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.
Well said. Corporations believe it or not react to consumer comments.
I work for a Fortune 500 corp.
Our product lines designs and changes are driven by consumer comments and demands.
Not enough people complain to walMart about walmart or the products they sell. Its that simple.
I think the tents should be made in Haiti, they would work for a lot less than the Chinese.
I think the tents should be made in Haiti, they would work for a lot less than the Chinese.
Better yet, the tent cities should be setup in Haiti where it's safe to live this time of year if you MUST live in one by necessity.
Where I used to live, a few weeks ago the police were giving the homeless the choice of jail or a shelter during a cold snap b/c they were getting sick of removing frozen corpses from the streets.
Better yet, the tent cities should be setup in Haiti where it's safe to live this time of year if you MUST live in one by necessity.
Where I used to live, a few weeks ago the police were giving the homeless the choice of jail or a shelter during a cold snap b/c they were getting sick of removing frozen corpses from the streets.
I was homeless a few years ago. I hope they have lots of shelters. As a single woman families got priority and each two year old got a full bed. So periodically I spent the evening at a coffee shop. I was too scared of the people out there to try sleeping in the car.
I have heard of people who commit small crimes so they can be arrested and have a place to sleep when its cold.
If you can get to a shelter and have a car you can keep clean and dress like everyone else. Nobody would have known I was. I wonder how many people pass the homeless that they have no idea all the time and condem people who can't because they look undesirable.
Anyone every see the Star Trek DS9 two parter about the Sancuary Districts? Interesting enough seveal cities were considering a section of town or camp outside of town for free housing, all the services and kept out of sight and reminder treatment. In LA the episode was shown to the city councel before they voted one such bill down.
Many of the permanently unemployed are no longer even counted. The next step that the gov has to do is provide massive shelters to accomodate the newly homeless, and formerly middle class families that will be evicted by the same banks that we bailed out.
This is growing more and more likely, but has a dark side. You can shunt the undesirables away and nobody sees them. Eventually you don't care if they are there. Then you build a wall around them (or did you start out with one)
Mentioned this on another post, but check out the Star Trek DS9 Episode Past Tense (part 1 and 2) with a time travel accident back to a few years from now. The Sancuary districts had been espablished to give the homeless a place to live but when they wanted to leave nobody wanted to see them so they got "walled in" for their protection of course.
At the time the episode was broadcast several cities were considering what was the beginning of a Sancuary district. One in Floriday was going to set up a camp outside of town with ALL the services... except busses out. The episode was shown to the LA City council before they voted down their plan.
Sounded like a realistic idea then, especially that they districts would become little ghettos, and even more so now with our new improved focus on making everyone "safe".
I'm afraid if you proposed something like this a lot of people who don't like the reminder would be prefectly glad to get all the homeless off somewhere else they didn't have to see and wouldn't want them back. And once your in, how DO you get out?
Check this out. Think of the creep since the 90's to now...
This is growing more and more likely, but has a dark side. You can shunt the undesirables away and nobody sees them. Eventually you don't care if they are there. Then you build a wall around them (or did you start out with one)
Mentioned this on another post, but check out the Star Trek DS9 Episode Past Tense (part 1 and 2) with a time travel accident back to a few years from now. The Sancuary districts had been espablished to give the homeless a place to live but when they wanted to leave nobody wanted to see them so they got "walled in" for their protection of course.
At the time the episode was broadcast several cities were considering what was the beginning of a Sancuary district. One in Floriday was going to set up a camp outside of town with ALL the services... except busses out. The episode was shown to the LA City council before they voted down their plan.
Sounded like a realistic idea then, especially that they districts would become little ghettos, and even more so now with our new improved focus on making everyone "safe".
I'm afraid if you proposed something like this a lot of people who don't like the reminder would be prefectly glad to get all the homeless off somewhere else they didn't have to see and wouldn't want them back. And once your in, how DO you get out?
Check this out. Think of the creep since the 90's to now...
I think that large military style barracks, with a guard and seperate facilities for families, women and men is better than sleeping in tents. The problem with the 'new' homeless is that they really have no idea how to be homeless. The closest thing they can relate to are the days when they camped out - hence the new tent cities. What the gov needs to do is provide the homeless with a safe environment, roof over their heads, a warm bed, facilities, and enough food and water to survive. That's it. Nothing fancy. They don't need to be shunted off to a walled in 'sanctuary'.
I think that large military style barracks, with a guard and seperate facilities for families, women and men is better than sleeping in tents. The problem with the 'new' homeless is that they really have no idea how to be homeless. The closest thing they can relate to are the days when they camped out - hence the new tent cities. What the gov needs to do is provide the homeless with a safe environment, roof over their heads, a warm bed, facilities, and enough food and water to survive. That's it. Nothing fancy. They don't need to be shunted off to a walled in 'sanctuary'.
If the government does something like this, there will be people complaining about their tax dollars getting spent on it. They don't give a dam about their fellow Americans but, do care about their almighty buck, unless of course if becoming homeless happens to them.
I guess the bashing comes from naive people who still don't believe that there simply is not enough work for everybody, and from people who deep inside are scared of becoming unemployed themselves and thus want to make it more than clear they are not unemployed yet.
Well, like I read in one of those comments it's easy to be an armchair critic. It's easy for someone who has a job to write off other people who don't have a job as lazy and unmotivated. I mean we all know that everyone on welfare are just lazy and don't wanna work. It's a fact that they're all just parasitic bloodsuckers who don't wanna contribute to society. Even in this blatant period of an economic downturn, there are PLENTY of jobs out there for everybody, all they gotta do is look hard enough </SARCASM>
The problem with these people (referring to the armchair critics) is that they lack the ability to empathize, basically they have lost their humanity. I thankfully still do have my job but I do not fault these people (those who have lost their jobs). They definitely need help. But I think in the end the only way they can be helped is there needs to be a change in the way business is run. How this can be achieved I haven't a clue, but all signs point to a large portion of blame falling on the greedy few who have sacrificed others lives and livelihoods for the sake of money and wealth.
I think that large military style barracks, with a guard and seperate facilities for families, women and men is better than sleeping in tents. The problem with the 'new' homeless is that they really have no idea how to be homeless. The closest thing they can relate to are the days when they camped out - hence the new tent cities. What the gov needs to do is provide the homeless with a safe environment, roof over their heads, a warm bed, facilities, and enough food and water to survive. That's it. Nothing fancy. They don't need to be shunted off to a walled in 'sanctuary'.
That was the idea, at the start. The midset we live under is that once a thing is started it must continue. Sure, a room indoors which is safe and with a bed is better than an tent in the rain. But when your hit with massive numbers things slip. One of the cities in Florida had that idea. It was to be set outside of town and have all the services. It was also to get the homeless out of sight of the tourists and did not have a way to go back to town.
I've stayed at a shelter and while it was better than nothing, my friends couch was prefereable. Or a motel. Fifty people sleeping on a mat on the floor in a big room is not bad when the weather is bad, but I think a tent with privacy and some sense of it being yours would have been better when it was not. Having no privacy is a hard thing. There were families who had trucks or campers who spent the night outside with them because they felt their kids were safer than inside. They were allowed to park there at night on the street of the shelter itself.
True, people don't know how to be homeless. But then nobody does until it happens. The best advise I got was from others who were homeless rather than something official. Those who don't actively use programs don't really know what they do or don't succeed at. And because I have a good survival instinct I could pick out the difference between the hard luck homeless who actively wanted a way out and the cronic likeing the lifestyle type.
Some of those out there now or later will get it and figure out how to move on to a life again. They will do it because they believe they can. They'll make use of opportunites for help. And some will not. For some it will be simpler to accept and drift and they will live that way by choice. Most will not.
If your talking large numbers you have to ask questions first. How many can you hold? When you get more than that what do you do? Make some room to a new tier? Send them off to look elsewhere? By what basis do you choose who gets in and who doesn't? Who is going to pay for it and the food provided? (The city sponsered one had food donated. Some of it was spoiled by the time it got used, not just out of date. Much was out of date which is why I wouldn't eat there even if it was free.)
And sticky things like security, especially personal security. Any large room with many people will have theft problems and for a lot that is all they have. Do you set up lockers and assume responsibility if thefts are made? Do you just supply them without taking responsibility?
And when its said and done, who pays for this? The non-homeless who don't see the homeless they walk past now? Will they say its okay as long as they don't have to see them? Or that they'd just not rather do it. So when money is needed to feed your population, what do you do when the budget is cut? Cut the rations? Evict some? Or when people complain that money is going to these places but there are still homeless around. Do you make people go there so they'll be quiet and pay up?
These are the kinds of things which could lead to walled off spaces in the long run and an invisible problem.
I think one of the reasons so many do not want to think about the homeless is deep down they are scared that along the way the careful balance will fail they they will end up with them. Better to pretend.
I'm not saying that on a proper basis this would not be a good idea. It's just that weather you create a homeless camp or an urban area designated for the homeless you are still setting up for the easiest solution of getting it out of sight. And you MUST have some provision on how these people are going to have a way to leave. And you must find a way to keep respect for your clients and not treat them as numbers and statistics.
Unfortunately a tall order if on a basis of larger numbers. Some of the worse places we've created were started by those who wanted to help but didn't plan or think out how it would work in reality and human behavior.
That was the idea, at the start. The midset we live under is that once a thing is started it must continue. Sure, a room indoors which is safe and with a bed is better than an tent in the rain. But when your hit with massive numbers things slip. One of the cities in Florida had that idea. It was to be set outside of town and have all the services. It was also to get the homeless out of sight of the tourists and did not have a way to go back to town.
I've stayed at a shelter and while it was better than nothing, my friends couch was prefereable. Or a motel. Fifty people sleeping on a mat on the floor in a big room is not bad when the weather is bad, but I think a tent with privacy and some sense of it being yours would have been better when it was not. Having no privacy is a hard thing. There were families who had trucks or campers who spent the night outside with them because they felt their kids were safer than inside. They were allowed to park there at night on the street of the shelter itself.
True, people don't know how to be homeless. But then nobody does until it happens. The best advise I got was from others who were homeless rather than something official. Those who don't actively use programs don't really know what they do or don't succeed at. And because I have a good survival instinct I could pick out the difference between the hard luck homeless who actively wanted a way out and the cronic likeing the lifestyle type.
Some of those out there now or later will get it and figure out how to move on to a life again. They will do it because they believe they can. They'll make use of opportunites for help. And some will not. For some it will be simpler to accept and drift and they will live that way by choice. Most will not.
If your talking large numbers you have to ask questions first. How many can you hold? When you get more than that what do you do? Make some room to a new tier? Send them off to look elsewhere? By what basis do you choose who gets in and who doesn't? Who is going to pay for it and the food provided? (The city sponsered one had food donated. Some of it was spoiled by the time it got used, not just out of date. Much was out of date which is why I wouldn't eat there even if it was free.)
And sticky things like security, especially personal security. Any large room with many people will have theft problems and for a lot that is all they have. Do you set up lockers and assume responsibility if thefts are made? Do you just supply them without taking responsibility?
And when its said and done, who pays for this? The non-homeless who don't see the homeless they walk past now? Will they say its okay as long as they don't have to see them? Or that they'd just not rather do it. So when money is needed to feed your population, what do you do when the budget is cut? Cut the rations? Evict some? Or when people complain that money is going to these places but there are still homeless around. Do you make people go there so they'll be quiet and pay up?
These are the kinds of things which could lead to walled off spaces in the long run and an invisible problem.
I think one of the reasons so many do not want to think about the homeless is deep down they are scared that along the way the careful balance will fail they they will end up with them. Better to pretend.
I'm not saying that on a proper basis this would not be a good idea. It's just that weather you create a homeless camp or an urban area designated for the homeless you are still setting up for the easiest solution of getting it out of sight. And you MUST have some provision on how these people are going to have a way to leave. And you must find a way to keep respect for your clients and not treat them as numbers and statistics.
Unfortunately a tall order if on a basis of larger numbers. Some of the worse places we've created were started by those who wanted to help but didn't plan or think out how it would work in reality and human behavior.
Unfortunately, it will be a large number of Americans who will be permanently unemployed - noth because they don't want to work, but the rug has been pulled out. While a friend's house may be preferable, many will not have an option, and the temporary shelters will morph into permanent housing.
The owners of our country will always sacrifice the poor first whether it be by denying them their constitutional right to pursue Life by cutting off medical benefits or grouping them together in tents or army barracks far far from where the public can see them.
It's easier then to lie about the numbers of them & pretend it doesn't exist that way.
The owners don't need for it to become a real problem if they have to hear about homelessness & lack of medical care to the poor by average working Americans.
Deny,deny,deny & carry on.
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.
