.


https://kfor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/01/Tents-belonging-to-homeless-community-members-in-Oklahoma-City..png?w=635


MAPS 4 includes $55.76 million for affordable housing options in the Oklahoma City market. The project’s strategy is to maintain and expand affordable housing, which serves vulnerable and low-income people and families. It is expected to include renovation and new construction and could potentially leverage more than $400 million in additional housing funding from other sources.

City of Oklahoma City link: https://www.okc.gov/Home/Components/News/News/4382/140?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

.

You can't force them into housing.

Yep. The solution to homelessness is being able to force them into institutional housing. Until we do that almost every penny spent on this problem is wasted.

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/03/hard-truths-about-deinstitutionalization-then-and-now/

Imprisonment is your solution. Got it.

Imprisonment is your solution. Got it.

Characterize how you want but it is far better than what we have now...for everyone and that includes the mentally ill and drug addicted.

Imprisonment is your solution. Got it.
With some, not all, what other choice is there? Let them slowly kill themselves with drugs and rot away on the streets?

Not only does that affect them but it affects others as well. As JTF said, characterize it how you want, call it imprisonment, but yes that needs to be part of solution.

Imprisonment is your solution. Got it.

Sometimes there is a point where society has to force help onto people who are incapable of making rational decisions for themselves. The vast majority of homeless in this part of the country are:

1. Mentally ill
2. Drug addicted
3. Alcohol addicted
4. Physically impaired
5. Lower mental capacity

Or combinations ....

The rest simply choose to be homeless because there IS affordable housing in Oklahoma, there ARE services available to help them or they have withdrawn from society. So, yes, if forcing them into either being contributing members of society and/or not being a danger to themselves and others then institutionalization should be a definite option.

What you call "incarceration" is being an enabler to a miserable existance.

Sometimes there is a point where society has to force help onto people who are incapable of making rational decisions for themselves. The vast majority of homeless in this part of the country are:

1. Mentally ill
2. Drug addicted
3. Alcohol addicted
4. Physically impaired
5. Lower mental capacity

Or combinations ....

The rest simply choose to be homeless because there IS affordable housing in Oklahoma, there ARE services available to help them or they have withdrawn from society. So, yes, if forcing them into either being contributing members of society and/or not being a danger to themselves and others then institutionalization should be a definite option.

What you call "incarceration" is being an enabler to a miserable existance.

Do you define rational? Lower mental capacity? Special needs? What do you mean? Disabled?

Pretty ****ty post.

Do you define rational? Lower mental capacity? Special needs? What do you mean? Disabled?

Pretty ****ty post.

I honestly don't know which direction is the more virtuous and compassionate path. We tend error on the side of free choice and free association in our society because if someone rejects help then the guilt isn't on us but on them.

While free choice and free association is the default, do we as a community:

1.) Have a responsibility to our fellow citizens?
2.) In some extreme circumstances is it morally right to force help on someone who would otherwise die. For example, if a person is injured and die if they don't get to a hospital, is is morally right to call in ambulance and force him to go to the hospital (an institution) for emergency medical treatment?

Hangry, how would you answer these questions?

My problem with this argument is who draws the line and can the line be moved? There is an argument to be made on both sides of the coin, but I do not want to enter a realm where the state can impound someone’s life and force sobriety, and productivity. Those are two issues which are decidedly personal decisions and a state run prison for noncompliance sounds kind of like a bad idea to me. If someone is unable to be remedied to the state standard do they get euthanized? Who decides the timeline for a successful treatment?

As I have argued before you have to start at the source. Keep people from getting into a camp in the first place. That means increased resources for rehabilitation, precision targeting of at risk youth and adults, universal healthcare, subsidized housing and a significant increase to the minimum wage.

Just trying to round up the homeless and give them their 20th trespassing charge does nothing for the problem. But no one wants to actually fund a society where people are cared for.

Once the city has a decent amount of housing and then there is a percentage of people who just refuse to be sheltered (and there are always some), the city can then insist the remaining street population be moved away from existing businesses and neighborhoods. You can't force people to live inside but you can enforce existing laws to keep them from causing damage and risking others.

Most know I live near I-44 & Penn and I walk extensively through my neighborhood virtually every day. I also ran a homeless outreach program in Los Angeles for 7 years so I know a thing or two on this subject and am very compassionate toward people in general and the homeless in particular.

But as a society, we cannot allow the mayhem that is tightly intertwined with a street population to impact businesses and neighborhoods. I say this with all respect, but you simply can't comprehend what comes with these situations. People defecating and urinating all over the place, needles left on the sidewalks and streets, fires that often destroy property (an office building near me recently burned to the ground), groups actually cooking drugs, drug and prostitution traffic, and mountains and mountains of trash. Worse of all, is the unpredictable and sometimes violent behavior of people with serious addiction and/or mental problems. Street addicts are the most desperate people anywhere and will commit all manner of petty crime in pursuit of the next fix.

What the average person doesn't understand is the huge amount of drugs that flow through these camps. Almost all of them have cellphones and they quickly communicate where a new setup is located (they are often chased off and just move to another nearby area), the word gets out and then it starts all over again.

There are houses in my neighborhood now selling for north of $500K. OAK is going up just blocks away. Yet, a nicely remodeled and unoccupied house on my street recently went up for sale and within days, the homeless had broken in, squatted and the police had to be called. I could list dozens more incidents.

This is not remotely acceptable. On either side of me are small children. There is a school just a few blocks away. Kids standing at bus stops just yards from homeless camps.

So, yes, we need to build more housing and get those who desire to be housed in a stable place. But then, it will be time to crack down on the remainder who are openly breaking scores of laws and presenting a real threat to citizens and businesses.

Once the city has a decent amount of housing and then there is a percentage of people who just refuse to be sheltered (and there are always some), the city can then insist the remaining street population be moved away from existing businesses and neighborhoods. You can't force people to live inside but you can enforce existing laws to keep them from causing damage and risking others.

Most know I live near I-44 & Penn and I walk extensively through my neighborhood virtually every day. I also ran a homeless outreach program in Los Angeles for 7 years so I know a thing or two on this subject and am very compassionate toward people in general and the homeless in particular.

But as a society, we cannot allow the mayhem that is tightly intertwined with a street population to impact businesses and neighborhoods. I say this with all respect, but you simply can't comprehend what comes with these situations. People defecating and urinating all over the place, needles left on the sidewalks and streets, fires that often destroy property (an office building near me recently burned to the ground), groups actually cooking drugs, drug and prostitution traffic, and mountains and mountains of trash. Worse of all, is the unpredictable and sometimes violent behavior of people with serious addiction and/or mental problems. Street addicts are the most desperate people anywhere and will commit all manner of petty crime in pursuit of the next fix.

What the average person doesn't understand is the huge amount of drugs that flow through these camps. Almost all of them have cellphones and they quickly communicate where a new setup is located (they are often chased off and just move to another nearby area), the word gets out and then it starts all over again.

There are houses in my neighborhood now selling for north of $500K. OAK is going up just blocks away. Yet, a nicely remodeled and unoccupied house on my street recently went up for sale and within days, the homeless had broken in, squatted and the police had to be called. I could list dozens more incidents.

This is not remotely acceptable. On either side of me are small children. There is a school just a few blocks away. Kids standing at bus stops just yards from homeless camps.

So, yes, we need to build more housing and get those who desire to be housed in a stable place. But then, it will be time to crack down on the remainder who are openly breaking scores of laws and presenting a real threat to citizens and businesses.

this is an very complicated problem that no one really seems to have an answer for yet

https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-san-francisco-sees-its-homelessness-problems-spiral-out

spending tons of money is clearly not the answer most cities that massively increase homeless spending actually increase their homeless population

I very much agree with Pete that you can't let a situation go unchecked ..

but I also agree with Catch that giving the state power to just lock someone up (in an institution or wherever) is a scarry proposition .

It seems like the gov is not really address the correct issue nation wide .... the mental heath issue is what causes a majority of the homeless issue .. and it seem that most just want to address this symptom and not the root cause ...

There are already plenty of laws being broken by the homeless. Enforce those and prosecute. If you want to lock someone up for destruction of property, narcotics possession, public indecency, etc you have my full support. But that requires adding funding to an already strained legal system. This involves arresting people who you will never recover a fine from.

But I don’t want a law against being homeless. I don’t think that’s a great idea. Locking someone up for not having property is dangerous waters to wade in.

There are already plenty of laws being broken by the homeless. Enforce those and prosecute. If you want to lock someone up for destruction of property, narcotics possession, public indecency, etc you have my full support. But that requires adding funding to an already strained legal system. This involves arresting people who you will never recover a fine from.

But I don’t want a law against being homeless. I don’t think that’s a great idea. Locking someone up for not having property is dangerous waters to wade in.

agree

You don't have to lock people up.

For those who refuse to be housed, you can simply chase them away from areas where they are a threat to businesses and neighborhoods.

Once the city has a decent amount of housing and then there is a percentage of people who just refuse to be sheltered (and there are always some), the city can then insist the remaining street population be moved away from existing businesses and neighborhoods. You can't force people to live inside but you can enforce existing laws to keep them from causing damage and risking others.

Most know I live near I-44 & Penn and I walk extensively through my neighborhood virtually every day. I also ran a homeless outreach program in Los Angeles for 7 years so I know a thing or two on this subject and am very compassionate toward people in general and the homeless in particular.

But as a society, we cannot allow the mayhem that is tightly intertwined with a street population to impact businesses and neighborhoods. I say this with all respect, but you simply can't comprehend what comes with these situations. People defecating and urinating all over the place, needles left on the sidewalks and streets, fires that often destroy property (an office building near me recently burned to the ground), groups actually cooking drugs, drug and prostitution traffic, and mountains and mountains of trash. Worse of all, is the unpredictable and sometimes violent behavior of people with serious addiction and/or mental problems. Street addicts are the most desperate people anywhere and will commit all manner of petty crime in pursuit of the next fix.

What the average person doesn't understand is the huge amount of drugs that flow through these camps. Almost all of them have cellphones and they quickly communicate where a new setup is located (they are often chased off and just move to another nearby area), the word gets out and then it starts all over again.

There are houses in my neighborhood now selling for north of $500K. OAK is going up just blocks away. Yet, a nicely remodeled and unoccupied house on my street recently went up for sale and within days, the homeless had broken in, squatted and the police had to be called. I could list dozens more incidents.

This is not remotely acceptable. On either side of me are small children. There is a school just a few blocks away. Kids standing at bus stops just yards from homeless camps.

So, yes, we need to build more housing and get those who desire to be housed in a stable place. But then, it will be time to crack down on the remainder who are openly breaking scores of laws and presenting a real threat to citizens and businesses.

This!!!
If we're going to be honest, 99.9% of us probably wouldn't house a homeless person for one night in our personal homes. Why? Because we are not trained or feel safe to encounter many, many homeless who are not mentally well, who have addiction problems and who are strongly independent. I too, have worked with the homeless for a few years and know, in smart part, the complicated issues with such. While we want to feel good about ourselves say, "we need to be understanding of the homeless and provide housing, etc for them..." we say that while looking through binoculars and keep our distance safe. My sense is we need to help those who truly want our help. But those who refuse such help are creating major health and safety issues for others. To allow homeless to create public health issues or safety issues for the general public is unwise and they must be held accountable in some form.

To demonstrate the depths of this problem, there is a homeless guy named John that has been in my immediate area for quite some and he is better than most. He's a nice guy but he clearly has all types of very deep-rooted problems. He goes around trying to raise a little money by painting curbs and is respectful. I even see him post on Nextdoor.com at times (as I mentioned, they all have phones).

One of my elderly neighbors took pity on him and offered a room in her house. Very, very risky of course and I told her so but that's her business, not mine.

Still, John refuses to live inside and instead lives in a tent in her backyard. I mean even in near-zero weather, he won't come in. And as I said, he's in better shape than almost everyone currently on the street.

That is the reality of this issue.

There are already plenty of laws being broken by the homeless. Enforce those and prosecute. If you want to lock someone up for destruction of property, narcotics possession, public indecency, etc you have my full support. But that requires adding funding to an already strained legal system. This involves arresting people who you will never recover a fine from.

But I don’t want a law against being homeless. I don’t think that’s a great idea. Locking someone up for not having property is dangerous waters to wade in.

This sentiment is controversial given the recent push to defund the police. It is impossible to enforce the current laws without the funding and political will to do so...

This sentiment is controversial given the recent push to defund the police. It is impossible to enforce the current laws without the funding and political will to do so...

Just FYI, most people who support "Defund the police" do not mean that the total funding for law enforcement is necessarily decreased. Most plans to "defund the police" include offloading some of the current policing needs to specialist groups that could also be dispatched similar to police. Consider someone having a mental health emergency (and there is no indication the person is a lethal threat to themselves or others), then someone(s) with specialized mental health training and de-escalation skills can be dispatched.

One would think that anyone who supports the police would support such a program. We don't need police to be the panacea response. We dispatch ambulances when someone is having a physical health emergency, if they are having a mental health emergency, then we should have a similar solution to dispatch.

Just FYI, most people who support "Defund the police" do not mean that the total funding for law enforcement is necessarily decreased. Most plans to "defund the police" include offloading some of the current policing needs to specialist groups that could also be dispatched similar to police. Consider someone having a mental health emergency (and there is no indication the person is a lethal threat to themselves or others), then someone(s) with specialized mental health training and de-escalation skills can be dispatched.

One would think that anyone who supports the police would support such a program. We don't need police to be the panacea response. We dispatch ambulances when someone is having a physical health emergency, if they are having a mental health emergency, then we should have a similar solution to dispatch.

Obviously we need both, however 'defund the police' is poor marketing and as such it should be abandoned. It stands in the way of what needs to be accomplished for the good of the people.

I don’t know what the right answer is at this point. In Tulsa the problem downtown is getting bad enough that women I’m fiends with don’t feel safe walking their dogs outside after sunset and under some circumstances during the light of day. The city of Tulsa hadn’t seemed to give a crap about acknowledging the problem until recently and I’m F’ing sick of it. Had a friend from Detroit that moved in to our building. Her dad was helping her moved in and a homeless guy asked them for money. They said no…and the dude stared at her and literally started stroking himself. Her dad from DETROIT was afraid to leave his daughter in downtown Tulsa after that.

I’m as afraid of giving the government too much power as anyone is but the repeat offenders need to be rounded up and taken to a mental institution, rehab, jail or and anywhere else but here if they aren’t willing to go to live in a shelter or housing provided by the city and abide by the rules of that housing. My compassion is gone at this point and if you don’t deal with them on a daily basis your opinion shouldn’t even be considered. I’m tired of all the bleeding hearts that don’t deal with them on a day to day basis acting like those of us who do are terrible people for wanting some kind of resolution.

it is a massive, growing problem. It’s time to drop the candy ass feelings bs and find a real solution to deal with it. If it isn’t already, it will become a massive problem toward the goal of having people living downtown…especially single women and families. My girlfriend and my neighbor’s girlfriend shouldn’t be concerned about walking their dogs at night down here when we’re out of town and can’t walk with them.

A very nice opinion piece about some easy things we as a society could do to help the poor and homeless, as we begin kicking people off Medicaid rolls today.
And Pete, that was incredibly kind of your neighbor to offer a bed, and let the man stay safely in her backyard. She sounds like a sweet neighbor!
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/22/opinions/poverty-policies-in-america-barber-theoharis/index.html

Just FYI, most people who support "Defund the police" do not mean that the total funding for law enforcement is necessarily decreased. Most plans to "defund the police" include offloading some of the current policing needs to specialist groups that could also be dispatched similar to police. Consider someone having a mental health emergency (and there is no indication the person is a lethal threat to themselves or others), then someone(s) with specialized mental health training and de-escalation skills can be dispatched.

One would think that anyone who supports the police would support such a program. We don't need police to be the panacea response. We dispatch ambulances when someone is having a physical health emergency, if they are having a mental health emergency, then we should have a similar solution to dispatch.

Just FYI, most people who support "Defund the police" do not mean that the total funding for law enforcement is necessarily decreased. Most plans to "defund the police" include offloading some of the current policing needs to specialist groups that could also be dispatched similar to police. Consider someone having a mental health emergency (and there is no indication the person is a lethal threat to themselves or others), then someone(s) with specialized mental health training and de-escalation skills can be dispatched.

One would think that anyone who supports the police would support such a program. We don't need police to be the panacea response. We dispatch ambulances when someone is having a physical health emergency, if they are having a mental health emergency, then we should have a similar solution to dispatch.

Many many moons ago, ODMHSAS had grants for mobile crisis unit in OKC where a nurse and social worker could go out and check on seriously mentally ill persons who maybe didn't show up for their medication appointment, or a friend called and said the person was in distress from family drama, housing issues, etc. When that grant funding dried up, all the federal and state resources shifted to the next big thing that everyone demanded be fixed, the drug war. At that time, it was using the money to fight methamphetamine use, then pivoted years later to opioids. Not sure what the current federal grant themes are nowadays.

I’m as afraid of giving the government too much power as anyone is but the repeat offenders need to be rounded up and taken to a mental institution, rehab, jail or and anywhere else but here if they aren’t willing to go to live in a shelter or housing provided by the city and abide by the rules of that housing. My compassion is gone at this point and if you don’t deal with them on a daily basis your opinion shouldn’t even be considered. I’m tired of all the bleeding hearts that don’t deal with them on a day to day basis acting like those of us who do are terrible people for wanting some kind of resolution.


If all it takes to be "rounded up" is being homeless, then the only thing the government needs to do to get rid of those inconveniencing them is declare them homeless. Report a few too many things on the Action Center, complain about Swadley's a little too loudly, maybe be a bit too negative about one of the governor's turnpikes, and...oh, gee, look who ended up on the homeless list "by mistake". You'll just have to hire a lawyer to fight that in court...with all that money you're not making because you're locked up in jail for being homeless...

Those examples are a bit ridiculous, but I absolutely do not trust any government in Oklahoma to use that kind of power responsibly. Or competently, for that matter.

I don’t know what the right answer is at this point. In Tulsa the problem downtown is getting bad enough that women I’m fiends with don’t feel safe walking their dogs outside after sunset and under some circumstances during the light of day. The city of Tulsa hadn’t seemed to give a crap about acknowledging the problem until recently and I’m F’ing sick of it. Had a friend from Detroit that moved in to our building. Her dad was helping her moved in and a homeless guy asked them for money. They said no…and the dude stared at her and literally started stroking himself. Her dad from DETROIT was afraid to leave his daughter in downtown Tulsa after that.

I’m as afraid of giving the government too much power as anyone is but the repeat offenders need to be rounded up and taken to a mental institution, rehab, jail or and anywhere else but here if they aren’t willing to go to live in a shelter or housing provided by the city and abide by the rules of that housing. My compassion is gone at this point and if you don’t deal with them on a daily basis your opinion shouldn’t even be considered. I’m tired of all the bleeding hearts that don’t deal with them on a day to day basis acting like those of us who do are terrible people for wanting some kind of resolution.

it is a massive, growing problem. It’s time to drop the candy ass feelings bs and find a real solution to deal with it. If it isn’t already, it will become a massive problem toward the goal of having people living downtown…especially single women and families. My girlfriend and my neighbor’s girlfriend shouldn’t be concerned about walking their dogs at night down here when we’re out of town and can’t walk with them.

you hit on a key point here, mental institutions. I recall Congress cutting budgets for mental health back in the Obama years - to me this is why we have the homeless crisis across the country; once funding at the federal level was cut, states came in to do what they could and then that dried up. Now beds aren't available and there's few to staff, so the "problem" is out in the open yet nobody seems to recall what started this. It's a systematic issue that should have its funding not only restored but surged for a period to catch-up.

It would be great if we could get half or more of the current homeless into treatment where they very likely need to be (rather than solo-housing or jail), THAT would be a huge step in not only removing the undesired impacts of homeless but also helping them towards a better, supervised outcome. The remainder that don't require mental health who prefer to be homeless could be tolerated just as they were back before 2010. ...

Once the city has a decent amount of housing and then there is a percentage of people who just refuse to be sheltered (and there are always some), the city can then insist the remaining street population be moved away from existing businesses and neighborhoods. You can't force people to live inside but you can enforce existing laws to keep them from causing damage and risking others.

Most know I live near I-44 & Penn and I walk extensively through my neighborhood virtually every day. I also ran a homeless outreach program in Los Angeles for 7 years so I know a thing or two on this subject and am very compassionate toward people in general and the homeless in particular.

But as a society, we cannot allow the mayhem that is tightly intertwined with a street population to impact businesses and neighborhoods. I say this with all respect, but you simply can't comprehend what comes with these situations. People defecating and urinating all over the place, needles left on the sidewalks and streets, fires that often destroy property (an office building near me recently burned to the ground), groups actually cooking drugs, drug and prostitution traffic, and mountains and mountains of trash. Worse of all, is the unpredictable and sometimes violent behavior of people with serious addiction and/or mental problems. Street addicts are the most desperate people anywhere and will commit all manner of petty crime in pursuit of the next fix.

What the average person doesn't understand is the huge amount of drugs that flow through these camps. Almost all of them have cellphones and they quickly communicate where a new setup is located (they are often chased off and just move to another nearby area), the word gets out and then it starts all over again.

There are houses in my neighborhood now selling for north of $500K. OAK is going up just blocks away. Yet, a nicely remodeled and unoccupied house on my street recently went up for sale and within days, the homeless had broken in, squatted and the police had to be called. I could list dozens more incidents.

This is not remotely acceptable. On either side of me are small children. There is a school just a few blocks away. Kids standing at bus stops just yards from homeless camps.

So, yes, we need to build more housing and get those who desire to be housed in a stable place. But then, it will be time to crack down on the remainder who are openly breaking scores of laws and presenting a real threat to citizens and businesses.

Every once in a while I'll see a white van with a flat bed trailer park under the I-44 bridge and start loading up all their belongings (shopping carts, bikes, etc.) and also load up all the homeless people. Not sure who the van is associated with or where they take them but within a few days they are all back. Last week I was driving to work and there was a man at the NW Expressway and Penn intersection who was stumbling around in the street and walking out in front of cars, yelling all kinds of stuff. I'm sure all of this is why 7/11 backed out of their deal for the empty lot.

Every once in a while I'll see a white van with a flat bed trailer park under the I-44 bridge and start loading up all their belongings (shopping carts, bikes, etc.) and also load up all the homeless people. Not sure who the van is associated with or where they take them but within a few days they are all back. Last week I was driving to work and there was a man at the NW Expressway and Penn intersection who was stumbling around in the street and walking out in front of cars, yelling all kinds of stuff. I'm sure all of this is why 7/11 backed out of their deal for the empty lot.

I believe that is Shine, the county-funded cleanup operation.

This is no exaggeration: They come to I-44 & Penn 6 times a week to clean up the mess. If they skip one day, the amount of trash and junk is massive. I'm part of a very active neighborhood group that interacts with Shine, the police, homeless outreach and other agencies on a daily basis. I could write an entire book on just the last year.


The problem is that the city let this go on for a long time and once a camp gets entrenched it's almost impossible to get them to stay gone. They all have cell phones and quickly communicate a new nearby place to camp.

It's particularly bad because there are nice neighborhoods all around and tons of businesses. The city just spent a bunch of taxpayer money on the 39th Street District but here's a quick list of money that has been or is in the process of being spent: New apartments just south of 39th, Casey's renovation, Braum's renovation, Watershed Carwash, District Hotel, and of course OAK right up the street.

I bet within a 1-mile radius more sales tax will be generated than any other area in the city: OAK, Penn Square Mall, 50 Penn Place and that incredibly busy Walmart Superstore. It's outrageous the city has allowed things to get to this point and the amount of taxpayer money being spent to do nothing more than cleanup (and everything is filthy again in a few hours) is staggering.

And almost weekly, there is an ambulance and/or paramedics called, which is an insanely expensive way to administer health services. About a year ago, a homeless woman was caught in the rushing waters of the drainage channel and they had helicopters and a rescue team of at least a dozen working for hours to get her out of there. I can't imagine the amount of money being spent on this situation... Many millions.

We need to get some housing up through MAPS 4, get those who want to be housed in there, and then no longer tolerate what has been happening in this area for decades. It's unsafe (someone was murdered there last year), hideous, a breeding ground for drugs and crime, and a huge black eye on OKC.

The mentally ill don't know they are mentally ill so someone else has to declare them mentally ill. Drug addicts know they are drug addicts but are incapable of escaping the drugs - which by definition is what makes them an addict. Getting them the help they need to live the most productive life they can is real compassion and not prison. Allowing them live in squalor and beg at intersections is NOT compassion nor freedom.

For those homeless that just choose it as a way of life with minimal responsibilities (and I know people like this) I am sorry to inform them that we now live in a modern society where housing yourself is part of the social contract we all have with each other. Long gone are the times when all a man needed was a horse and a bed roll. If living responsiblity free is your desire then there are plenty of 3rd world countries where you can do that.

If anyone is interested,

Special City Council meeting, Homeless Workshop, 8:30 am, April 4, OKC Convention Center Jr Ballroom 302 a-d.

An interesting trend I have noticed is seeing an increase in "car living" accounts on social media. There is entire subs on reddit dedicated to American people [that appear capable] of having jobs, but decline to do so and just live out of their vehicles and travel. They are often posting tiktoks and other short clips that show "hacks" and DIY solutions to make car camping look relatively easy. At this time, it appears early adopters are able to monetize their social media presence and therefore that provides them enough income. However, as followers attempt to do the same, the entire sector is getting cannibalized and eventually car campers will need other sources of income.

I fear that this almost 'glorification' of the freedom of car-living is going to eventually bleed into the overall homeless issue. Social media is extremely powerful, but I don't think we have truly seen the effects of freedom-glorification that is currently taking place.

^

It's the evolution of Van Life that has become popular over the last 10 years, as depicted in Nomadland.

you hit on a key point here, mental institutions. I recall Congress cutting budgets for mental health back in the Obama years - to me this is why we have the homeless crisis across the country; once funding at the federal level was cut, states came in to do what they could and then that dried up. Now beds aren't available and there's few to staff, so the "problem" is out in the open yet nobody seems to recall what started this. It's a systematic issue that should have its funding not only restored but surged for a period to catch-up.

It would be great if we could get half or more of the current homeless into treatment where they very likely need to be (rather than solo-housing or jail), THAT would be a huge step in not only removing the undesired impacts of homeless but also helping them towards a better, supervised outcome. The remainder that don't require mental health who prefer to be homeless could be tolerated just as they were back before 2010. ...

Just FYI, Federal funding for mental health services hasn't really decreased recently. Here are some from a quick google search. Most fiscal tightening around mental health came at the state level after the Great Recession.

2013: $235 million in funding for new mental health programs, focused initiatives to help schools detect early warning signs and train thousands of new mental health professionals; $130 million for programs that train teachers and other adults to help recognize early signs of mental illness.
2014: $115 million for new mental health initiatives; $50 million available to help Community Health Centers across the country establish or expand mental and behavioral health services for people living with mental illness or addiction; ACA - pre-existing mental health issues *no longer a basis for denial of coverage*
2015: $56 million increase for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH); $70 million for a total of $135 million for the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative; 2016: $500 million in funding for mental health issues through Executive discretionary spending.
2016: $6 billion 21st Century Cures Act.

Looking at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Presidential Budget Requests (note, requests, not approved budget) by Fiscal Year:
2009: -$209 Million
2010: +$97 Million
2011: +$110 Million
2012: +$67 Million
2013: -$70 Million
2014: +$71 Million
2015: -$137 Million
2016: -$78 Million
2017: $500 Million
2018: -$374 Million
2019: -$665 Million
2020: -$62 Million
2021: -$141 Million
2022: +$3.717 Billion
2023: +$3.739 Billion
2024: +$3.3 Billion

^

There were massive cuts in the 1980s that almost everyone agrees are at the root of our ever-escalating homeless problem.

Just FYI, Federal funding for mental health services hasn't really decreased recently. Here are some from a quick google search. Most fiscal tightening around mental health came at the state level after the Great Recession.

2013: $235 million in funding for new mental health programs, focused initiatives to help schools detect early warning signs and train thousands of new mental health professionals; $130 million for programs that train teachers and other adults to help recognize early signs of mental illness.
2014: $115 million for new mental health initiatives; $50 million available to help Community Health Centers across the country establish or expand mental and behavioral health services for people living with mental illness or addiction; ACA - pre-existing mental health issues *no longer a basis for denial of coverage*
2015: $56 million increase for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH); $70 million for a total of $135 million for the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative; 2016: $500 million in funding for mental health issues through Executive discretionary spending.
2016: $6 billion 21st Century Cures Act.

Looking at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Presidential Budget Requests (note, requests, not approved budget) by Fiscal Year:
2009: -$209 Million
2010: +$97 Million
2011: +$110 Million
2012: +$67 Million
2013: -$70 Million
2014: +$71 Million
2015: -$137 Million
2016: -$78 Million
2017: $500 Million
2018: -$374 Million
2019: -$665 Million
2020: -$62 Million
2021: -$141 Million
2022: +$3.717 Billion
2023: +$3.739 Billion
2024: +$3.3 Billion

That does seem like a lot of money here recently.

My BIL got me into Geocaching about 13 years ago. It's a hobby that can take you into many "urban wooded areas" that most people wouldn't even know were there. Over the years it's amazed me just how many pretty much hidden, unseen homeless camps there are unless you're in a place to see them. If you drive on Reno, I40, Oklahoma Boulevard, etc., etc. and think "Wow, there's a lot of homeless camps" you're only seeing a small percentage of what's really out there. We've seen so many that you have to hike into woods to even see.

And almost weekly, there is an ambulance and/or paramedics called, which is an insanely expensive way to administer health services. About a year ago, a homeless woman was caught in the rushing waters of the drainage channel and they had helicopters and a rescue team of at least a dozen working for hours to get her out of there. I can't imagine the amount of money being spent on this situation... Many millions.

We need to get some housing up through MAPS 4, get those who want to be housed in there, and then no longer tolerate what has been happening in this area for decades. It's unsafe (someone was murdered there last year), hideous, a breeding ground for drugs and crime, and a huge black eye on OKC.

This is one of the things I worry about a lot since that happened as I also live up against the channel and there's a second fence that makes an enclosed greenbelt. People climb up out of that thing all the time and sleep back there and leave incredible messes - and never mind what could happen if someone dies back there.

This is one of the things I worry about a lot since that happened as I also live up against the channel and there's a second fence that makes an enclosed greenbelt. People climb up out of that thing all the time and sleep back there and leave incredible messes - and never mind what could happen if someone dies back there.

Before I moved into my house, a woman had been washed away by a sudden downpour and drowned. They found her body over a mile away from where she had been.

These camps cut the fences that lead down there on almost a daily basis. Someone from my neighborhood group reports it, the city comes out a couple of days later to apply the fix, and often the very same day it is cut once more.

One of the many things that belie the more naive views many have of these camps is the proliferation of bolt-cutters. They not only slice up fences but cut locks off gates (including the one that provides access to the greenbelt behind your house, jompster) and doors all the bloody time. It's very disconcerting and evidence of dark forces at work.

That's very true. I've put three padlocks on the gate at the top of the service ladder behind my house and they've cut that off each time within a day or two.

Before I moved into my house, a woman had been washed away by a sudden downpour and drowned. They found her body over a mile away from where she had been.

These camps cut the fences that lead down there on almost a daily basis. Someone from my neighborhood group reports it, the city comes out a couple of days later to apply the fix, and often the very same day it is cut once more.

One of the many things that belie the more naive views many have of these camps is the proliferation of bolt-cutters. They not only slice up fences but cut locks off gates (including the one that provides access to the greenbelt behind your house, jompster) and doors all the bloody time. It's very disconcerting and evidence of dark forces at work.

I have had to replace the locks for the shed at one of my rentals multiple times. At this point I just tell tenants not to store anything they care about in the shed. Over the years, bikes, push mowers, random tools, etc. all stolen out of that shed. It is beyond ridiculous and really eats away at a lot of people's positivity towards the homeless.

Unless the city fully embraces the health and safety of the general public must be the driving priority in their decision/policy plans in how they deal with the homeless population, we will continue to see loss in meaningful action to produce outcomes to ensure public health and safety.

People from that ever-shifting camp have broken into several homes in my area as well as gone through or over fences and cut the locks off many sheds. One of them broke through the backdoor where a young girl was home alone.

A two-story office building in the area recently was burned to the ground. On my many walks, I've seen all types of scary characters coming and going from a vacant house in foreclosure that had been taken over by squatters and then later destroyed by fire.


I absolutely hate to be negative about anything related to OKC or to be anything but compassionate toward my fellow man, but if the general citizenry saw what happens in this area on a regular basis, their opinion would be strongly hardened regarding this population. The idea most are nice people who are momentarily down on their luck is a complete fantasy.

All human behaviour is met with consequences. When other humans infringe on the health and safety of others, whether your homeless or not, has to have consequences. To deny or ignore dangerous safety and health behaviours without consequences is a recipe for multiple problems.

The idea most are nice people who are momentarily down on their luck is a complete fantasy.

When a person ends up on the street it is usually because they already burned through every friend and family member they have. No one goes from job to street life in one day. Other than mental health, it is usually the result of poor decisions over a long period of time.

When a person ends up on the street it is usually because they already burned through every friend and family member they have. No one goes from job to street life in one day. Other than mental health, it is usually the result of poor decisions over a long period of time.

Studies show that almost everyone on the street is there due to mental health and/or addiction problems, two problems that are very difficult to address even with unlimited resources.

And it has to be said, a fair amount of people in prison meet this description as well.

I include drug addiction in the "poor choices over a long period of time" category.

I have had the opportunity to ask several homeless people if they can pinpoint a seminal moment when their lives turned to path they are on. For a lot of them it was drugs or alcohol at an early age. I had one guy tell me his biggest regret was his first cigarette. That is a difficult downward spiral to get out of and the best way to win is never to play. Of course, some don't mind the path they're on.

I include drug addiction in the "poor choices over a long period of time" category.

Addiction is not a choice.

Addiction is not a choice.

Sure it is. People choose not to be addicts every day. I have family members who were drug addicts, but aren't anymore.

The World According to JustTheFacts™

Sure it is. People choose not to be addicts every day. I have family members who were drug addicts, but aren't anymore.
That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.

$400M for homeless, somebody do the math again...:rolleyes:

Addiction is not a choice.

Addiction is not a choice. Deciding to be clean is a choice, albeit and extremely difficult one that you have to make every day that is made even more difficult if you have the wrong people around you.

Sure it is. People choose not to be addicts every day. I have family members who were drug addicts, but aren't anymore.

You can’t choose not to be an addict…if you’re an addict…you’re an addict. You can choose not to be addicted/clean and can be forced clean but at some point it does have to be your choice to stay that way.

People from that ever-shifting camp have broken into several homes in my area as well as gone through or over fences and cut the locks off many sheds. One of them broke through the backdoor where a young girl was home alone.

A two-story office building in the area recently was burned to the ground. On my many walks, I've seen all types of scary characters coming and going from a vacant house in foreclosure that had been taken over by squatters and then later destroyed by fire.


I absolutely hate to be negative about anything related to OKC or to be anything but compassionate toward my fellow man, but if the general citizenry saw what happens in this area on a regular basis, their opinion would be strongly hardened regarding this population. The idea most are nice people who are momentarily down on their luck is a complete fantasy.

Example of what happens when that kind of activity spills over into the general citizenry. This was 2 blocks from my apartment in downtown Tulsa last year. A girl who worked at a hotel was trying to be nice to a homeless guy who’d frequented the area and out of no where he snapped and beat the hell out of her. Shes lucky it happened during the day when someone was nearby to intervene as she easily could’ve been killed.

https://www.newson6.com/story/623e4b3597f25b074b33f76c/woman-thanks-good-samaritans-who-intervened-during-brutal-attack

Had a friend refuse to give one money last year. The guy, who is 6’5” and mostly friendly… ran after him and punched him in the back of the head. Had another friend a few years ago that was chased into her building by one that was screaming and running after her down the street. Thought she was safe in her building and the guy smashed the window and came in after her. The elevator closed right before he got to her. Last year I walked out of my apartment at 6:00 AM to a guy full naked screaming at the top of his lungs at anyone who walked by. Then of course theres my story a page back about my female friend who moved here from Detroit. Those are just my personal experiences off the top of my head.

In lighter news, I had to stop my dog from eating human crap today (complete with toilet paper in the middle of the sidewalk) while walking him to the park where there are now daily piles of trash.

OKC and Tulsa have to get this under control or risk taking several steps back on all the progress that’s been made in our inner city areas over the last two decades.

Thanks for sharing those experiences PhiAlpha about Tulsa which has the same concerns as OKC with some homeless people who are in need of mental health and other services. I'm seeing more people camped out in the city's core. It gets scary at times seeing this problem in full view. Most of the people I help are appreciative and thankful. Can't imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2023/04/05/homelessness-okc-oklahoma-city-homeless-unsheltered-population-reduce-two-year-plan/70080865007/

I didn't see anything in that plan to either make these people self-sufficient or permanent wards of the State. Homelessness is a symptom not the problem. Again spending money on the wrong solution.

Our plan is based on what Houston has done, which has been highly successful.

The basic idea is that you build housing, have outreach teams that connect the homeless to resources, get as many housed as will go, decommission the camps, place police presence at the site of the old camps, and encourage anyone who returns to access resources without punitive measures.

This model is also supported with HUD funding.

It's a very positive step. And after it gets fully implemented in the next two years, although police will not seek punitive measures against people returning to decommissioned camps, it will be easier to stop them from starting these camps all over again.


The bottom line is it is currently political suicide to take a strong stance against these camps. Once there is a viable alternative and some simply choose not to take advantage, then it will be easier to be more strict.

I've definitely lost a lot of empathy for the homeless community over time. I work near general pershing blvd & the amount of destruction, violence & drug abuse I witness on a day to day basis is something I'd never thought I'd see.

It is sad, but after a while it get's harder and harder to feel sorry for them. Unfortunately I think most of the helping which comes in the lines & providing easyish access to everything somebody would need to survive actually is the reason why the community just keeps growing. If you can choose to receive everything you "need" while having no job/life responsibilities all the while getting to partake in whatever addiction your self has day after day, why not live that lifestyle?

I know I'm simplifying this, and I truly do appreciate those who devote their lives to helping to end & help homelessness but at the end of the day there are just gonna be people who want to live that lifestyle if it becomes easier and easier.

Houston has taught us the first thing is to remove the excuse of no available housing. You build it and the people that want to be housed now have an easy choice.

Those that won't go are basically saying, "I don't want to be housed even for free and choose to live on the street and cause all types of problems". At that point, there is the political will to deal with them in a different way. Public safety takes priority and at the very least they can be chased off to places where they are not a direct threat to neighborhoods and businesses.

The plans don't say this outright because it will cause outrage. But that's effectively how all of this works.

Once there is housing, the police will approach these groups and tell them they can't remain and there are a bunch of different options. We can't force you to take advantage but you cannot stay here.

Houston has taught us the first thing is to remove the excuse of no available housing. You build it and the people that want to be housed now have an easy choice.

Those that won't go are basically saying, "I don't want to be housed even for free and choose to live on the street and cause all types of problems". At that point, there is the political will to deal with them in a different way. Public safety takes priority and at the very least they can be chased off to places where they are not a direct threat to neighborhoods and businesses.

The plans don't say this outright because it will cause outrage. But that's effectively how all of this works.

Once there is housing, the police will approach these groups and tell them they can't remain and there are a bunch of different options. We can't force you to take advantage but you cannot stay here.

:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:

Houston has taught us the first thing is to remove the excuse of no available housing. You build it and the people that want to be housed now have an easy choice.

Those that won't go are basically saying, "I don't want to be housed even for free and choose to live on the street and cause all types of problems". At that point, there is the political will to deal with them in a different way. Public safety takes priority and at the very least they can be chased off to places where they are not a direct threat to neighborhoods and businesses.

The plans don't say this outright because it will cause outrage. But that's effectively how all of this works.

Once there is housing, the police will approach these groups and tell them they can't remain and there are a bunch of different options. We can't force you to take advantage but you cannot stay here.

You can only imagine the degree of danger police will be subject to in approaching a homeless individual who will flatly refuse to go into provided housing. My concern is the number of those who will refuse is higher than we realize. Such a volatile situation for many - the homeless, those who work with homeless and the police departments.