U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-19-2014, 04:52 PM
 
4,367 posts, read 3,551,090 times
Reputation: 2926

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeachSalsa View Post
Why do YOU think it is so cheap?!? If it were as cheap as you seem to think, millions of people would be doing it!!

Quality animal food is not cheap. Hutches, coops, barns, shelter...all need routine maintenance. Vetting is not cheap. Equipment is not cheap. How are you going to feel when the cloud of insects descends on your fields and start chomping? Or when the deer and wild rabbits think your crops look pretty tasty? In a large farmer's field, not as big an issue as in a small plot.

Earlier you said equipment (tractors, etc.) would not be needed. Do you have any idea what kind of physical labor is required to till, plant, weed, and harvest fields without equipment? You mentioned gardening (produce) and crops...not all that on 10 acres!! Ten acres is SMALL!! Produce, maybe, but no way will you harvest near enough hay and grain to make a dent in your livestock's needs for a year. Then you mentioned chickens and rabbits.

Farming is HARD WORK. It does not pay well.
I know raising rabbits hardly costs anything. I know of a couple of people who used to do it when they had land. I don't know about goats or chickens, though.

Deer and other wild animals could be nuisance. A small fence would be a proper deterrent. Organic insect repellants would probably work for the bug problem. We also could have problems with birds.

Yes, it would take a long time without a tractor, but volunteers could come out and help the residents plant their gardens. It would take a few days to get everything planted, and maybe we could borrow a tractor from one of the volunteers. It all goes back to the community.

There wouldn't be much livestock, a few goats, some chickens, and a dozen or more rabbits, probably only four from separate families to begin with. The grain and feed would probably be the result of donations.

I take it most of you think it is not cost effective. Maybe it isn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2014, 04:59 PM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,509,613 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmb501 View Post
I'm basically talking about the able and willing versus the not able or not willing. There is a difference. The fact that we often don't differentiate is part of the problem. The guy living in his car because his job laid him off is a "bum," just like the guy walking around the street too drunk to stand is a "bum." We pretend there is no difference.
Lol, no, it's really not that simple. How 'willing' and how 'able' are not objective measures that can be applied in every situation.

There was a case a last year where a local college professor was stabbed to death in downtown Seattle while protecting his girlfriend from a homeless schizophrenic.

Interesting back story on the perpetrator. Not long before that he was a successful small business owner in Nevada who owned a $500K house, had a family etc... After he lost everything he did what a lot of homeless do, pack up and move to Seattle where he integrated into the local homeless population, apparently off his meds. Why Seattle? Seattle has help for the homeless, just not always the right help at the right time.

At the point he was running around the streets hearing voices and stabbing innocent people we can agree he was no longer 'willing and able'. Somewhere between his previous early life and being arrested for murder, that changed. Somewhere along the line he went from someone who didn't need help to being beyond help. When was that? Was it before he was homeless? After? Did he lose his house and business because of a progressive and potentially un-treatable psychiatric condition? Or did the economic downturn put him in a position where he became homeless and treating his illness fell by the wayside? Who knows. Whatever the case it's unclear what state of deterioration he was in when he landed on the streets of Seattle among the homeless population. Was he willing and able, or not? If not, then he pretty much ended up where you'd expect and a professor ended up dead, his girlfriend critically injured and psychologically scarred for life. Too bad, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 05:02 PM
 
Location: I am right here.
4,914 posts, read 4,066,038 times
Reputation: 15540
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmb501 View Post
I know raising rabbits hardly costs anything. I know of a couple of people who used to do it when they had land. I don't know about goats or chickens, though.

Deer and other wild animals could be nuisance. A small fence would be a proper deterrent. Organic insect repellants would probably work for the bug problem. We also could have problems with birds.

Yes, it would take a long time without a tractor, but volunteers could come out and help the residents plant their gardens. It would take a few days to get everything planted, and maybe we could borrow a tractor from one of the volunteers. It all goes back to the community.

There wouldn't be much livestock, a few goats, some chickens, and a dozen or more rabbits, probably only four from separate families to begin with. The grain and feed would probably be the result of donations.

I take it most of you think it is not cost effective. Maybe it isn't.
A "small fence" won't keep much out. Deer can jump almost 8 feet high. Rabbits can squeeze though amazingly small spaces AND they can dig, so they will just burrow underneath your fence or squeeze through. Birds, squirrels, chipmunks, opossums, gophers, to name a few pests...Organic controls are not inexpensive...nor overly effective, as they must be reapplied after watering and rain, usually. Who are all these "volunteers" who you think will be donating their time? It's hard enough getting regular volunteers to scoop soup, and that's only a few hours every few weeks.

OK, so you won't have much livestock...then what's the point? A "few animals" is a hobby farm, not a sustainable farm. A dozen rabbits...what happens when a doe gets pregnant? Are you set up to sex and separate the kittens within weeks (because they will reproduce at a very early age)? Where will you house them? They can't get too hot, because they do not tolerate heat well. They cannot be housed on the ground...rabbit hutches must be raised. How will you do that? How will you keep them out of the elements? How will you ensure foxes and coyotes won't come in and have a feast?

You sure seem to rely on a lot of donations. What if you don't get enough? How will you get the cash to purchase? You can't just tell the animals, "Sorry, guys, no food today!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 05:27 PM
 
443 posts, read 403,770 times
Reputation: 1199
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmb501 View Post
1. This is the only demographic in which I'm interested and think the cities should provide shelter for. People who have had their homes foreclosed, people who were laid off of their jobs, college students who couldn't find work after graduating, those who are working but aren't making enough to afford shelter, and generally anyone else willing to work and do well for themselves but, for whatever reason, are down on their luck and need an affordable place to stay, not a hotel room or a "pay-by-week" deal which often charges the poor working homeless more money than they make just to put a roof over their heads. It's disgusting how they treat people in transitional stages.

2. This demographic needs another solution. I don't want the insane or those addicted to dangerous chemical substances living near me, and I don't think any other sound individual would want that, either. Besides, putting these people with sane individuals and allowing them to be loose in normal society would not be doing them a favor, either. These people need to be caught and institutionalized, not allowed to roam the streets and definitely not given free housing so that they can continue feeding their problems. These are the kinds of people I hope a thorough screening program would block from entering and hopefully redirect to the services they really need.

3. The "homeless by choice" usually do not seek shelter in cities and normally live on farms and other rural areas. Most aren't really considered homeless because they have found ways to create environmentally friendly shelters, resorted to long-term "camping," or have found other workable ways to live off of the land and take care of themselves without relying on "the system." If they are sound, resourceful, and not afraid of a little hard work, though, they could probably be an asset to my target demographic and may not be excluded as long as they are employed and genuinely have no other options; however, with this demographic, it's rare for them to not have other options. Is there a five-hundred dollar van on Craigslist? This type of homeless guy will buy it, park it on a neighbor's land, and turn it into his new five-star shanty, if he has the option.
OMG!!! Yes, let's hunt 'em down and cage 'em up! Because anyone with a mental illness is sub-human and should not be granted basic rights. Shame on you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 05:54 PM
 
4,367 posts, read 3,551,090 times
Reputation: 2926
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
Too bad, eh?
Yes, that's definitely too bad, considering just a few years ago they had options for people like that. I'm not saying the person who stabbed the professor was necessarily a "bad" guy; he was a sick patient off of his medication. That's why shelters should have a screening process so that the mentally ill are identified and treated. Yes, I know. The mentally ill do not have shelters that are made for their condition, and they are assumed to be the majority of the homeless population. If that is the case, that could be considered a sign that the government has decided not to protect its people. Who wants potentially violent people on the streets? They should be somewhere away from the general population. I possibly remember running into a schizophrenic on a walk through downtown. He was cursing at nothing when I stopped to say, "hi." It made me a little nervous. I assumed no one knew about him and kept walking. It was a reminder that, no matter how bad things are, the middle or town is a dangerous place for sane people who are just down on their luck. It's best to avoid the shelters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 06:03 PM
 
4,367 posts, read 3,551,090 times
Reputation: 2926
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigW View Post
OMG!!! Yes, let's hunt 'em down and cage 'em up! Because anyone with a mental illness is sub-human and should not be granted basic rights. Shame on you.
Schizophrenics and other people with severe mental problems that render them incapable of functioning in normal society should not be allowed to roam the streets without being on medication. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that. It's not healthy for them or society. I don't know why people allow it. A psychotic person is better off in medical facility created to treat that sort of thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 06:13 PM
 
Location: I am right here.
4,914 posts, read 4,066,038 times
Reputation: 15540
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmb501 View Post
... He was cursing at nothing when I stopped to say, "hi." ....
Do often stop to say "hi" to homeless people?

Last edited by PeachSalsa; 11-19-2014 at 07:06 PM.. Reason: missed a word
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:20 PM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,509,613 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmb501 View Post
Schizophrenics and other people with severe mental problems that render them incapable of functioning in normal society should not be allowed to roam the streets without being on medication. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that. It's not healthy for them or society. I don't know why people allow it. A psychotic person is better off in medical facility created to treat that sort of thing.

You do realize that having homeless schizophrenics (as well as other issues) roaming the streets, while largely unpopular, is exactly the 'treatment' option we've come to accept currently? And by 'currently' I mean over the past 30-40 years.

It's a problem, but whose problem is it? Who suffers from it? Who benefits from it? It's safe to say one of the biggest groups that suffers from it are the other homeless who end up being victimized. But it's way beyond that. Businesses in areas where people are scared to go suffer. People who are forced to pack up and move to safe areas suffer. People who get burglarized, mugged, assaulted suffer. Building owners who can't lease their properties to reputable or upscale businesses or tenants suffer. Taxpayers suffer. It's one of the big downsides to designating our downtown areas as 'open air mental health clinics' free from treatment or supervision.

Now, if it's so bad the way it is, why is it still.. er... popular?

Next time you're in a nice clean suburb without filthy, drug addicted crazy homeless people following you around asking for cash, take note. Next time you're in an upscale shopping mall, the kind of place people go with their kids, where there aren't any drunk guys whipping out their business to take a leak on the sidewalk, take note. Keeping the crazies roaming the streets creates demand among the people willing and able to pay for a living and shopping experience free from 'the crazies'. Next time you hear someone say "I'd shop downtown, but there are too many crazy homeless people wandering around' you're seeing this at work.

Last edited by mkarch; 11-19-2014 at 07:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 08:03 PM
 
Location: St. George, Utah
756 posts, read 883,936 times
Reputation: 1971
Municipalities no longer have the power to "remove" the mentally ill from the streets. Do a little research into deinstitutionalization and the reasons behind it. Colossal failure, and as this NYT article repeatedly notes, a massive "overreaction" to the reality that some people were institutionalized inappropriately.

HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN - NYTimes.com

I can't go along with your sweeping assertion, though, that the chronically homeless, mentally ill alcoholic is viewed in at all the same way as the temporarily homeless guy looking for a job and living in his car. From the perspective of those who work with the homeless in my town, that's not true--the two are viewed and treated very differently because they have very different needs and goals. From my personal perspective I view them differently too.

I think a subsistence commune sounds like lots of fun for the sort of people who like that kind of thing. I live on 20 acres and have a very small number of animals. It's a lot of work and a lot of expense. I just don't think it's a solution for the temporarily "sound" homeless.

You say you haven't really looked into what resources are available to the sort of people you're wanting to serve. They are out there. It can be difficult to cobble together a few different programs to make ends meet, but they're available if one is willing to make the effort. I'm not sure why you leapfrog that fact--without knowledge of what's already available its really pointless to discuss what's needed.

I absolutely agree that the "clientele" of many shelters is a deterrent to the kind of people you are thinking of. But those in the trenches know this as well--aid is more likely to come in the form of rent assistance, hotel vouchers, etc. There's a program run by churches (non-denominational) where families sleep in facilities offered at a different church each week, with meals provided by parishioners, and a common "day house" available with an office, kitchen, and living area. The program came about because of the recognition that many shelters are overrun by single men, mentally ill, and substance abusers. This is a safe, temporary, and dignified solution for families, and just one example.

I'd reiterate that anyone who becomes homeless has made an error in judgment, or many more, somewhere along the way. I'm not saying this to judge, I'm just pointing out that all the logic and good intentions in the world don't always get people to move in the direction you'd like them to go. Some people are "sound" by your definition but not ready to start making smart decisions and move their life forward under their own steam.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 08:15 PM
 
Location: SC
8,791 posts, read 5,657,462 times
Reputation: 12805
Cities did build low cost subsidized housing... It was called the projects and it caused trouble because people were being confined to crime ridden areas with little hope of upward mobility. Now, instead, programs like section 8 strive to set up families in less stigmatized and dangerous environments... lower-middle class neighborhoods where people have homes for rent.

Of course this PO's people who struggle to pay for the nice homes they have paid for on their own and sends right wingers into epileptic fits.

So, the answer is that they do provide the service you speak of - but only for low income folks. No income folks seem to be on their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top