The homeless are coming for the burbs (Austin, Riverside: how much, house)

[foodyum]

Originally Posted by Swizzle Stick

Already been suggested, and here was my answer:

Then you should do it if its so easy.

I actually have done it. I've worked with organization like Catholic Charities and other community/religious groups to buy up and rehab foreclosed properties after the 2008 foreclosure crisis. To be successful, it takes a strong nonprofit, lots of local government financing and concessions (taxes) banks to buy in/be forced to sell, good property managers who will work for lower fees, community support (very difficult) and a long term commitment from each of these parties.
I can tell you it is difficult at best. It works when it is sold as "gods work". If it can be a mixed use commercial property, in a denser neighborhood, it even works better.
Some of the resources I posted in my first post provides roadmaps.

[Swizzle Stick]

Originally Posted by foodyum

Then you should do it if its so easy.

It is easy to buy a house. I have already bought one.

[foodyum]

Originally Posted by Swizzle Stick

I don't need to buy anotherr house for myself, I already have one.

You should do it to solve the homeless situation which you don't like.
It does take the local community to be on board with any solution.

[Swizzle Stick]

Originally Posted by foodyum

You should do it to solve the homeless situation which you don't like.
It does take the local community to be on board with any solution.

I would LOVE to pitch in $100 with everyone else in Austin and buy a couple of thousand houses in cheap rural areas of the country where the homeless could afford to live on basic govt. assistance. Millions of Americans are living like this, and they have for the last 400 years, most of that time without government support.

It would be a waste of time, energy and money because of failed Democrat policies. The council would STILL allow camping in Austin, and the homeless would choose to stay put.

Read my previous posts.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by Swizzle Stick

I would LOVE to pitch in $100 with everyone else in Austin and buy a couple of thousand houses in cheap rural areas of the country where the homeless could afford to live on basic govt. assistance. Millions of Americans are living like this, and they have for the last 400 years, most of that time without government support.

It would be a waste of time, energy and money because of failed Democrat policies. The council would STILL allow camping in Austin, and the homeless would choose to stay put.

Read my previous posts.

It then becomes a catch 22 situation though. They're here because the democratic council permits them to be here. Vote in any republican leader though and they will be forced to vacate out into the wilderness, out of sight / out of mind. Not stating that I approve or like seeing tent cities every block but I am being realistic, it wouldn't even be a full week after not seeing them that the citizens would completely forget about their existence and they would remain homeless, unsheltered, and without resources and suddenly that virtuous $100 per citizen to house them becomes moot, most wouldn't justify the need for it because the problem isn't here within plainview and plain-sight...and mostly, something they have to deal with first hand.

Not saying I want this problem here but generally speaking realistically here, most people would not pay a single care about it if it wasn't something they have to witness first hand, they would just return to their daily lives.

Also Abbott most likely only installed the shelters for public approval, not because he cares any iota about the problem, if he did care he would have devised something on a state level to rectify the issue for DFW, Austin and Houston - all three of which have these sorts or problems especially near their core areas.

[turf3]

Originally Posted by foodyum

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

Nope, jails are not a solution.


Mentally ill and terminally addicted people who cannot conform even to the minimal standards of our incredibly wealthy and generous society are not criminals. Locking them up with criminals is absolutely the wrong thing to do.


They need places to live that are well controlled but humane and where they receive what treatment they can respond to, but not treated like people who have done something wrong and need to be punished, nor like people who are firing on all cylinders and can be thrown out into the maelstrom of managing modern life. Can you really imagine the woman I regularly see a couple miles from here, who wanders barefoot out into a busy intersection all day long, cursing and screaming, managing what it takes to pay rent, income tax, utility bills, unclog the drains, and arrange for someone to come on next Thursday afternoon to replace the furnace?

[ScoPro]

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.

worthy of being quoted time & again.
Too bad the braindead Austin City Council dismisses the truth of their disaster.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by turf3

Nope, jails are not a solution.


Mentally ill and terminally addicted people who cannot conform even to the minimal standards of our incredibly wealthy and generous society are not criminals. Locking them up with criminals is absolutely the wrong thing to do.


They need places to live that are well controlled but humane and where they receive what treatment they can respond to, but not treated like people who have done something wrong and need to be punished, nor like people who are firing on all cylinders and can be thrown out into the maelstrom of managing modern life. Can you really imagine the woman I regularly see a couple miles from here, who wanders barefoot out into a busy intersection all day long, cursing and screaming, managing what it takes to pay rent, income tax, utility bills, unclog the drains, and arrange for someone to come on next Thursday afternoon to replace the furnace?

She needs to be forcibly committed.
Supposedly the State is expanding the facilities at the State Hospital. Hopefully that is true, and that other locations will be likewise improved.
Get them off the streets and into treatment so citizens can enjoy the city once again.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Also Abbott most likely only installed the shelters for public approval, not because he cares any iota about the problem, if he did care he would have devised something on a state level to rectify the issue for DFW, Austin and Houston - all three of which have these sorts or problems especially near their core areas.

Abbott cannot do it all unilaterally by himself. The legislature needs to act with voter approval.

[gabetx]

Dealing with transients on a daily basis, many choose to remain homeless and not take advantage of services offered to them. With those services usually comes rules. Most choose to not abide by a curfew, get a job, remain sober, or attend meetings. Many do have mental illnesses that are substance induced. Many are also con-artists, great story-tellers, liars, thieves, and violent criminals. Many are not good people. I have had numerous transients brag to me how they make hundreds of dollars a day panhandling in some of the high traffic intersections, and make fun of the fact that they bring in more money than I do. Others pawn off items they frequently steal for drugs, sex, goods, and luxuries. Many police officers I have talked with have told me that the vast majority of their calls for service on a daily basis originate from the homeless, tying up response times to other priority calls. This is the real world but many people in society are "sheltered" and don't understand the reality of the lifestyle.

Yes there are some that truly do need help and are a victim of their circumstances, but a majority definitely prefer and enjoy their lifestyle. There are also some that are "self-sufficient", live in the woods, and keep to themselves, which really isn't a problem aside from the large amounts of trash. Some have built small villages that are quite impressive actually, with dirt "roads", wooden bridges, a community shower, and lighting powered by generators. They even have their own by-laws and "enforcers" of their laws.

Anyways, the city leaders condoning, victimizing, and encouraging the homelessness do nothing but exasperate the problem. I can't believe how many of them got re-elected, and two are on a runoff. The city clowncil should have been wiped clean with new faces.