I posted in the weather thread about a homeless woman having to be rescued from a drainage channel near my house. I see homeless almost every day down in that channel.

This closely on the heels of having to clear a big grove of trees near the Oklahoma River due to a big homeless camp that was generating tons of trash with a lot of it ended up in the inlet.

Yesterday, when I was taking photos at Mayfair, several homeless passed by. I see scores of them every time I walk in that area. Same with the 39th street LGBTQ district and of course I-44 & Penn.


This city has a huge and growing homeless problem and it seems to be spreading. I've seen them camping near Memorial Road and not long ago there was a camp behind Chipotle across from Baptist Hospital.

I know we have some MAPS money allocated for the homeless but it seems like things are rapidly getting out of control.

Can someone tell me what makes OKC a good place for homelessness? I understand San Francisco being a good place because of the weather, but Oklahoma weather can be pretty rough. Also like you have said Pete, Oklahoma City doesn't seem to provide services to the homeless population. What I am missing? Pete feel free to delete if this is to off topic. I am honestly curious, and I dont know the answer.

I don't think OKC is a magnet for the homeless, I believe the population has just come from the city itself.

Even if there are services and housing, in the U.S. you can't forcibly take people off the streets and make them stay in a designated area. I remember them doing this is Switzerland when I spent several months there. They have a huge addiction problem there but they had law enforcement round up the homeless.

I used to run a homeless outreach program in L.A. (where the problem is exponentially larger) and almost all these people do not want the restrictions that come with shelters, such as maintaining sobriety and other necessary measures.


This has always been a problem but it seems much worse and rapidly escalating.

I think it is a byproduct of the opioid epidemic in the US. Norman also has a large homeless population that live down by the river. Any sort of homeless measures seem to get defeated as people don't want them nearby to their property or think if you build a shelter it will create more homeless population.

It is a pretty complex issue but I think Oklahoma is seeing a large homeless increase.

^

I'm sure the opioid spike has a lot to do with the upward trend.

We need to use more of the massive settlements against J&J and Sackler to address this issue.

And really, when you see the long-term effects, it's beginning to look like states did not ask for nearly enough.

It's not just the opioids from the pharma companies but Fentanyl that is now in most every illegal drug compound being imported to the US. It has become a very deadly problem in Denver.

Can someone tell me what makes OKC a good place for homelessness? I understand San Francisco being a good place because of the weather, but Oklahoma weather can be pretty rough. Also like you have said Pete, Oklahoma City doesn't seem to provide services to the homeless population. What I am missing? Pete feel free to delete if this is to off topic. I am honestly curious, and I dont know the answer.

First of all, the San Francisco area has 5.5 TIMES the number of people as the Oklahoma City Area. Estimates of homeless there is 8,011. Oklahoma City's for a similar time period was 1.573. If we account for the increased population in SF, in proportion OKC would have 8,675 homeless.... or 8% MORE homeless than SF. So this right wing talking point of all the homeless in SF is not born of reality.

In most places, about 10% homeless are because of mental illness, about 20% because of addictions, about 50% because of layoffs/lack of work, and the rest a mix of other issues like divorces, kids being kicked out of the home, etc. These are universal problems and most not associated to liberal/conservative leanings, weather, or other straw men excuses.

OKC has a poor, poor track record of dealing with poverty and homelessness. The state/city doesn't seem to want to help solve problems, just isolate and castigate. There have been back-to-work programs in other places that are effective in getting people back to self sufficiency. For instance, I worked with a company that contracted with Riverside, California to hire homeless seeking to get back on their feet. The city took homeless and put them in apartments and helped train and organize them to be productive workers. Our factory contracted for workers with them. The city did dependency screening, basic skills training, etc., and provided bus transportation to and from the factory to make sure they arrive on time and had a way back (most didn't have cars and public transport didn't cover the area totally). After a qualifying period the employees were eligible to be full time employees and could afford to start paying for their housing, etc.... they were back on their feet. It worked and it showed that most homeless WANT to be self sufficient and provide for themselves and family, contrary to the belief many have that all they want is a handout. So, even if it works for 50% of the homeless, that would be very, very worthwhile and actually a cost saver for the city.

This is an observation-not a complaint. Let me be clear on that.

Seems to me that we have noticed the homeless more since we have reduced the Oklahoma County jail population and had the commutation event at the State level. And although it would be easy to say we weren't properly prepared for those people reentering society, it might be that we needed this influx to make us aware of the need for improved services.

I don’t really have any opinions or even suggestions on this issue as my opinion is more or less that the increasing homeless populations across nearly every city in America are just something intractable that we will be dealing with for the foreseeable future. I do think that this Atlantic article provides an unbiased, middle-of-the-road viewpoint and has helped me understand the root causes of the issue much more than anything else I’ve read on the subject. It first and foremost just comes across as a tragedy to me and I don’t think the causes or solutions break down neatly among political lines, which in an increasingly polarized country unfortunately means that it’s likely going to be very difficult to address.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/

I remember being intrigued by Salt Lake City's “Housing First” policy when I read about it years ago. The idea is to help homeless people find housing and then help address associated problems concerning job preparation to mental illness to drug addiction. Aside from being a more humane approach, it also is intended to reduce other costs the city/state pay for homelessness from arrests to medical emergencies. Unfortunately, it seems like the funding for the housing first program in SLC has dried up (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing-idUSKCN1P41EQ). To me, this is the best solution I've seen, but it requires money and empathy... both of which are unlikely to come from the state. It'll mostly be up to OKC to come up with its own solutions. I hope it's not the same old approaches that have fallen short in other cities.

There is not only an enormous human cost but a massive tax burden as well.

Think about the expense of rescuing the lady from the drainage channel today. Or the constant cleanup of the various camps.

I've seen ambulances and paramedics administering to the homeless many times near my neighborhood.


We need to be spending money on proactive measures to help stop these problems before there are emergencies.

It's not just the opioids from the pharma companies but Fentanyl that is now in most every illegal drug compound being imported to the US. It has become a very deadly problem in Denver.

Opioids are certainly a significant factor, but if you speak to the experts at the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, they’ll tell you that meth remains the biggest problem here, though it’s been overshadowed by the attention opioids have been receiving.

And I have to wonder whether the uptick in homelessness isn't only a function of there being more people sliding into homelessness, but a function of life saving interventions, i.e., Narcan, which keep them alive, but still homeless. Have we simply become so adept at managing our homeless population that being homeless comes with a significantly lower cost? Have there always been thing like warming stations to ensure homeless don't freeze to death? Maybe a major factor in what looks like increasing homelessness is that you can live that way for a pretty long time and manage not to die from it compared to past years?

I am not an expert on the homeless situation. I can only speak about what I saw back in the day (mid 1980's when I worked for Amcare) We would run on homeless people claiming injuries, chest pain etc often. These people had the system figured out. They would get to the ER the ER would have to run them through expensive testing and while waiting for results and for observation would be held over night. The person would get meals and clean bed warm bed. The hospitals knew what was going on but could not turn them away. Most did not have any insurance nor any money. Just another expense that the hospitals had to deal with. At that time again many of these people had mental health issues or drug/alcohol addiction issues. Since that times it seems the problem has only grown exponentially. How do you help people that dont want help? I've seen people who had families with a great deal of money who could not reach out and help their family members. They just did not want help and just wanted to live like they lived. My only 3 cents (inflation) is to donate a few dollars to the homeless shelters to at least help them help those who want help.

I like so many others don't have a solution, all I can say is it makes me so very sad. I've seen several of the homeless talking to themselves, with no one around, it's clear there is mental health problems. It makes me want to give them food or money, but then I wonder if that's doing any good? Is it just enabling them? Do they even eat the food or use the money?

I'm all for getting these people the help they deserve, and would support any initiative that took a different approach, because society has failed many of these people.

I used to show this Frontline documentary, "The New Asylum (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/showsasylums/)," when I taught psychology. In short, instead of creating systems to support people with mental disorders such as schizophrenia, they just end up homeless or in jail—both at massive costs to the taxpayer. There's a sad scene where an inmate is offered mental health care and immediately shows progress only to be sent back to his cell. It's obvious that the entire system is broken.

How do you help people that dont want help?

It's important to remember that this is only a portion of the homeless population. Many people who are homeless welcome help and can change their lives when they have supports.

I never said all of them dont want help. There is a sizable amount of homeless that dont want help. Usually these are the ones with serious mental health or addiction issues and are in denial that they have problems that they need professional help. With the laws today its tough for family and friend to intervene. There are resources out there for those who truly want help and want to get back on their feet and solve their issues. Many not as good as they could be but for those who do want to get their life in order, it can be done.

Also, for the folks who can, please donate to the different groups that do help the homeless. I try to send them a few $$ to farther their work.

Also, for the folks who can, please donate to the different groups that do help the homeless. I try to send them a few $$ to farther their work.

And buy Curbside Chronicle every month. I try to get each issue and give the vendor $20 since they're obviously out there hustling trying to get better.

Rent has gone up way faster than anyone's income

Lot of disruption there.

PBS newsHour had a segment tonight about how boomers are the fastest growing segment of new homeless.

Quite a shame to witness how this country fails so many people.

I'm in my 40s. I see these stories. I pray I can skirt those outcomes.

But realistically I don't know how much of that is on my control vs an outside force that is slightly pervasive now and heading towards the super pervasive...

I spent a weekend in downtown Fort Worth -mainly in the Sundance Square area. I was absolutely amazed how clean the 8-10 block area was. There was minimal litter at best. I was also surprised that I didn't see one homeless person in that area for three days. Not one. Made me wonder if that area wasn't helpful to homeless or was there an effort to keep them out.

I just had an offer accepted on a house in Mayfair, and the homeless population that lives in Smitty Park and walks to the bridge was our biggest hesitation in making an offer. Things will improve with the Oak coming in, but it sounds like it's reached a breaking point here. A friend of mine backs up to the park, and she said there's an abandoned house that is filled with homeless and drug users that has created a huge nuisance... so much so that her neighbor's car was lit on fire recently. She's filed all sorts of police reports, but they haven't been very receptive.

^

I also back up to Smitty Park -- looking at it right now -- and have never had a problem. No homeless are living in that park.

And I walk 4 miles through the neighborhood every single day and have never had an issue.

I remember being intrigued by Salt Lake City's “Housing First” policy when I read about it years ago. The idea is to help homeless people find housing and then help address associated problems concerning job preparation to mental illness to drug addiction. Aside from being a more humane approach, it also is intended to reduce other costs the city/state pay for homelessness from arrests to medical emergencies. Unfortunately, it seems like the funding for the housing first program in SLC has dried up (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing-idUSKCN1P41EQ). To me, this is the best solution I've seen, but it requires money and empathy... both of which are unlikely to come from the state. It'll mostly be up to OKC to come up with its own solutions. I hope it's not the same old approaches that have fallen short in other cities.

The housing first model has been used here in Oklahoma as well. Mental health Association of Oklahoma has been a champion for it.
https://mhaok.org/housing-first-model
There is also a movement to make more shelters "low barrier", meaning less hoops for the person to jump (may not have any form of ID, may have pets, may have substance use issues) I know there is at least one low barrier shelter in OKC.

Homelessness is definitely not something we can just wave money at think it'll be fixed. I'll assume based off the previous comments that most, if not all, of us are aware there are different variable groups within the homeless population that respond differently to this or that.
There are those who do not want help. There are those who do not know where to go for help. There are those who are incapable of asking for help or even adequately functioning when help is given.

It's a giant cluster that seems to be getting worse (I don't know if it actually is). And while homelessness is a part of every society, there should be ways to effectively combat it and that begins with the greater culture. As corny as it may sound, love and respect are the cornerstones needed. Churches have, historically, taken care of homeless populations or other groups at need. They still do, but we've also seen other groups and forms of care being given as well.

My advice: if this is an issue near and dear to your heart, find one or two reputable homeless shelters, organizations or inner city churches to donate money to. How you decide to directly interact (or not interact) with homeless on the street is entirely up to you. I won't fault anyone, especially with children, for not wanting to interact with some of them directly.

^^ It appears we are throwing money at it, and doing so at the citizens' request, as a part of Maps 4. And I fully support it. The initiatives we are doing will no doubt make things better than if we did not do them at all.

People know we need to be doing something so that's why they supported Maps 4 with the biggest voter share of any of the Maps projects. Homelessness was consistently the number one poll generator, along with addressing mental health.

This seems to cut across partisan lines in OKC: Democrat, Republican and Independent voters all massively support putting investment into looking for solutions to ameliorate this problem.

This is clearly more than a city can take on itself. The USA distinguishes itself among developed nations in the amount of poverty it has, the lack of guaranteed healthcare, and the lack of education of its citizens. This is the dark side of the American dream. We are, and always have been, a nation of haves and have nots.

Housing affordabilty is obviously at a critical state in this country now as well. Places that used to be considered cheap, like OKC, are no longer cheap anymore.

LA is throwing billions at it and it isn’t working.

LA is throwing billions at it and it isn’t working.

Billions? I hadn't heard that. Seems like a lot of money. Are you sure you're not being hyperbolic?

That said, how do you know it's not working? What are the benchmarks for success?

This gets very dicey because you have to ask yourself how bad things would be there if they weren't doing anything.

Ending homelessness seems like hopeless pursuit, but I'm buoyed by the success of Houston's housing first initiative. Technically, OKC has been a "housing first" city since 2013, but we didn't have a lot of housing to move people into. Now we have the tiny homes that were recently opened and other initiatives.

What Houston did that was so effective was to bring together a patchwork of non-profits and get them all to work together. The approach used there has had miraculous results, and is being eyed as something to model in OKC, too.

I think the things OKC can do modeling Houston and other successful efforts will make a significant impact on our situation.

^^^ this is recent: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna22635 https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/homelessness/2021/06/02/garcetti-signs--11-billion-budget--with-nearly--1-billion-for-homeless-crisis

https://homeless.lacounty.gov/news/la-county-prepares-to-intensify-and-refocus-its-fight-against-homelessness-as-board-of-supervisors-approves-532-6m-spending-plan-for-fy-2022-23/

So what’s your solution?

So what’s your solution?
Well obviously part of it is going to have be more money. That’s not my point to not spend money on it. What’s the solution? You tell me. I don’t know. No city has figured out as far especially in America.

Well obviously part of it is going to have be more money. That’s not my point to not spend money on it. What’s the solution? You tell me. I don’t know. No city has figured out as far especially in America.

Did you totally ignore what I wrote about Houston, lol? I encourage you to read this article and get back to us with your thoughts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html

There's $50 million budgeted for Homelessness in MAPS 4, to my knowledge it has not been used.

Did you totally ignore what I wrote about Houston, lol? I encourage you to read this article and get back to us with your thoughts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html
Thanks I’m going to check that out!

You're welcome! I found it tremendously uplifting to read.

I really don't think much is going to change. This is just as much a national, even global issue than any single state or municipality. If people want this fixed it will take a lot of work, and expect it to take at least 2-3 generations.

It's a problem that has many fronts. It's easy to classify all of the homeless into one group; but really that group is diverse and requires a multi-faceted strategy to address problems unique to those individuals.

I think the most essential part of the problem to solve is preventing people from entering the "pipeline" of the homeless. This starts in junior high and high school. Identify the at-risk and help to keep them from ending up in these camps. Once someone gets into a homeless camp, they aren't coming out of it. It's a black hole of humanity. We need a robust system targeted at 13-25 year olds to keep them out. Not a free lunch program at school, or a weekend canned food drive put on by your local MegaCorporation as part of their CorporateFeelGood strategy. Affordable college used to be this program. Even if they learn nothing and drop out, it is something for young adults to do, where they can build their own safety net of friends outside of family. Friends are the first place people in trouble turn to, as asking family for help can be very intimidating and scary. Right now, your at-risk population does not go to college. They limp through high school, see the financial challenges of college, and ultimately either end up in a very bad job, or end up with no job at all. Some sort of free college system, with little-to-no hoops to jump through, for at least the first few years, would put a major kink in the homeless pipeline. If people can hit the ground running they are less likely to get pulled under. Not fool-proof, but it would help. Put as many kinks in the pipeline as you can. Some will still trickle through.

How do you address the current homeless? The longer someone is homeless the more likely they are to be permanently homeless. Trying to round people up who are already in camps, is mostly a lost cause. Once you are in a camp, you are not coming out of it very easily. If you are to target any group of the homeless, it would need to be a surgical precision operation. Find people sleeping in their cars in the walmart parking lot. They are staying out of camps. They most likely still have a job, or are willing to work. They haven't given up. Go after helping those people. Don't ticket and trespass them -- let them sleep and put a note on their car for free resources. They are the most likely to use them. If the city/state had a temporary housing/shower/laundry program those are the people most likely to use it. Get them a clean pair of clothes and a clean bed to sleep on, line them up for some temporary work, and they will pull themselves out of it. It's a waste of resources targeting homeless camps with these resources. They don't want the help. The homeless who are not in camps will take the help. But they need to be treated humanely. Embarrassing them with tow trucks, cops, and trespassing tickets will ensure they 100% move on somewhere they will be left alone: like a homeless camp. The black hole. Don't let people go to the black hole.

How do you deal with homeless camps? You have a very delicate balance if you want to deal with them. Once a camp has grown to a large enough size, the homeless will actually stop/slow down on stealing things. It's all junk but they eventually slow down on the theft once they have reached a comfortable level of "Stuff". Come in with a dump truck and throw it all away? That's a great way to get them to go out and steal a lot of more stuff. Believe me, they will find more stuff to steal. So by trying to extinguish the crime, you just stirred the hornet's nest. They are going to go out and look for more stuff. So do you leave it alone, let it have equilibrium? Many at this stage in life have no ID, so you can't really prosecute them. You can charge them with a million crimes but none of it will stick without ID. Besides, where would you put them? Our prisons are overcrowded, and our courts are full. I don't know what to do here. But it seems the best policy is really to leave them alone. The homeless have a relatively short lifespan. The goal, again, is to cut off the pipeline of young people entering that system. The young people work the corners bringing in money, they pay their rent to the homeguards or homebums who run the camps. This is usually in drugs, beer, or food which they steal or purchase from whatever they get panhandling. By cutting off the young and new homeless these homebums will likely die off, and their camps will wither away.

You really have to view this in the frame of mind of triage. Focus all of your resources on those who can still be saved. Move on and let the others die off. Anyone who is homeless who wants help will take it. Those are the people showing up to the kitchens and sleeping in their cars which still run.

I'm not talking out of my ass on this subject: I do have experience in this field. One hobby of mine involves interacting with this alternative world. I slept out on the streets in Portland and Seattle just last weekend, right outside 2 homeless camps. I can blend in with the vagrants. If you want to fix the problem you need people to go in and see how these communities actually function. Just a little bit of time in the vagrant world and you can spot who can still be saved. Most, unfortunately cannot. Keep people from joining the camps. That's the only way to fix it. Throwing endless amounts of dollars with no context on how any of it works is a waste of time and money, and in many cases can cause the situation to worsen; like throwing all their crap away. A shopping cart and stolen honda civic can only hold so much stuff in it. Throw it away and they will find another civic and shopping cart to fill up with junk.

Catch, I agree with the saving those that are not in camps. Most in their cars, have just gone over the edge but hanging on with the very last I what they have, and many still work/have jobs but make minimal income or housing is no longer in reach.
The VA has many programs for homeless Vets, not perfect, but we really should not have them on the street. Many don't want or accept the help (for many different reasons). I don't have a good answer either, but I support the outreach, shelters and such, but not the panhandlers.
Your hobby, kinda scary for me, no judgement here but I give you and anyone else working with the homeless credit.

If every person on the street was on a $2,000 monthly payment program; I don't think they would all go get an apartment and just watch TV all day. So not having any money is not the only or main problem.

Also; if they are all on 'food stamps' due to lack of income; now they basically have unlimited free food and sleep anywhere they can. In the day time they are just existing and that's the hardest part of that life style. Day after day of more of the same.

There are ways to deal with the "problem" and ways to make it go away. You may not like or agree with the ways. But there are ways.

What are those ways? Outlawing it has never worked, only shifted the problem to another city who has to deal with it. Fix it at the root. Stop people from being in situations in that they becoming homeless. Once they enter a camp you have about 48 hours to get them out of it or they will get sucked into it and never escape the cycle.

You can’t round them up and relocate them without their will, because of our constitution. You can’t throw them in jail because of due process, and no where to even put them in jail. You can’t mass execute them, for a myriad of reasons. You have to play the long game if you really want to fix the situation- and that starts with at risk youth and our brave men and women coming back from wars. You have to be okay with the problem outlasting your and the next generation. But it can be dramatically resolved if you start today with the people who will be homeless 5 years from today.

Without a steady pipeline of new homeless, the current camps will die off. You have to intercept the people who are on the edge. Relocating camps doesn’t work. It makes it worse. Camping bans don’t work, it makes it worse.

What are your solutions?

Instead of having them stand on the corner selling newspapers; approach these people on a one on one basis and say "what do you need to get off the street". What prevents them; what holds them back? Do they need help filling out an application at OnCue? What if they were given a cheap car and a gas card? Some money to get back on their feet?

Someone at lake Hefner who drives that ex airport shuttle bus pays them like $60 or $70 a day to cut and clear brush on the south end of the lake.

There's all sorts of mass labor projects they could be employed doing. From picking up trash on the highway to sorting and recycling all that is in the landfill. Half of it will be compost and the rest being metal, glass, and plastic.

I have lots of extreme and out of the box ideas. But they are just ideas. Post your better ideas more so then dislike and disagree with mine. All we need is the best and ultimate idea to change everything.

Down in Miami Florida they are wanting to put them all on that island. We could put them all south of the border wall in Mexico. Have the border patrol do their job and make sure no one crosses over that wall.

Since there are no longer mental institutions; they could all be housed in prison. Place to sleep and 3 meals. Get sober and cleaned up and even get a college degree while they figure out a plan. Remember that prison out west that was a big tent city. Unlimited capacity.

Really though; it's a situation of mental health issues and substance abuse and addiction. A lifestyle choice. If they don't care; they don't care. Just a lazy existence. Can they be helped if they don't want help?

Instead of having them stand on the corner selling newspapers; approach these people on a one on one basis and say "what do you need to get off the street". What prevents them; what holds them back? Do they need help filling out an application at OnCue? What if they were given a cheap car and a gas card? Some money to get back on their feet?

Someone at lake Hefner who drives that ex airport shuttle bus pays them like $60 or $70 a day to cut and clear brush on the south end of the lake.

There's all sorts of mass labor projects they could be employed doing. From picking up trash on the highway to sorting and recycling all that is in the landfill. Half of it will be compost and the rest being metal, glass, and plastic.

I agree. I apologize for coming across harsh - I got a vibe from the way I read your post that you were suggesting camping bans, etc.

It really has to be a targeted approach. These catch-all programs do not work. You have to have people out in the community interacting with these people on a daily basis. Anything short of that is just throwing good money after bad. As you say you need to identify the individual needs of each one. Start from the most easily helped and at least stop some of the bleeding.

Very expensive, and very labor intensive. But that’s what it will take.

Money.
Housing.
Food.

Individuals dealing with potential mental health issues and or drug/alcohol issues.

That City Rescue Mission on Reno and Shartel. If feeding/housing is the solution; then they need to expand their operation to house all of them. Plenty of vacant, idle buildings around. Pass an ordinance no camping under the bridge and enforce trespassing and loitering when seen.

One way that states inadvertently contribute to the amount of homeless? Children who age out of foster programs and other DHS services. When a state has a high rate of children in foster services or in juvenile facilities, as we do in Oklahoma, we turn them loose at 18. I don't know the answer to this but I do know that DHS creates a pipeline for homeless adults by having such an ungodly number of kids and teens in their care.

Money.
Housing.
Food.

Individuals dealing with potential mental health issues and or drug/alcohol issues.

That City Rescue Mission on Reno and Shartel. If feeding/housing is the solution; then they need to expand their operation to house all of them. Plenty of vacant, idle buildings around. Pass an ordinance no camping under the bridge and enforce trespassing and loitering when seen.
City Rescue Mission is not a low barrier shelter. There is a bed cap, they require ID, and I believe they still require a TB test. They're a private entity, so no one can just tell them to "expand their operation to house all of them".

I have lots of extreme and out of the box ideas. But they are just ideas. Post your better ideas more so then dislike and disagree with mine. All we need is the best and ultimate idea to change everything.

Down in Miami Florida they are wanting to put them all on that island. We could put them all south of the border wall in Mexico. Have the border patrol do their job and make sure no one crosses over that wall.

Since there are no longer mental institutions; they could all be housed in prison. Place to sleep and 3 meals. Get sober and cleaned up and even get a college degree while they figure out a plan. Remember that prison out west that was a big tent city. Unlimited capacity.

Really though; it's a situation of mental health issues and substance abuse and addiction. A lifestyle choice. If they don't care; they don't care. Just a lazy existence. Can they be helped if they don't want help?

I have lots of extreme and out of the box ideas. But they are just ideas. Post your better ideas more so then dislike and disagree with mine. All we need is the best and ultimate idea to change everything.

Down in Miami Florida they are wanting to put them all on that island. We could put them all south of the border wall in Mexico. Have the border patrol do their job and make sure no one crosses over that wall.

Since there are no longer mental institutions; they could all be housed in prison. Place to sleep and 3 meals. Get sober and cleaned up and even get a college degree while they figure out a plan. Remember that prison out west that was a big tent city. Unlimited capacity.

Really though; it's a situation of mental health issues and substance abuse and addiction. A lifestyle choice. If they don't care; they don't care. Just a lazy existence. Can they be helped if they don't want help?

Prisons are already the largest provider of mental health services in our country. (We do still have mental institutions, in that we have state run psychiatric hospitals as well as forensic hospitals). Given the current overcrowding of prisons, adding to that population seems unsafe.
I agree with catch22 that the most successful programs involve teams actually going out and offering services in the field, the VA is a good example and they have a goal of zero homeless vets. Columbia Medical Center used to have a fellowship where docs went out to deliver mental health meds, shots, etc. at underpasses, camps, bridges, but I believe they lost their funding.
It's not just the mentally ill or substance users who are homeless. Economic inequality in this country and the skyrocketing rate of medical debt mean that just one or two twists are all it takes to quickly see how easy it is to lose employment, housing, your sense of self-worth.

One of the reasons is that MAPS has put more money into homeless services. As more services are offered, more people will come to take advantage of those services.

One of the reasons is that MAPS has put more money into homeless services. As more services are offered, more people will come to take advantage of those services.

It almost seems like you're saying this in a bad way, but, of course, that's how building or providing everything works. Should we not build sidewalks because people keep walking on them?

It almost seems like you're saying this in a bad way, but, of course, that's how building or providing everything works. Should we not build sidewalks because people keep walking on them?
Good point. I guess if our housing is cheaper here more people will want to move here. Drat those invaders.

Here is an idea I think would work. Might sound like socialism; but it would be voluntary.

I don't know if every state has billionaires. But they probably have people in the hundreds of millions of dollars range.

For this example; I will use Texas. Elon Musk could pay to get the homeless off the street in exchange for being tax free. If he got someone to join him; his expenses would only be half and that person could be tax free. A large group of people and their expense wouldn't be so much.

So if that were reality; how would the money get these people off the streets?

^

The problem is that large majority of homeless don't want to be put into shelters or other housing that require them to be clean and sober.

And you can't have housing with people high on drugs and/or cooking them in the facility. Besides the inherent problems, there is also tons of theft and violence that is part of the type of addiction that affects this population.

You can't force them into housing. Based on my own experience operating a homeless outreach program in Los Angeles for six years, the issue is not affordable housing. That will solve some of the problem but IMO it would only be a small fraction.

^

The problem is that large majority of homeless don't want to be put into shelters or other housing that require them to be clean and sober.

And you can't have housing with people high on drugs and/or cooking them in the facility. Besides the inherent problems, there is also tons of theft and violence that is part of the type of addiction that affects this population.

You can't force them into housing. Based on my own experience operating a homeless outreach program in Los Angeles for six years, the issue is not affordable housing. That will solve some of the problem but IMO it would only be a small fraction.

This is how it’s done concerning the homeless issue in any city:

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2022/02/18/mississippi-organizations-address-homelessness-through-multi-step-approach/6802404001/

Here's a PR nightmare for an Arizona city with a ban on feeding people in public parks i.e. " please don't feed the homeless in public "
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/30/1132319984/norma-thorton-bullhead-city-arrest

Here's a PR nightmare for an Arizona city with a ban on feeding people in public parks i.e. " please don't feed the homeless in public "
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/30/1132319984/norma-thorton-bullhead-city-arrest
Sadly, I believe this is not the first time that’s happened.

Here's a PR nightmare for an Arizona city with a ban on feeding people in public parks i.e. " please don't feed the homeless in public "
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/30/1132319984/norma-thorton-bullhead-city-arrest

Getting don't feed the homeless in public from don't feed the homeless in public parks without a permit is a stretch. Public Parks are not there for homeless encampments. Continuous feeding them there could easily turn them into that. The permit allows feeding them there once a month. From the article:

"Individuals are free to serve food to any homeless person at their place of residence, church or private property. Our ordinance applies to public parks only," Mayor Tom Brady said in a statement. He went on to say the city funds a homeless shelter that can provide two meals a day to the community, while keeping parks clear.

Getting don't feed the homeless in public from don't feed the homeless in public parks without a permit is a stretch. Public Parks are not there for homeless encampments. Continuous feeding them there could easily turn them into that. The permit allows feeding them there once a month. From the article:

"Individuals are free to serve food to any homeless person at their place of residence, church or private property. Our ordinance applies to public parks only," Mayor Tom Brady said in a statement. He went on to say the city funds a homeless shelter that can provide two meals a day to the community, while keeping parks clear.
I watched the video and read the story. The little old grandma operated her service in such a manner that the arguments of The City are neutralized. If Bullhead City is in the same Federal court district as Las Vegas, then they have no chance of success IMO.

Considering there is a church building on nearly every corner; and these same tax free buildings get used once; twice at most a week. Imagine if they were used as homeless shelters? Now the church is really serving and benefiting us all. Some of them already serve free breakfast as it is.

Considering there is a church building on nearly every corner; and these same tax free buildings get used once; twice at most a week. Imagine if they were used as homeless shelters? Now the church is really serving and benefiting us all. Some of them already serve free breakfast as it is.

LOL, No, there isn't a church building on nearly every corner. That's as inane as saying there is a medical marijuana dispensary on nearly every corner.

We're already mighty fortunate enough that some churches serve free breakfasts as it is.

Considering there is a church building on nearly every corner; and these same tax free buildings get used once; twice at most a week. Imagine if they were used as homeless shelters? Now the church is really serving and benefiting us all. Some of them already serve free breakfast as it is.
I am guessing you don’t go to church. Besides exaggerating the number, you way underestimate their use for the intended purpose. As well, you don’t just automatically turn a building from one purpose to another. Their utility purpose and capability is usually limited by its design and outfitting.

Additionally, many, many of the churches do have outreach programs for the poor and homeless. They do their part and the city, state, and federal governments should do theirs. And the charitable public should too. It’s a complete community issue, not a “church” issue.