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.
We have lot of homeless in Florida too from all over the US, and saying is that the "scum settles on the bottom" (bottom = south / warm weather).
There was a report in the Miami Herald a couple of years ago that over 70% of the homeless in the Miami area were transients from other states. Some even claimed that they were given one way Greyhound bus tickets by authorities from cities & states like Jacksonville, Alabama & Georgia.
There have been multiple programs to bus homeless back to where they have support networks (family, friends) or where there is some sort of housing option. Most no doubt soon find themselves homeless in the new locale.
California (and no doubt other states) track data on the numbers of the homeless who fall into various categories: in-state, out-of-state, non-citizen. The statistics matter for there are policy implications.
Not that there can't be a certain blurring of categories. Some percentage come to the state with the intent of relocating. They may even find a job but then be unable to afford housing and can no longer stay with friends etc. The source of their homelessness (high cost of housing) differs from those who drift due to mental illness etc.
HUD mandates each community receiving Federal Funds to perform an annual Point in Time head count of homeless people in late January. It distinguishes between sheltered and unsheltered people. Not going to find many unsheltered people in Fargo, ND in January.
Counting those who are sleeping in shelters is the easy part.
Not so easy for those living on the streets.
It is understood the initiative undercounts the homeless who are sleeping in their cars, flop houses, temporarily couch surfing, in tunnels, subways, woods, abandoned buildings and so on.
The weather and vibe has made relatively small portions of California attractive destinations for migrant homeless people for nearly 60 years.
Why haven’t the migrant homeless descended on say Compton?
There are many places in California with relatively affordable housing. Yet, the masses tend to congregate in more costly areas.
In New York, we pay $400+ per night to rent luxury hotel rooms in Manhattan to put the homeless in. You hear these people talking about how they came here just for these kind of benefits, and we just keep supporting them.
Sentiment is already turning, but eventually it will reach a tipping point, and some hard decisions will need to be made.
In NYC at least, building owners are responsible for the sidewalk infront of their buildings. I think they should hire cleaners at night to wash down the sidewalks, and make it difficult for anyone to sleep.
Reading it out loud, it sounds like I'm talking about a vermin problem. It's sad. It's a problem that's only going to get bigger though, and we need to start looking at it more seriously, not just pumping money into it, and accomplishing nothing.
In New York, we pay $400+ per night to rent luxury hotel rooms in Manhattan to put the homeless in. You hear these people talking about how they came here just for these kind of benefits, and we just keep supporting them.
Sentiment is already turning, but eventually it will reach a tipping point, and some hard decisions will need to be made.
I say we take their passports, and send them to Mexico as economic migrants.
yeah people from mexico never end up in california
The majority of homeless vagrants are drug addicts, according to boots on the ground groups who work with them. Weed is legal, thieves who steal to support their habit are ignored. They can shoot up and poop on the street. The midwest won't tolerate that behavior. They also get lots of freebies in CA.
Who benefits by tolerating this intolerable behavior?
California and Florida both attract homeless from all over in part because of climate. Being homeless in Grand Rapids Michigan or Appleton Wisconsin means frozen death. Being homeless in LA is easy comparatively, not only is it warm but the social and political environment even encourages it.
Homeless people in all cities should be rounded up and put in managed camps far from the cities. In these camps they would be in safe sanitary conditions where they would be able to grow their own food. This would also allow more of a control on the access to drugs that the homeless would have. Being homeless should not be attractive or give people the sense of freedom those kids in the video seem to have. If you live in an army tent 100 miles from a city with little or no access to drugs then the appeal of homelessness will disappear. Yes some will escape back to town but the law will just pick them up and return them to the camp. Being a vagrant is illegal and we need to stop tolerating it.
So you want to imprison people and put them in camps for being poor.
Why haven’t the migrant homeless descended on say Compton?
There are many places in California with relatively affordable housing. Yet, the masses tend to congregate in more costly areas.
This is simply not true. Some of the areas with the most homeless, like Skid Row in LA, are actually the least costly areas. Similar thing with the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. The problem is, rents are so high in the major cities, even in the worst neighborhoods, that the poorest people can't afford it.
Now it's true that maybe away from the cities, like in the Sierra Nevada foothills, housing prices are lower. But even in such places there isn't much low-cost housing. When the Camp fire in Paradise, CA wiped out a lot of low-cost housing, quite a few people ended out homeless.
States began closing institutions in the 50’s because they had become political embarrassments and a drain on resources. Closures accelerated as Federal Funding was cut.
Most seriously mentally ill people have periodic episodes of acute symptoms. It can be well beyond the reasonable ability of any family. Those who present a serious risk to themselves or others can be hospitalized for 48-72 hours, whereby symptoms are treated and stabilized with medications.
No one can be forced to take medications.
While seriously mentally ill people can be disruptive, most are not violent.
There are no easy answers.
In the 1970s, I interned in a state hospital during college for one semester. The population consisted of the mildly intellectually disabled, mentally ill. Many of the younger patients had been heavily involved in the drug scene. No veterans that I recall. They may well have been provided services thru the VA. The profoundly disabled were in a different facility that was unbelievably bad.
At this hospital, there were wards paired with day rooms with patients divided by sex and level-of-restriction. The day room contained a blaring television set with uncomfortable seating. Minimal staffing, a few intervention programs. That some patients had the potential to become disruptive in that setting was both understandable and a given. Each ward had a room for patients who needed to be immediately separated from the general population.
Drugs like thorazine were routinely administered, with patients compliant. They were served in little paper cups rather like tea and cookies. That was one of the prime staff responsibilities. That patients were over-drugged is undeniable. Many ended up spending their days aimlessly wandering around, or sitting just staring at the television. I participated in one patient-circle group made difficult because of slurred patient speech.
Staff considered drug availability a humane improvement, saying how much "better" conditions were compared to the 1930s, 1940s when physical restraint was the method-of-choice. They spoke of going home with bruises in those days.
Curious, I just googled to see the state hospital still exists. Today, there's a long list of various treatment programs with an emphasis on returning patients to the community. Back in the 70s most patients lived there, some for decades. The care was custodial.
The vast majority of the homeless on the street today are not violent, or a threat. Many just want to be left alone. Some fear shelters because they want to avoid the occasional individual who overwhelmed becomes disruptive.
But, yes ... no easy answers. State institutions as they existed during the 1970s cannot be replicated today.
With the incredible amount of private wealth in CA why are there ANY homeless in addition to the high rate of poverty?
Nothing but a bunch a selfish rich people running CA
Because more people keep flooding in all the time. If you leave all your doors and windows open during a winter night, it doesn't matter how high you crank up your heater. The house will still be cold.
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.
