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.
Thats like saying there has always been poor people. It means nothing in the conversation or the context of what i said besides you once again with words knocking others down so you can look good.
Not at all, and I'm sorry you didn't grasp the truth of what I was trying to say. I suppose I could have been clearer. I have hands-on experience providing homeless services as part of my anti-violence work. And I know what social services research shows, as opposed to what common opinion says.
Quote:
Up until the late 70s - early 80s, you didn't see but a few homeless anywhere. The family (ohana) took care of their own. Tragically, the situation has steadily worsened over the decades, with the high cost of housing being the primary culprit along with long-term cultural assimilation difficulties. The point is homelessness was no where the problem it is today, not even close.
No, but it was always there, and starting in 1975 it began to get worse as the US de-institutionalized the mentally ill, and returning veterans from Viet Nam and later wars started living on the streets, and hard drugs began to be a bigger and bigger problem. Then the economic crash started sending "just plain folks" to the streets... whole families, working people, domestic violence victims (many with children) as the established social safety nets began fraying and breaking down.
Quote:
To argue that economic hardtimes lately is the cause of increased homelessness is also really not the truth or whole picture. The last few years economics have been awsome for a small group, no other times have we seen such economic prosperity for this group. Maybe the issue is unequal wealth distribution?
As the old saying goes, to a child with a hammer, the whole world is a nail. Sorry, you can't blame everything on "unequal wealth distribution." It contributes nothing to finding the solutions... plural... needed to get this issue under control.
There are many factors which have contributed to the sharp rise in the homelessness rate over the last few years. Chief among them has been the economic crash and its lingering aftereffects. People were laid off, people lost their homes in foreclosure, demands on social services rose as funding for those services were reduced, non-profit agencies have been stretched to the limit, and transitional and long term low-income housing stocks have not been increased to meet the demand. And more. But they all trace back to overall economic hard times.
Here are some facts about the homeless in Hawai'i that challenge some of the common stereotypes and misconceptions. These are from Hope Services in Hilo, a non-profit I have made donations to, and volunteered for. I recommend others do both as well, to provide tangible assistance to our most needy.
Quote:
Facts
On every island in Hawaii families are sleeping in tents on the beaches, tucked away in the lava, and camped in public parks. Homeless parents work full time jobs while children do their homework by flashlight - in cars parked in Hawaii’s towns and cities. Many of our elderly have to decide between medication or food at the grocery store, and the mentally ill of our state are left with little resource but to sleep outside. Homelessness in Hawaii is a growing epidemic, and these statistics are heartbreaking:
Statewide, 12-15,000 people are homeless at some point of the year.
At least 6,300 are homeless at any given day.
11% of those living without housing are children.
32% of the homeless are of Native Hawaiian ethnicity.
22% of Hawaii’s homeless have some form of employment.
14% of those homeless are veterans.
Can you please explain exactly what you mean by "unequal wealth distribution"? Are you talking about the classic saying that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer or do you meaning something else?
The upper 1% own way more than they could ever use in fourteen lifetimes, that might be a bit of "unequal wealth distribution". However, the really rich won't want to live in efficiency units or multiple person households, so they wouldn't be part of the folks to find shelter for.
It might be interesting to start group housing for folks with talents and accept low income people in that group as long as they had a talent for what ever the group was doing. That would pretty much mainstream (as far as that group was mainstreamed) the un-sheltered folks right away. Something like an artist's colony comes to mind. Or small farms that need workers and would give them housing in exchange for some work. There's some of that with WWOOFing, but a more permanent version of WWOOFing that involved shelter and a way to garner a bit of income as well would be lovely. Maybe a wood working shop with a live-in apprentice system? A welding shop with live in apprentices? A communal group of sculpters? There's a fellow, Dale Chulily, who has a whole team to put together big glass work art. I don't know if they live together, but a team like that might be a good candidate for communal living.
One of the biggest troubles with communal living is that it sounds like a "commune" and those haven't always been in good repute. Perhaps it should be "village" living or "community" living?
Even trailer parks might provide less expensive housing for folks. When they built those new developments and the builders have to provide "affordable" housing and the numbers on "affordable" come in over $400K, that's not affordable.
Perhaps making a requirement that the big estates being built all over the place where the folks don't live in them full time should have a multiplicity of worker housing for the gardener, house cleaner, etc. Maybe three small houses for the workers on the estate should be required with the big estates.
If you look at a true village - one that was built before automobiles were common - you'll notice that there are big houses, little houses, estates with workers quarters, really big estates with the staff living upstairs, single family residences, small commercial areas, maybe a small industrial area and usually farms to provide food for the village within several miles. I think a lot of reason why we have so many homeless is that we are now losing those smaller spaces where they used to be able to afford rent. Large tracts of similar sized house lots where you have to drive a car to get to anything has no space for less expensive quarters. Folks who can't afford rent have a hard time affording a car as well.
I wonder if a Hawaiian village could be built on Hawaiian Home lands? OHA seems to be blindly following the standard layout of having to drive a car everywhere and keeping families spread apart from each other. Clustering living quarters together allows for larger green areas and allows for utilities to be easier to provide. We should figure out a way to provide shelter respectfully and tastefully so the folks can feel better about themselves and rejoin the mainstream. I don't think the government is going to be able to do it, perhaps churches?
Here's a question that I will throw out to everyone. I was just reading on Wikipedia that "The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion in 2012. It is expected to keep growing to reach 11 billion by the end of the century".
At some point should we as humans seriously look at way of slowing down population growth?
OK, thanks. I don't know why the Star's Search function doesn't turn that up, unless it's because it's not a news story, just an opinion piece.
In any case, it's seems like a regurgitation of the same "Return to Home" idea from a year ago that never got off the ground, even after it was authorized by the legislature. Health and Human Services declined to participate, "saying in a statement that the requirements are “costly and administratively burdensome”, " and it was only going to benefit 100 people a year anyway, so <shrug> it seems obvious it wouldn't make any substantive difference.
And since the majority of the homeless in Hawai'i are long time residents or have lived here all their lives, this really isn't going to do anything except make a few people feel good that they're doing something about the problem, when the number one thing that needs to be done is to develop more inexpensive housing to provide for this basic human need. Doesn't have to be big, or fancy, just simple basic shelter... and support programs to help people get back on their feet.
Can you please explain exactly what you mean by "unequal wealth distribution"? Are you talking about the classic saying that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer or do you meaning something else?
Thanks.
What im saying mcfrosty is, i believe the stat is in the Unitted States, the richest 200 or 300 people own more wealth then half of the population of our country combined. This is a problem not because wealth is bad but because as the wealth gap widens and as the population grows it means more people are going to be fighting over less of the resources.
In 2007, the top 10% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets in the Unitted States. It can't be anti american to finally ask how much wealth is enough, now im not suggesting just hand over a million dollars persa, but whats wrong with paying employees etc a few dollars more and maybe own 70-75% of all financial assets instead? Its not like we never ask our citizens to modify behavio
Lol as sad as what you said is. Its the truth. Any illness in society is only there because someone is profiting from it. Mahalo for reminding me of that.
OK, thanks. I don't know why the Star's Search function doesn't turn that up, unless it's because it's not a news story, just an opinion piece.
In any case, it's seems like a regurgitation of the same "Return to Home" idea from a year ago that never got off the ground, even after it was authorized by the legislature. Health and Human Services declined to participate, "saying in a statement that the requirements are “costly and administratively burdensome”, " and it was only going to benefit 100 people a year anyway, so <shrug> it seems obvious it wouldn't make any substantive difference.
And since the majority of the homeless in Hawai'i are long time residents or have lived here all their lives, this really isn't going to do anything except make a few people feel good that they're doing something about the problem, when the number one thing that needs to be done is to develop more inexpensive housing to provide for this basic human need. Doesn't have to be big, or fancy, just simple basic shelter... and support programs to help people get back on their feet.
Now the last paragraph i can 100% agree wit.
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.
