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.
I thought you were all excited and happy to be in Crescent City. Ready to move so soon?
Hey, put things in perspective. I was living in Redding LOL.
There's a lot to love about Crescent City. I love it waaaay more than Arcata or Eureka. When I rolled back into CC, I loved how clean and safe it looked, with no zombies in sight. Not to say there aren't any, but they aren't front and center.
What I miss are more things to do that don't involve the great outdoors, which can't be beat here. Like classes that are something above the realm of pinochle at the Senior Center. Arcata and Eureka don't have that much more to offer - to offset the homeless zombies and high students with pit bulls.
Crescent City is like a beautiful retreat. Living in an retreat year-round can be challenging, too. Unless you love pinochle.
A helicopter. That's what I need. Think I could get it crowd funded?
You have to earn respect. I tolerate the ones who are completely incapable of making any other life choice. The rest - fogeddaboudit.
This is me, too. Respect is a 2 way street. You want respect? Then be respectable. Sitting around all day being idle, often doing drugs/alcohol/being loud are not respectable behaviors. They camp out across the street from where I live, do nothing all day. They sweep their litter to the curb and expect the downtown sweepers to pick it up for them, even though there are trash cans all around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe
Love on them all you want. I don't.
I would say that tolerating and/or enabling self destructive behavior is the opposite of love.
The biggest barriers in Humboldt for homeless people are lack of jobs and lack of affordable housing (the latter is practically a crisis at this point), and I can tell you with very high certainty that the vast majority of Humboldt's homeless are either mentally ill or addicted to drugs, and they simply cannot get any sort of stabilization without adequate housing..
You can't say most homeless are addicts/mentally ill on one hand and then say lack of jobs and lack of housing is their biggest problem on the other. The addiction or the mental illness--and the chain of events that led to them--are the core problem. Normal people who can hold down jobs will leave an area if the housing becomes too expensive. People who can't or won't do that will live in tents, instead.
I think it's a crying shame that the state mental hospitals shut down. I know even mentally ill people deserve freedom of choice, but giving them freedom has created a big problem. We can't lock them up and force medication into them. But, it's sad to see them dirty and wet or hot, etc. They can also be scary, though, and dangerous.
This is the crux of the problem. The courts have ruled you can't forcibly put these people in institutions, so they live on the street instead. In most cases, the street is way worse than the institutions were.
This is the crux of the problem. The courts have ruled you can't forcibly put these people in institutions, so they live on the street instead. In most cases, the street is way worse than the institutions were.
Do you know that to be true?
And i thought that one of the main reasons (or the main reason) that there are now so many homeless is because the care institutions for the mentally ill closed their doors due to lack of funding. Didn't that happen big-time in the 80's under reagon and continued on into the 90's?
Yes, but I disagree that most homeless are people who would have been in institutions. At least the homeless that I've seen in northern CA. Most of them appear to be able-bodied young people who are choosing a vagabond lifestyle.
I was putting gas in my car at a gas station in Redding once, and this young man came up to me all happy and excited with his backpack and told me that he just got into town - and wanted me to buy his dinner. He really expected me to be joyful that he was enjoying his travels, and to help him pay for them.
Not on your life, happy boy. I told him I was hoping he was walking up to me to give me money to pay for my gas. Wiped the smile right off his face.
Another time at that same gas station (the Safeway gas station behind the Safeway where they like to hang out), a young woman was walking along with a young man, obvious vagabond types, I watched them have a discussion, then he walked around the corner of a building where he couldn't be seen, and then the young woman approached a young man who was obviously a working professional, and she gave him some story about needing to call her mother or some such, and could she borrow the guy's phone. I thought, no no no no...and he handed her his phone. She walked off a few feet and proceeded to have a lengthy conversation, the guy finished pumping his gas and stood there watching her talk, and had to ask her several times for his phone back. He was lucky to get his phone back. She leisurely walked back to her boyfriend. Who knows what the call was about.
They saunter into town and expect random strangers to support them. And Redding had posters up at the time that I really liked. They said, "Please don't feed the problem." And the posters said to please give to the homeless charities, but not to give money to them.
I think certain towns get reputations among the vagabonds for having people who will give out handouts. Maybe this was why that guy looked so thrilled that he'd arrived in Redding! The place where working people will give you their money!
I'm making a distinction between "homeless" and "vagabonds." I think we need to distinguish between the severely mentally ill who are homeless and won't take their meds, etc., and these able-bodied vagabonds. And if the vagabonds have drug problems, we don't help them recover by enabling them.
Last edited by NoMoreSnowForMe; 02-01-2016 at 11:19 PM..
It's my opinion. We could debate forever about whether or not it's true. I don't think people living in squalor on the street is a better option. Call it a value judgement on my part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueskywalker
And i thought that one of the main reasons (or the main reason) that there are now so many homeless is because the care institutions for the mentally ill closed their doors due to lack of funding. Didn't that happen big-time in the 80's under reagon and continued on into the 90's?
That's the lie the liberal media tells because 90% of journalists are Democrats and they didn't like Reagan. (Note correct spelling). It's been that way with journalists for a long time.
Much of what has happened with the homeless and mentally ill is related to court decisions, some of which were actually made before Reagan was even elected. Of course, you'll never read that in the articles by liberal journalists because it doesn't fit with their "Reagan was evil" meme.
In 1973, a federal district court ruled in Souder v. Brennan that patients in mental health institutions must be considered employees and paid the minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 whenever they performed any activity that conferred an economic benefit on an institution. Following this ruling, institutional peonage was outlawed, as evidenced in Pennsylvania's Institutional Peonage Abolishment Act of 1973.
Many assume that the advent of modern psychotropic medications was the catalyst for deinstitutionalization in the U.S. However, large numbers of patients began leaving state institutions only after new laws made unpaid patient labor illegal. In other words, when patients no longer worked for free, the economic viability of many state institutions ceased and this led to the closing of many state hospitals.
Yes, but I disagree that most homeless are people who would have been in institutions. At least the homeless that I've seen in northern CA. Most of them appear to be able-bodied young people who are choosing a vagabond lifestyle.
Perhaps not most, but a good chunk. Of course, ever since the late 1960s anyone who frowned upon vagabond behavior became the evil person who blamed the victim. The U.S. used to have an informal, but strong "social contract" whereby the state and corporations were somewhat paternalistic, but the other end of the deal was that in exchange it was simply socially or legally unacceptable to do certain self destructive things...no exceptions. Those social standards and paternalistic practices often prevented people from messing up their lives and becoming dependent on the state in the first place. Paternalism came at a cost, but so does letting people do whatever the heck they want.
It's my opinion. We could debate forever about whether or not it's true. I don't think people living in squalor on the street is a better option. Call it a value judgement on my part.
That's the lie the liberal media tells because 90% of journalists are Democrats and they didn't like Reagan. (Note correct spelling). It's been that way with journalists for a long time.
Much of what has happened with the homeless and mentally ill is related to court decisions, some of which were actually made before Reagan was even elected. Of course, you'll never read that in the articles by liberal journalists because it doesn't fit with their "Reagan was evil" meme.
In 1973, a federal district court ruled in Souder v. Brennan that patients in mental health institutions must be considered employees and paid the minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 whenever they performed any activity that conferred an economic benefit on an institution. Following this ruling, institutional peonage was outlawed, as evidenced in Pennsylvania's Institutional Peonage Abolishment Act of 1973.
Many assume that the advent of modern psychotropic medications was the catalyst for deinstitutionalization in the U.S. However, large numbers of patients began leaving state institutions only after new laws made unpaid patient labor illegal. In other words, when patients no longer worked for free, the economic viability of many state institutions ceased and this led to the closing of many state hospitals.
That's actually fascinating. I didn't know that. My problem with Reagan was his "trickle down theory" but I digress...
It's my opinion. We could debate forever about whether or not it's true. I don't think people living in squalor on the street is a better option. Call it a value judgement on my part.
That's the lie the liberal media tells because 90% of journalists are Democrats and they didn't like Reagan. (Note correct spelling). It's been that way with journalists for a long time.
Much of what has happened with the homeless and mentally ill is related to court decisions, some of which were actually made before Reagan was even elected. Of course, you'll never read that in the articles by liberal journalists because it doesn't fit with their "Reagan was evil" meme.
In 1973, a federal district court ruled in Souder v. Brennan that patients in mental health institutions must be considered employees and paid the minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 whenever they performed any activity that conferred an economic benefit on an institution. Following this ruling, institutional peonage was outlawed, as evidenced in Pennsylvania's Institutional Peonage Abolishment Act of 1973.
Many assume that the advent of modern psychotropic medications was the catalyst for deinstitutionalization in the U.S. However, large numbers of patients began leaving state institutions only after new laws made unpaid patient labor illegal. In other words, when patients no longer worked for free, the economic viability of many state institutions ceased and this led to the closing of many state hospitals.
I suppose the only way you'd know if a particular homeless person preferred the streets over the institution would be to ask him / her. It's not about what you (or i) value.
Re; raygun ... the beginning of the end and yeah, something like or something close to evil although that's a very strong word and how do we define "evil"? He was certainly not an honorable man. And it's kinda snakey (hmmm, although i like snakes but no other word comes to mind at the moment) and arrogantly dismissive to assume that someone like me who perceives differently from you is a meme eating sheeple. I'm not.
Last edited by blueskywalker; 02-02-2016 at 07:17 AM..
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.
