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)
 
Old 11-19-2014, 08:40 PM
 
443 posts, read 404,432 times
Reputation: 1199

Advertisements

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.

Don't believe everything you think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2014, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in a Field of Hopes and Dreams
596 posts, read 473,374 times
Reputation: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
U r assuming that street people are really homeless people who are looking for a home
U don't like bummy people hustling u when u go to Starbucks and eye balling your iphone
U have decided that they need to change their life style to suit yours
Grammar please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Washington state
5,440 posts, read 2,768,643 times
Reputation: 16373
There is such a hatred of homeless people that I doubt any city could get taxes passed which would subsidize low income housing. All I ever hear about is how people resent their taxes being used for food stamps, so I can only imagine what would be said about housing.

But in our area, we have been trying to do something. For a while, there was a shelter open for families and singles where they could stay for a while to get back on their feet. I don't know if we have Section 8 anymore, but we do have subsidized housing. Charities do an awful lot and a local church has donated a porta-potty and four of its parking spaces so homeless women can park there and be unmolested by the cops at night. In fact, the cops drive by several times at night to make sure the women are safe.

That same church has one day in the year called Day of Hope when the entire community donates and people can come in and get dental care, haircuts, clothing, and food. There are also places where people can get free meals. But trying to get housing for the homeless has been all but impossible.

We had a gentleman donate his land to build several small homes on it for homeless people to stay in - the neighbors howled and the project was dropped. Out in the woods, another person wanted to house homeless men in small cabins that were already there and have them do park chores while looking for work. The nearest neighbor was a mile away and they still howled until the idea was dropped.

So those are the biggest obstacles: society disapproval of being homeless under any circumstance (homeless people being looked upon as losers), neighbors, lack of money, a suitable place to house people, and insurance even if you find a building willing to let them stay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 12:58 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,570,857 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmb501 View Post
Hmmm, well, that's a lesson learned. No, the rules would have to be constructed in such a way as to ensure that the undeserving do not get into these accommodations. Eligible residents (a) need to be doing some kind of meaningful work, paid or unpaid (not just sitting around the house or going to school), (b) should not be currently receiving financial aid, (c) be able and willing to devote over eighty percent of his or her free time working (hopefully this will deter the lazy college students), (d) should not be eligible to live in a dorm room or other student residence, if available (e) must have successfully completed a thorough assisted housing search in the area and not been able to reasonably qualify for any other available accommodation (meaning that if the kid is working twenty hours per week at McDonald's and there is an okay trailer park with a cheap room available, we refer him or her to the trailer park), (f) must undergo a psychological test, background check, drug screening, and physical test, and (g) must agree to be subjected to a set of house rules, including regular monitoring of all activities in the residence.

Fast growing crops and animals with a high reproduction rate, like rabbits and chickens, would hopefully mean that the residents would not run out of food before they could get their supplies built up. Yes, at first the residents would have to rely on donated canned goods and other non-perishables that the shelter provides, but in a few months they would probably be able to supplement their diets with what they produce. Within a year or two, they could probably live exclusively off of what they produce and have a surplus to sell back to the shelter. There are other possibilities, too. They could also raise fresh catfish and eel, both or which bring a nice price at the market.
It sounds like you don't have any experience with social work or farming, but feel qualified to discuss both. You aren't on either count. Your plan to solve homelessness seems based entirely on only providing services to the healthy and able-bodied, which is a relatively small portion of the homeless population, and the longer they are homeless, the less likely they are to remain healthy and able-bodied. Maybe it isn't sinking in, but BEING HOMELESS CAN MAKE YOU SICK AND CRAZY. The cure for a lot of that sickness and craziness is housing, which is why the most important factor is HOUSING FIRST--the rest of the problems subside or at least get easier to treat.

The idea of having to pass a psychological test, background check, drug screening and physical test for a place to live, presumably a barracks where you are expended to spend 80% of your time working, is ludicrous--healthy people certainly wouldn't stand for that sort of treatment, and you don't want to deal with the unhealthy people, because apparently that's hard. Which is exactly why we have a homeless problem in the first place--people not wanting to deal with the hard parts of the problem and just giving token efforts to the easy part, then blaming their massive systemic failure on the people in the worst condition and the least able to take care of themselves.

Why can't cities create low-rent or tax-subsidized housing for the homeless? Because people like you are apparently running our cities...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 03:48 AM
 
4,367 posts, read 3,555,011 times
Reputation: 2926
Thanks for the information. Yes, I admit that I don't have any experience with social work, and the problems of society, even in small cities, are apparently much more complicated than they appear to be. That's probably why they haven't been solved already. That's discouraging, really. Housing First is probably the model to follow. Get the homeless people off of the streets first and help them take care of their other needs later. It's really discouraging to think that our healthcare system has failed so many people, though. You would think that if the home of someone with a serious mental illness were being foreclosed, someone would intervene so that the person doesn't end up on the street, forgetting to take medication and subjecting themselves to other harmful decisions. It's clear that most systems set up to take care of the homeless fail their goal.


Hmm...could someone post other links to successful models? Is Housing First the only one? How could small cities fund a Housing First style or other successful shelter project? How could they make sure that freeloaders don't start moving in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 06:20 AM
 
Location: I am right here.
4,914 posts, read 4,071,936 times
Reputation: 15540
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmb501 View Post
How could they make sure that freeloaders don't start moving in?
You can't, because there will always be the criminal element looking to scam the system and get what they can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 06:22 AM
 
770 posts, read 733,844 times
Reputation: 1341
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
If we're going to follow other countries' examples, I'm not sure if a Communist country with notoriously poor human rights record is going to provide the best model.
China gradually shifted from communism over 15 years ago. It's now a consumerist social republic. Yes the party still exists, but fiscal interests trump all. And communism works. Although some may be opposed to some it's doctrines, it is the most efficient system of government, like it or not.

And having lived in both China and the US, I can safely say that the US is at least ten times worse in terms of human rights violations. From the microwave attacks, detention camps, police murdering innocent citizens, swat raids on citzens homes. You would almost never see anything even remotely close to these types of human rights and quality of life issues in PRC.

Don't believe all the negativity that liberal rags like the NY Times write about China. Educate yourself on the differences first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 06:42 AM
 
4,367 posts, read 3,555,011 times
Reputation: 2926
Quote:
Originally Posted by ughhnyc View Post
China gradually shifted from communism over 15 years ago. It's now a consumerist social republic. Yes the party still exists, but fiscal interests trump all. And communism works. Although some may be opposed to some it's doctrines, it is the most efficient system of government, like it or not.

And having lived in both China and the US, I can safely say that the US is at least ten times worse in terms of human rights violations. From the microwave attacks, detention camps, police murdering innocent citizens, swat raids on citzens homes. You would almost never see anything even remotely close to these types of human rights and quality of life issues in PRC.

Don't believe all the negativity that liberal rags like the NY Times write about China. Educate yourself on the differences first.
Capitalism has led to many evils, but most Americans, me included, see capitalism as a necessary evil if all people are going to have a shot at doing well in life. There is always a chance that leaders will turn corrupt if they are given too much wealth and power; a capitalist society allows people to share the wealth by letting businesses compete. Ideally, though, there would be much more competition than there is now, and mega corporations that control most of a goods or services would not exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 09:10 AM
 
1,640 posts, read 3,296,797 times
Reputation: 3479
I live in Seattle, which is a mecca for homeless people on the west coast. I can tell you from experience that the great majority of homeless people are mentally ill and/or struggling with addiction. Providing them a place to live is actually low on the list of priorities. They need treatment for their mental illness and/or addiction. Until that's done, giving them a place to live serves no purpose. Someone needs to TAKE CARE OF THEM. Not just house them.

Also, there are a subset of people out there who like being homeless, because it allows them to live a "carefree" life with no need for a job, to pay taxes, or rent.

I think the % of homeless people who simply need a place to live as a "hand up" in life are pretty small. I would say 80-90%+ of homeless people are mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs or alcohol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,941,006 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaylahc View Post
I think the % of homeless people who simply need a place to live as a "hand up" in life are pretty small. I would say 80-90%+ of homeless people are mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs or alcohol.
As I said upthread, there is a difference between being homeless and being on the streets. The "sound" homeless the OP is talking about tend to be people who crash on the couches of friends and relatives, or sleep in their car. The main exception are people like teen runaways, and most of the ones who are sane and/or not addicted to something will get the hell off the streets (or out of shelters) as soon as they have a chance, as the crazy drunks and drug addicts unsettle them as much as they do the rest of us.
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