A friend just visited San Francisco and the main thing that left a lasting impression was...yeah, you guessed it... (Berkeley: fingerprinting, transfer)

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

... another example of how you lead in the campaign for civil discourse, I see! Kudos

At least I did not put words in her mouth. I spoke the truth.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by Matadora

No the one's who won't move from public property once they've been warned. The one's who steal and set up bike chops shops, the ones who deface public property and so on.

If a person goes to jail repeatedly for minor offenses this should lead to longer and longer jail sentences. Laws should be made to deter bad behavior not just slap you on the wrist repeatedly.
Trust me if a person sets up a tent in Houston and the police show up and say move it and they don't...trust me they will be arrested.

Houston did it the smart way. They first tackled the homeless veterans. Next they moved on to the chronically homeless who were willing to do what it takes. They already deal with wondering crazies and drug addicts. Those folks get locked up instantly.

On a national average it costs taxpayers $42.500 a year to have one homeless person on our streets. Lock 'em up and that just adds to the costs. Penny wise dollar foolish?

2/3rds of Americans are just 2 paychecks away from joining the homeless. And where I work, at a LTC/Rehab facility, many of those I work with are just 1 paycheck away.

There was a recent article in The Economist magazine about San Fran-Nimby's homeless problem, and in the article it stated that a good part of the city is zoned for 3-story apartment buildings and on the west side it's still zoned for single family homes. The gist of the article was for San Fran-Nimby to start going skyward with their housing!

But will the "King's and Queen's" of the Hills allow that? God forbid you should mar their views of the Bay! They don't mind seeing high rises go up in the Mission District as that helps block their views of Oakland!

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by tijlover

On a national average it costs taxpayers $42.500 a year to have one homeless person on our streets. Lock 'em up and that just adds to the costs. Penny wise dollar foolish?

2/3rds of Americans are just 2 paychecks away from joining the homeless. And where I work, at a LTC/Rehab facility, many of those I work with are just 1 paycheck away.

There was a recent article in The Economist magazine about San Fran-Nimby's homeless problem, and in the article it stated that a good part of the city is zoned for 3-story apartment buildings and on the west side it's still zoned for single family homes. The gist of the article was for San Fran-Nimby to start going skyward with their housing!

Bu will the "King's and Queen's" of the Hills allow that. God forbid you should mar their views of the Bay!

I don't see how this pertains to my post you responded to.

You're completely missing my points. If a person wants to be homeless, so be it. However this does not give them rights to be immune to common sense laws. If a homeless person breaks the law...they need to pay the consequences just like anyone else who breaks that same law.

Look up how much it costs to continuously clean up camps and decontaminate them. Next look up the costs associated with decontaminating and cleaning their crap from public sidewalks. Next look at the ongoing costs of repairing public property they damage. Houston enforces ordinances against these behaviors and thus does not have these out of control costly ongoing issues.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Matadora

I don't see how this pertains to my post you responded to.

You're completely missing my points. If a person wants to be homeless, so be it. However this does not give them rights to be immune to common sense laws. If a homeless person breaks the law...they need to pay the consequences just like anyone else who breaks that same law.

Look up how much it costs to continuously clean up camps and decontaminate them. Next look up the costs associated with decontaminating and cleaning their crap from public sidewalks. Next look at the ongoing costs of repairing public property they damage. Houston enforces ordinances against these behaviors and thus does not have these out of control costly ongoing issues.

I’m curious if you could direct me and other readers to where anyone suggested homeless should be free from common sense laws.

And yes, do look up the costs of not housing the chronic homeless compared to the cost of housing them. Absolutely. Because they can be housed for less than we spend now leaving them on the streets.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by katharsis

As far as putting the homeless anywhere they don't want to be (assuming that they are not a danger to themselves or others) -- I think it is a question of making it very unappealing to them to be homeless. To illustrate, an 18-year-old relative of mine chose to be voluntarily homeless for six months rather than live at home and follow his parents' rules until winter came and he encountered sub-zero temperatures with no place to stay after he had lost his shelter privileges. (I realize, however, that this would not apply to a place where there are no sub-zero temperatures.) Until he lost his shelter privileges, he didn't worry before then because he said that begging would get him a minimum of $20 a day, which was enough for food or whatever else he wanted, he could shower at the shelter, and there were public toilets available.

As long as people are fed and comfortable (in their opinion, anyway), they will probably not do anything to change their situation. I think that if they were given a choice of living in some kind of complex (whether a group home or individual VERY basic and no-frills apartments) or actually starving, most of them would choose to live off the streets.

I'm sorry but I think it's already pretty damned uncomfortable to be homeless. And your claim that 90% would choose over the streets if offered housing was proven wrong in Salt Lake City where 91% accepted and remained in housing. https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/45910...cent-heres-how

[katharsis]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I'm sorry but I think it's already pretty damned uncomfortable to be homeless. And your claim that 90% would choose over the streets if offered housing was proven wrong in Salt Lake City where 91% accepted and remained in housing. https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/45910...cent-heres-how

Just to clarify, I said that most would choose to live OFF the streets.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by katharsis

Just to clarify, I said that most would choose to live OFF the streets.

I'm sorry I took that to mean that you meant "live off the streets" in the same way that a person would say a survivalist wants to "live off the land"

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Matadora

Hi Mystical,

Perhaps a bit of background can help you understand my views. I grew up and lived most of my life in the 4th largest city in the US...Houston. Houston has a lot of homeless folks as would be expected for being the 4th largest city in the US. However the homeless in Houston do not behave like the homeless here in CA. Night and day difference. No camps on public land, no shooting up in broad daylight, no bike chop shops in your face, no needles strewn around, no filth piled high, no human waste on public sidewalks, no dazed and confused people stoned out of their gourd stumbling around talking and screaming out loud. Why is this? Because Houston has ordinances against this behavior and the police enforce those ordinances.

A very interesting thing occurred recently while I was visiting Houston and ended up staying for 4 months (Nov 2017 through March 2018) to help my aging mother. I was downtown and noticed tent cities under the under passes. I was stunned to see this and wondered what was going on?

I soon discovered that the City of Houston was being sued by 4 homeless folks that were being represented by the ACLU and a federal judge blocked the city of Houston from enforcing the anti-encampment ordinance in Aug 2017, while the case was being reviewed. I arrived in Nov and in just that short amount of time from Aug to Nov, the city of Houston was starting to look like LA skid row. This is what happens when you don't enforce the laws. It's not about moving them down the road. It's about not allowing them to use public land for purposes it's not intended. It also forces them into shelters and into permanent supportive services and housing.

Thankfully in Dec 2017 that same federal judge cleared the way for Houston city officials to enforce the ordinance that prohibits homeless people from setting up tents and temporary living quarters in public places.

Again this is not about moving them down the road but forcing them to use the services available to them and to stop the homeless from using public land for purposes it's not intended.

Mayor Sylvester Turner said he was grateful the judge "has, for now, essentially endorsed the city's effort to strike a balance between preserving personal freedoms of every Houstonian and eliminating threats to public health that have developed at and near encampments on public property in the center of the city."

OK, I see your point. I certainly do agree that many who live on the streets need a push. But I don't think criminalizing homelessness alone is enough. It's a combination of carrot and stick. California is too lax. There's no question about that. But I just don't think "law and order" alone is compassionate in the same what that I don't think California's policy of "let them do (almost) whatever they want" is compassionate.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Are you trying to say that the supportive housing provided to the homeless in Houston was intended to be temporary? Before you answer you might want to go check that out for yourself. Hint: google "Houston permanent supportive housing"

I am a proponent of supportive housing. I do think it works (or at least, it can work, as Utah has shown). But I also think there is a law enforcement aspect as well. It has to be both.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by tijlover

2/3rds of Americans are just 2 paychecks away from joining the homeless

This is more of a cultural issue than a lack of money issue. Surely 2/3 of people don't need to live that way.