporary. College kids who have to move back into their parents’ place because the economy sucks and they can’t get a job aren’t considered homeless.

  9. Dee McDonald says:

    way to go wisconsin
    we need less homelessness all over the world


  10. justaxnspend says:

    Let’s see….Wisc down 3% , Minn up 2%. That means 1% is still
    along I 94 with their thumbs out.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Watch & Listen LIVE