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.
Why? These "crackdowns" happen like clockwork, and mostly are a waste of time and my tax money. Several months later things are right back to same old, same old. But elected officials can do a victory lap patting themselves on back saying they did *something*.
Solving the homeless problem is simple.
Just pass a law that says all public sector employees' pay is docked by, say, 5% any time homelessness exceeds X% or they congregate in the subway system, or... well, you get the idea.
Would you agree that it is not simply an issue of enforcement, though that's certainly part of the issue? The other is how horrendously expensive the city has become which pushes those who are already making a meager living into essentially not making a living at all. When you are homeless and cannot afford a roof over your head, it becomes extremely difficult to hold a job and then from there it is usually a pretty downward overall trajectory. Starting over in a new, less expensive city can help, but oftentimes those who are already at strong risk of homelessness are not in a particularly great position to get a new start elsewhere as that by itself is time and capital intensive.
Would you agree that it is not simply an issue of enforcement, though that's certainly part of the issue? The other is how horrendously expensive the city has become which pushes those who are already making a meager living into essentially not making a living at all. When you are homeless and cannot afford a roof over your head, it becomes extremely difficult to hold a job and then from there it is usually a pretty downward overall trajectory. Starting over in a new, less expensive city can help, but oftentimes those who are already at strong risk of homelessness are not in a particularly great position to get a new start elsewhere as that by itself is time and capital intensive.
I don't buy this argument at all. The majority of the bums encountered are basically one step above an animal with zero skills that would allow them to afford an apartment. Lowering rent isn't going to get these legions off the streets, nothing short of massive 'free' housing projects will do that and if we go down that road the bums freeloading in CA will migrate this way.
Would you agree that it is not simply an issue of enforcement, though that's certainly part of the issue? The other is how horrendously expensive the city has become which pushes those who are already making a meager living into essentially not making a living at all. When you are homeless and cannot afford a roof over your head, it becomes extremely difficult to hold a job and then from there it is usually a pretty downward overall trajectory. Starting over in a new, less expensive city can help, but oftentimes those who are already at strong risk of homelessness are not in a particularly great position to get a new start elsewhere as that by itself is time and capital intensive.
This would probably cover a small percentage of the homeless population.
Would you agree that it is not simply an issue of enforcement, though that's certainly part of the issue? The other is how horrendously expensive the city has become which pushes those who are already making a meager living into essentially not making a living at all. When you are homeless and cannot afford a roof over your head, it becomes extremely difficult to hold a job and then from there it is usually a pretty downward overall trajectory. Starting over in a new, less expensive city can help, but oftentimes those who are already at strong risk of homelessness are not in a particularly great position to get a new start elsewhere as that by itself is time and capital intensive.
I'd have to respectfully disagree. The vast majority of homeless people living in the subways are not the type that can get hired at, and hold down, a job. If you owned a business, would you hire them? Probably not.
I certainly think that there needs to be a second step after enforcement, or else they would simply come back, and you end up removing the same people over and over again. But I don't think job training is the way to go.
I'd have to respectfully disagree. The vast majority of homeless people living in the subways are not the type that can get hired at, and hold down, a job. If you owned a business, would you hire them? Probably not.
I certainly think that there needs to be a second step after enforcement, or else they would simply come back, and you end up removing the same people over and over again. But I don't think job training is the way to go.
I agree.
It seems to me the best solution is to pay them to voluntarily move elsewhere -- preferably to an island such as American Samoa (USA), Guam (USA), Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (USA), or Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USA).
Or, better yet, pay them to leave the USA altogether.
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.
