Proposition Q: Is SF Finally Going To Deal With Homelessness

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Before responses come in to: "who are acutely mentally ill and incapable of caring for themselves" - I would point out that the definition of "capable of caring for themselves" does not mean living according to popular culture and contemporary prescriptive lifestyles. Eating out of restaurant dumpsters and sleeping under blue tarps is, in fact, caring for oneself when other choices are limited-to-non-available at any particular moment of hunger and exhaustion. Most folks on these threads vilifying the homeless are convinced otherwise, I realize. But the cost to everyone's freedom that comes with such restrictive definitions as seem commonsensical to many are actually deeply and negatively profound to the very freedoms you all hold dear.

thanks for adding that mutt

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

To chime in.

What solution do the homeless have?

Give me a 30-40 something homeless, let me feed him, clean him up, give him 48 hours of pep-talks, resume writing workshops, and a decent outfit- and short of a miracle, he's not going to be able to find himself in an employment system that will allow him to live in any level of comfort in the nearby area.

If I were in charge, I'd try to figure out a way to relocate and rehabilitate the homeless to areas of the country that could benefit from more labor or offer significantly cheaper housing. Short of taking that offer, i'd push further for incarceration or underground connections to thin the numbers.

Did you just see that rainbow unicorn fly by in your window? I did too!

[smarino]

"When you look at the list of cities with the least amount of homeless, they all skew conservative (Plano, TX, Irvine, CA, Gilbert, AZ, etc)."

The reason those cities have low homeless populations (and I will just take your word for this, I don't want to fact check it) is because no one, including the homeless, want to live in those places! Would you? Not me, even if someone paid me to live there.

It would be tremendously cheaper and smarter to address the reasons why an individual is w/o a home than to do all this constant law changing and the non stop wacky-ideas of making this illegal and that illegal, because none of that works. Address the cause, eliminate the problem. Duh.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by smarino

".

It would be tremendously cheaper and smarter to address the reasons why an individual is w/o a home than to do all this constant law changing and the non stop wacky-ideas of making this illegal and that illegal, because none of that works. Address the cause, eliminate the problem. Duh.

SF has no problem with nanny laws on other topics...