Homeless Population

[rtz]

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?

[Pete]

^

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.

[shartel_ave]

^

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/...ch/6802404001/

[Edmond Hausfrau]

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/2022/10/30/11323...ad-city-arrest

[Plutonic Panda]

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/2022/10/30/11323...ad-city-arrest

Sadly, I believe this is not the first time that’s happened.

[gjl]

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/2022/10/30/11323...ad-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.

[Dob Hooligan]

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.

[rtz]

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.

[Bunty]

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.

[Rover]

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.

[Laramie]

.

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/...ce=govdelivery

.

[Just the facts]

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/20...-then-and-now/

[catch22]

Imprisonment is your solution. Got it.

[Just the facts]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[mugofbeer]

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.

[HangryHippo]

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.

[Canoe]

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?

[catch22]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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/desp...ems-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 ...

[catch22]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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

[Pete]

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.

[bucktalk]

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.