So-called "Right to Survive" Initiative seems to be popular (Denver: 2014, employment)

[sammy87]

Originally Posted by townshend

If wealthy people -- here understood as business owners who potentially employ you -- paid you a living wage -- rather than minimum wage, you would not have had to have two or three jobs at a time.

If your goal ceiling is washing dishes, its your own fault. Nobody is going to pay a living wage for a task that literally a robot does most of the work. Its a way to earn some extra money. Although you could pay a living wage to every step on the ladder and they pay over $100 for a burger...Seattle already tried that and many restraints shut their doors.

[Scorpion3510]

Originally Posted by Xanathos

Portland's population isn't even close, and San Francisco, though they've got issues with it as well, only has small pockets of large concentrations of them (Mission, most notably).

I work in SF. It is not "small" pockets at all. The homeless situation is out of control all over the city except for maybe Nob Hill and the Sunset. It's very bad across the Bay in Oakland as well with blocks and blocks of tent cities. You can drive a mile on a street and every block is full of shanty towns. This isn't hyperbole either.


Whatever you do, DO NOT allow Denver to follow SF's model.

[sammy87]

Originally Posted by Scorpion3510

I work in SF. It is not "small" pockets at all. The homeless situation is out of control all over the city except for maybe Nob Hill and the Sunset. It's very bad across the Bay in Oakland as well with blocks and blocks of tent cities. You can drive a mile on a street and every block is full of shanty towns. This isn't hyperbole either.


Whatever you do, DO NOT allow Denver to follow SF's model.

On a smaller scale I was surprised by how many are in SLC, UT. Huge camp right by a park.

Im sorry but after the fire in Boulder a year or 2 ago caused by transients I still dont understand how the public allows it and doesn't force the officials to do something.

Also....San Fran was the dirtiest city I have ever been to. I am sure it had appeal at one time but i think its gross and covered in ****.

I travel to Chicago a lot for work and they have their share. I was talking to a store manager on the Magnificent Mile and there was a lady just passed out by the store. He says theres a group of 7-8 that are all junkies that sit whoever is dopes up outside their shop every day and collect change to get high.

I think theres 2 main culprits.

1. People are lazy and the behavior isn't looked down on any more.
2. Opioids are a very serious issue not being dealt with.

[pikabike]

Originally Posted by Scorpion3510

I work in SF. It is not "small" pockets at all. The homeless situation is out of control all over the city except for maybe Nob Hill and the Sunset. It's very bad across the Bay in Oakland as well with blocks and blocks of tent cities. You can drive a mile on a street and every block is full of shanty towns. This isn't hyperbole either.


Whatever you do, DO NOT allow Denver to follow SF's model.

UGH. I used to want to visit SF. Crossed it off my list a few years ago! If I want to see bums trashing both public and private property and harassing people, there are other cities and towns that have already amply demonstrated why nobody, no matter how generous and empathetic, offers to take them into their own home.

We went to Portland in 2008. Our very first impression upon walking around the city was horrible. Bums lying on, drinking and drugging on, panhandling at, soiling themselves, and basically taking up entire sidewalks for blocks. Displacing everyone else. We decided we would not return to that city and we have not.

If Denver allows this distortion of the word “survive” to be endorsed, it will lose a lot and gain only debt, drugs, excessive drinking, and crime.

[Mike from back east]

When homeless issues make a real dent in tourism and commercial dollars then watch how fast the business community trots down to city hall to get some solutions. Nothing else seems to work in America but money.

[emm74]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

When homeless issues make a real dent in tourism and commercial dollars then watch how fast the business community trots down to city hall to get some solutions. Nothing else seems to work in America but money.

From what I have seen by at least some people who are in favor of this initiative (not so much here, more in other local groups), that's exactly why they want it. They think that it will make things bad enough, quickly enough that it will spur more action on approaches that actually might be more of a solution to the fundamental issues of homelessness.

But from my point of view, they don't care about the real problems it would make for real people along the way - both the homeless population who would be missing out on real help and services, and those whose use and enjoyment of their Denver neighborhood and their property values would suffer too. And of course, they are apparently only too happy to use the homeless whose rights they claim they value more than those who oppose 300 as pawns in order to get the outcome they want.

[sammy87]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

When homeless issues make a real dent in tourism and commercial dollars then watch how fast the business community trots down to city hall to get some solutions. Nothing else seems to work in America but money.

When ever clients from my industry are in town for a conference which is usually around 16th street mall, their reaction is always the same....WOW a lot of bums here! I dont know any locals that go to 16th street and I avoid Denver unless its a specific event.

I wish panhandling was illegal.

We typically go to Vegas every 18 months and I noticed last time about 2 years ago now more and more bums on the strip.

[davebarnes]

I voted no.

[ADogNamedSam]

Originally Posted by Xanathos

You ideologues on your 4 year temper tantrum will twist up anything to try and blame everything on Trump, won't you? Now it's Trump's fault that there are homeless? News flash: Seattle developed the worst homeless problem in the nation long before Trump came along. Funny, I don't remember it being the Grand Savior's fault during the 8 years prior when it was really getting out of hand ...


... Seriously, you should move to Seattle with the sanctimonious passive aggressiveness and shoehorning Trump into every problem you see - it'll play really well there.

*applause*


Great post.


The only time the media mentions the homeless is when an (R) is in the White House. During the reign of the pampered, perfumed prince pen-and-phone, not a word.

[ADogNamedSam]

Originally Posted by mhays25

... Seattle has serious problems with kowtowing to campers as well as not cracking down on theft and street behavior. But day-to-day life is pretty reasonable from my perspective, living/working on the edges of Downtown and walking everywhere.

Just be sure to watch where you step ...