North Austin homeless RV park

[scm53]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

Also, I don't know how old you are but in the "old days" there used to be good paying jobs for people with a High School diploma and even those who dropped out, (apprenticeships). Now those jobs are "contracted out" to the cheapest bidder with the cheapest workforce. Those jobs used to pay enough to have the "American dream", kids, house, car and even health insurance!!

First, thanks for the reasonableness of your response. Obviously, we come from different viewpoints and can disagree without being disagreeable.

To the essence of this point - interesting that people accuse conservatives of longing for the good old days - of not being "progressive". We have developed a knowledge based economy. In fact, Austin is a glowing example of a center for knowledge based work. Some people have had their ground shift right out from under them. I get that. But how do we explain folks under thirty that have no skills? High school has ceased to be a skill granting experience and apprenticeship training has moved into the community colleges or TSTI. So why do we have people that don't go on to get that skill training after HS? And what is the responsibility of the community to people that make those choices?

The folks that had a skill, for an industry that has disappeared is a different issue. For instance, someone was a typesetter. How do they transition those skills to a new job, and how do we help them?

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

The only thing I would advocate is for every poor person that joins we draft one from the upper echelon to join as well for the experience.

I have a long association with the military. My son is a Marine corporal, in Afghanistan right now. This is a long standing misconception that only those without choices join the military. The Heritage Foundation did a study in 2003 - post 9/11 - of who enlisted in the Army and Marine Corps, the most combat intensive services. Since you can't get data for household income, they looked at census tract of each enlistee and tracked median incomes by that. What they found was that the percentage of enlisted in the most dangerous services from the upper two income quintiles went UP after the shooting started. They were at 23 and 22% respectively, while the lowest quintile was at 15%. So in other words, the richest two quintiles were carrying the load for the poorest. Not exactly the Charlie Rangel talking point.

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

Not everyone can work, or find work. Not everyone can find work that sustains a family complete with the necessities of life: food, clothing shelter, maybe health insurance? But I understand the view that considers the latter a luxury, not a necessity.

We have 5.9% unemployment in Austin right now. Who says you can't find work? I understand families that literally had the breadwinner's job disappear. We have to find a way to support them while they retrain. But if you start a family, with no skill, and no plan to get one, who is to blame for that?

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

Also, I'm not convinced it's a "Texas attitude" because Texas has much more of a history than from the 1800's. I'm still not clear on what group the "Texas attitude' is.

Again, Texas governmental policy today is rooted in our history, in more ways than social services. Texas is a debtor friendly state due to the number of debtors like Sam Houston and Davy Crockett that fled here. We have a weak governor form because of a mistrust of a strong central government. This also is a physically harsh state. You can go fifteen miles from my house and die if you are lost in the summer without water. We have more than our share of poisonous reptiles, all of which can kill you. All of this creates an "attitude" of self-reliance vice reliance on society. You cannot separate history from destiny.

For everyone thinking we were talking exclusively about the homeless, I apologize for the thread jack. I have enough experience with the homeless to understand there are a variety of causes - mental illness, substance abuse, and a surprising amount of simply chosing a lifestyle bereft of responsibility. For the first two, we need to find community housing solutions like the St. Vincent de Paul center in San Diego. The third will be here forever. A fourth category of the homeless are in a transition, due often to a catastrophe. We need to help them get back on their feet and become productive once again. But to say that society has failed, when we have a cornucopia of training, all at taxpayer expense, yet people continue to not gain a skill necessary to meet their obligations, is the problem of the person in the mirror - not society.

[blueskies85]

The main problem that I have with this particular program is that they keep pushing to put it in the lowest income neighborhoods where people are struggling with high crime and low property values as it is. First far east austin, and now close to the Rundberg/Quail Creek area. I find people are very enthusiastic about the idea as long as the day-to-day realities of it can be shoved off onto the low-income families to deal with. I certainly haven't seen any of these supporters rallying to have it put next door to their home in Westlake.

If it's to be done, it should be spread out and have different apartments/houses/small RV parks available in different areas (and yes, that includes higher income areas as well). Spread out the area, spread out the risk. It's the only fair way, and if you are truly a supporter of the program you shouldn't have any problems with your neighborhood bearing an equal share of the load.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by blueskies85

If it's to be done, it should be spread out and have different apartments/houses/small RV parks available in different areas (and yes, that includes higher income areas as well). Spread out the area, spread out the risk.

I have no problem with that as a concept, or as a societal ideal, but from a practical standpoint: 1) When a location is volunteered, as in this situation, the only valid responses are yes or no. "Yes, but over there instead" is not an option. 2. The reality for any entity dealing with this issue is that they have limited funds, so the choice of area will have a lot of impact on how many people they can serve. IOW, the funding will go further in lower cost areas. 3. Putting the services where the people being served can be found makes sense. In regards to the homeless, they tend to seek out "marginal" areas already. 4. For privately funded programs, like this one is, government has a very limited role and cannot mandate where it must be.

Don't confuse this with the opportunity governments have to require low-income housing to be provided as part of a development deal or the like. This proposal IS the whole deal.

[chuck_steak]

what is the status of the RV park now? This thread is 2 years old. Have homeless people had to wait 2 years? Is this even up and running?