The homeless are coming for the burbs (Houston, Austin: foreclosure, condo)

[Swizzle Stick]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

The extent to which the exact same conversation has been going on for more than a decade is remarkable.

Somebody complains about the homeless problem and the attendant issues with being unsightly, unclean, disruptive, and somebody else comes in and says that 'you just want them gone, you don't care.' Then significant amounts of money and time are devoted to solving the problem in a more humane capacity.

The trouble with this is that, as we've seen over and over again in San Francisco and Seattle and elsewhere, if you improve conditions for the homeless and enable camping, you're sweetening the pot with a real, measurable improvement in their lives ... but compounding the original problem because now the homeless want to be there!

I was downtown by the waterfront for the first time in many months last weekend, and the entire stretch of Cesar Chavez between the Congress Ave bridge and Red River -- very wide sidewalks and views of the river and hike & bike trail -- was occupied by a small tent city. It was early on a Sunday morning so not super crowded with people besides the homeless, but they (along with my family) were steering clear of one lady who was shouting 'fuuuuuck yoooouuu!' down to another homeless person on the trail while a couple other people were just getting up out of their tents in the morning.

This is public property into which millions of taxpayer dollars have been poured, and nearly the entire sidewalk was inaccessible to pedestrians unless you wanted to be accosted or leered at.

Forgive me, but I fail to see the virtue in what is very obviously the same progression to the endgame of downtown San Francisco. What did we imagine would happen? "But you don't have any better solutions besides getting them out of sight" is not a defense of this situation. We can only make the least bad choice for the public good. That's not "my" good or "the things my family would like" -- it's some arbitrary measurement of what is best for the city, and chief among those stakeholders are the taxpayers who support these public spaces.

It's all very well to say that we have a duty to the homeless. Even to spend significant amounts of public money on their support. But implicit in that bargain has got to be some assurances that you won't let virtue signaling control the entire discussion, which is what has happened when well-meaning and well-to-do people who end up just avoiding these parts of town are making the calls. San Francisco's homeless problem was really bad five years ago and is an unmitigated disaster today. Barring a major course correction, Austin seems dedicated to reproducing that journey.

THANK YOU!!! Somebody here gets it.

A comprehensive solution is needed, but you have to START somewhere - and that begins with the ban on public camping. Hoping that these tents cities can "blend" with the rest of society until the council has a plan (20 years from now or probably never) is NOT a viable option!

I have personally spoken with my council member one-on-one and have spoken with others at city hall including reps from APD about this issue. I repeatedly asked them what was the plan for immediate relief (to be implemented NOW) while they formed a long-term strategy, and they NEVER had a answer. They kept telling me about "sprung shelters" and "community court" for the homeless, but they never told my community how they plans to clean up and protect our neighborhood from the crime surge we saw; a surge that was PROVEN to be caused by specific group of transients in our area. It's a 10 step solution, and they NEVER had a plan for steps 1 through 5, and they still don't. Governor Abbott HANDED the council the means to solve steps 1-3, and they refused to accept his help because he is a Republican.

[scot892]

This is what happens when you vote for the same thing and expect different results. It's called insanity. Only people to blame are the very people who voted this in. Yes, that's you Libs. Why would people in Austin vote for the same City Council members in after what they have seen what is happening in this city and turning them into trash city? Wilco is turning blue as well, so, expect same idiotic policies to follow there and more panhandling and homeless to come.

[riaelise]

When I was in-office in downtown Austin, I had to navigate nutty drugged up homeless people screaming obscenities, puking on the street, defecating...it was gross and I actually did worry about my safety, especially when I worked late at night. My solution to that is to simply not go to downtown Austin unless I absolutely have to..and now that my job is remote until probably into next year, I won't have to go down there.

At least here in Wilco, you can go to public parks without seeing a tent network or panhandlers and homeless people on every corner.

[turf3]

Originally Posted by foodyum

Maybe you can work with the homeless so that are not so, you know, homeless.

You mean magically heal intractable mental illness and addiction?


Yeah, right.

[foodyum]

Originally Posted by turf3

You mean magically heal intractable mental illness and addiction?


Yeah, right.

I was suggesting housing the homeless. Is that a crazy idea?

[turf3]

If y'all want to spend tax money on this, set up modern clean well run humane insane asylums, containing a big proportion of chemical dependency treatment.


Otherwise you're just pushing people from one location to another.

[foodyum]

Originally Posted by turf3

If y'all want to spend tax money on this, set up modern clean well run humane insane asylums, containing a big proportion of chemical dependency treatment.


Otherwise you're just pushing people from one location to another.

You could always build more jails. That’s a cheap solution.

[HJ99]

Originally Posted by Swizzle Stick

I have tried to help in the past, but when the local govt ALLOWS this as a lifestyle, my efforts are wasted along with those of my neighbors. CoA has made it easy to be homeless. They are not held accountable, or FORCED to choose a path forward. The city has allowed self-sustaining homeless cities in places like Oak Hill. The city is waiting for them to seek help, and they will not give up the freedom that the CoA has given them.

So put them in SuperMax at $90k a year, that will show them who's boss and the error of their ways. Sure cut your taxes, huh?


Course probably be cheaper to just send them to Harvard, but six of one, half dozen of the other....

[Swizzle Stick]

Originally Posted by foodyum

I was suggesting housing the homeless. Is that a crazy idea?

Already been suggested, and here was my answer:

Originally Posted by Swizzle Stick

Check Zillow for Houses under $10,000, and zoom around the map, there are thousands, maybe Hundreds of thousands of homes across the country that can be bought for $10,000 or less.

A 10,000 dollar house, and SS benefits? How can you not see that as a just and fair solution? It's a baseline, and they can start contributing when their basic needs are met, and "no".. a handful of units that are walkable, cute, urban, expensive, tax-payer funded and furnished in various "tech" cities is NOT the answer.

[skeddy]

these people need to be warehoused.