Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
RThe most common position of Republicans here regarding the homeless is to make it illegal, not spend a dime of taxpayer money, and get them out of their sight.
Not true. Being homeless is not a crime and I never said it was. The littering, theft, lack of respect to the surrounding community, environmental destruction, trespassing, and harassment are the crimes I speak of.
The problem is that we've made people believe that it's their RIGHT to live where they CAN'T afford. Places like Austin, SF, and NYC don't need to be buying land at $1M per acre to house the homeless.
Check Zillow for Houses under $10,000, and zoom around the map, there are thousands, maybe Hundreds of thousands of homes across the country that can be bought for $10,000 or less.
A 10,000 dollar house, and SS benefits? How can you not see that as a just and fair solution? It's a baseline, and they can start contributing when their basic needs are met, and "no".. a handful of units that are walkable, cute, urban, expensive, tax-payer funded and furnished in various "tech" cities is NOT the answer.
Casar's goal is to put it in your face and make it our problem so that we vote for funding to solve it. I dont like it, but it isnt a bad strategy.
I agree, on the political level though, much like Project Connect (and I will admit I share a bit of a bias in this regard given I am pro project connect despite the great expense, The situation of which incurred in Honolulu is what I fear most about Project Connect but want transit so bad I’m practically willing to gamble here.) what may end up happening instead is the cost to implement a solution will continue to escalate when tax dollars are being thrown at it and instead they will do the ‘minimums’ for visibility purposes without ever intentionally solving the problem thus turning the problem into a cash cow where tax dollars magically disappear into the system. Thus dollars are thrown at it but the issue is never really solved. I’ve heard something similar happened in SF.
Not true. Being homeless is not a crime and I never said it was. The littering, theft, lack of respect to the surrounding community, environmental destruction, trespassing, and harassment are the crimes I speak of.
The problem is that we've made people believe that it's their RIGHT to live where they CAN'T afford. Places like Austin, SF, and NYC don't need to be buying land at $1M per acre to house the homeless.
Check Zillow for Houses under $10,000, and zoom around the map, there are thousands, maybe Hundreds of thousands of homes across the country that can be bought for $10,000 or less.
A 10,000 dollar house, and SS benefits? How can you not see that as a just and fair solution? It's a baseline, and they can start contributing when their basic needs are met, and "no".. a handful of units that are walkable, cute, urban, expensive, tax-payer funded and furnished in various "tech" cities is NOT the answer.
Those houses will not sell for under 10K. I'd like to see a list of what they actually traded at - include the leans. I'm guessing you could add another zero, at least. Then there is the rehab, like flood damaged with mold remediation, replacing the pipes and other building materials/appliances that were stolen.
Homeless need services, mental health, job training, daycare, foodbanks. Best to house in places where that is available. Most don't drive or have cars, best to be near public transportation so that a job is possible. How do they afford home maintenance, property taxes, electric bill. Even if the house was free. This is a recipe for failure.
What makes you think they all get SS benefits and how do you know what the amt of the benefit is?
I can't say what would occur if the homeless ended up relocating to rural parts of the nation with cheap land but I will say a major reason you find them in denser populated areas than outer rural and exurban nodes is because its easy to access resources when they need to. In the middle of nowhere, they will need to buy a car, pay for fuel, ect. Many of them are too mentally unstable to hold employment. The option seems entirely feasible for those able to work or find work but still may be a stretch for an otherwise mentally unstable person.
For me, the problem is not the panhandlers panhandling - that's what panhandlers do, they beg for money. There are always going to be panhandlers. There will always be people who would rather beg for money than to hold down a steady job. In my opinion, the problem is they are allowed to keep their belongings in public view for the whole world to see. Tents, clothing, chairs, couches, mattresses, pillows. Nobody wants to see all that junk. That's what makes the area look so trashy. It hasn't always been that way in Austin. I'd say in the past 4 or 5 years, it's been really noticeable thru out much of the city. I know down here along South 1st and Wm Cannon, there are a couple of homeless camps, one has been there for 2 or 3 years, and the other popped up in the last 12 months. They both look trashy and they are pretty much catty-corner from Bedichek Middle School. I think it's ridiculous they are allowed to camp so close to a school where 11, 12 and 13 year old kids pass by to get to school.
There has been a reevaluation of homelessness and how it needs to be addressed, but like many new approaches is fraught with peril. It is no longer a hand up to get you back on your feet, but rather an all-encompassing indefinite social program with no intention of transitioning the chronically homeless back into society. This is the point where caretaker morphs into enabler.
No, Community First! Village provides permanent housing. The intent is that any individual who qualifies can live in the Village permanently, providing they pay their rent, abide by civil law and follow the rules of the community.
The extent to which the exact same conversation has been going on for more than a decade is remarkable.
Somebody complains about the homeless problem and the attendant issues with being unsightly, unclean, disruptive, and somebody else comes in and says that 'you just want them gone, you don't care.' Then significant amounts of money and time are devoted to solving the problem in a more humane capacity.
The trouble with this is that, as we've seen over and over again in San Francisco and Seattle and elsewhere, if you improve conditions for the homeless and enable camping, you're sweetening the pot with a real, measurable improvement in their lives ... but compounding the original problem because now the homeless want to be there!
I was downtown by the waterfront for the first time in many months last weekend, and the entire stretch of Cesar Chavez between the Congress Ave bridge and Red River -- very wide sidewalks and views of the river and hike & bike trail -- was occupied by a small tent city. It was early on a Sunday morning so not super crowded with people besides the homeless, but they (along with my family) were steering clear of one lady who was shouting 'fuuuuuck yoooouuu!' down to another homeless person on the trail while a couple other people were just getting up out of their tents in the morning.
This is public property into which millions of taxpayer dollars have been poured, and nearly the entire sidewalk was inaccessible to pedestrians unless you wanted to be accosted or leered at.
Forgive me, but I fail to see the virtue in what is very obviously the same progression to the endgame of downtown San Francisco. What did we imagine would happen? "But you don't have any better solutions besides getting them out of sight" is not a defense of this situation. We can only make the least bad choice for the public good. That's not "my" good or "the things my family would like" -- it's some arbitrary measurement of what is best for the city, and chief among those stakeholders are the taxpayers who support these public spaces.
It's all very well to say that we have a duty to the homeless. Even to spend significant amounts of public money on their support. But implicit in that bargain has got to be some assurances that you won't let virtue signaling control the entire discussion, which is what has happened when well-meaning and well-to-do people who end up just avoiding these parts of town are making the calls. San Francisco's homeless problem was really bad five years ago and is an unmitigated disaster today. Barring a major course correction, Austin seems dedicated to reproducing that journey.
It was a pretty surprising turnout for me as well but it may not be a clear indicator of permanent change. A lot of people voted blue not so much because they support Biden or the Democratic Party but because they did not support Trump.
That plus a lot of people who normally wouldn’t or do not vote, voted this year due to the heightening political tensions in this nation.
I also haven’t noticed any camps around 45 / I-35
I completely support providing help, shelter, social services to the homeless but I completely disagree with pushing them off for the general public to deal with as seen by what the city council seems to be doing. The general public is not at fault for their circumstances and in no way should be liable to deal with the situation first hand. My ultimate guess is the council wants the problem to be exposed long enough for the public to become ill of it and then propose a ‘tax’ to clean up the problem where the council may be capable of obtaining more financial resources to handle the matter, whether that may or may not be successful I’m unsure of.
But they tax and tax and never solve the problem you only have to look at California to see that.
The extent to which the exact same conversation has been going on for more than a decade is remarkable.
Somebody complains about the homeless problem and the attendant issues with being unsightly, unclean, disruptive, and somebody else comes in and says that 'you just want them gone, you don't care.' Then significant amounts of money and time are devoted to solving the problem in a more humane capacity.
The trouble with this is that, as we've seen over and over again in San Francisco and Seattle and elsewhere, if you improve conditions for the homeless and enable camping, you're sweetening the pot with a real, measurable improvement in their lives ... but compounding the original problem because now the homeless want to be there!
I was downtown by the waterfront for the first time in many months last weekend, and the entire stretch of Cesar Chavez between the Congress Ave bridge and Red River -- very wide sidewalks and views of the river and hike & bike trail -- was occupied by a small tent city. It was early on a Sunday morning so not super crowded with people besides the homeless, but they (along with my family) were steering clear of one lady who was shouting 'fuuuuuck yoooouuu!' down to another homeless person on the trail while a couple other people were just getting up out of their tents in the morning.
This is public property into which millions of taxpayer dollars have been poured, and nearly the entire sidewalk was inaccessible to pedestrians unless you wanted to be accosted or leered at.
Forgive me, but I fail to see the virtue in what is very obviously the same progression to the endgame of downtown San Francisco. What did we imagine would happen? "But you don't have any better solutions besides getting them out of sight" is not a defense of this situation. We can only make the least bad choice for the public good. That's not "my" good or "the things my family would like" -- it's some arbitrary measurement of what is best for the city, and chief among those stakeholders are the taxpayers who support these public spaces.
It's all very well to say that we have a duty to the homeless. Even to spend significant amounts of public money on their support. But implicit in that bargain has got to be some assurances that you won't let virtue signaling control the entire discussion, which is what has happened when well-meaning and well-to-do people who end up just avoiding these parts of town are making the calls. San Francisco's homeless problem was really bad five years ago and is an unmitigated disaster today. Barring a major course correction, Austin seems dedicated to reproducing that journey.
Thank you! Well written
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
