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.
What’s your take on it N4C? It sounds like a costly accident for the group that camps there. And maybe for TXDOT depending on if repairs are needed. I remember a fire happening at a camp at 183/Cameron in 2019 that did some hefty damage to the highway in that area. https://www.statesman.com/news/20200...us-debrisrsquo Man. I was think g this was like right when the camping ban was lifted, turns out it was just about a year ago.
Homeless Camps and Bridge fires are not exactly.. ..new.. ..I-85 in Atlanta had one due to a homeless person lighting up PVC which took down the entire Northbound side of the bridge, and it was a catastrophe in a city that was already logistically challenged, lived through it and we had to take back streets all across town that were heavily congested to avoid it. Not something I desire to relive. In Atlanta's case two catalysts incurred.. ..The homeless person, and GDOT left material (although arguably combustible) underneath a heavily traveled overpass fully exposed where it was accidently set ablaze when said homeless person light up a couch to satisfy his cocaine addiction.
Reinforced Concrete has one big weakness, HEAT. Once they reach their heat thresh-hold, their integrity plummets and they cave under their own weight. So damages while minor, are also predictable.
On the other side of the spectrum though, if they were thrown out into the wilderness in the midst of a dry season then what we saw here at this bridge could end up being acres and acres of land going up in flames... so throwing them out isn't exactly the wisest solution either...
..That stated..
I am trying to come off without offending anyone - I am deeply concerned about Adler's homeless policies and his ambitions to buy extremely expensive hotels to house them. It isn't that I don't want the homeless to be helped, but I am concerned about the methods being deployed mainly because of what happened in the Pacific region. Politicians ended up grifting the money while employing solutions that barely helped (or plainly didn't help) the problem while using the homeless populations as excuses to continue to make proposals for high price solutions so they could leech off the money. I feel that the causes of homelessness are very real problems in America, but I am very worried about the solutions being used to address it and am concerned that the city council may in some way be profiting from this problem while telling the public half truths about the matter.
I do feel they need to be housed, but I am also concerned that many of these folks may not actually be from Austin are and are being invited to live in the city due to laxed policies towards them and the more that come, the more problems it will cause while the city is making a real problem, a worse problem than it was...
On one side I do feel these people do need help...
On the other I can also understand why Austinites would feel threatened if their dollars were to have to pay for something they didn't initially cause especially if the problem only grows worse over time and I have a terrible feeling that, it will get worse over time....
So then you get into that million dollar question...
-- Whats the best solution?
and
-- Who needs to pay for it?
Anecdotally I remember a few wildfires related to homeless camps years ago, but they didn't seem to occur as often as underpass fires that have been happening in the last two years. I would think most of this would be accounted for from just a general increase in the homeless population.
Correction: a previous version of this story said that tents were destroyed in the fire, Austin Travis County EMS updated KXAN to share that no residences were destroyed in the fire. https://www.kxan.com/traffic/fire-at...amages-bridge/
I think it really strange when a tent is referred to as a residence, like something official where mail is delivered and property taxes are incurred.
I am trying to come off without offending anyone - I am deeply concerned about Adler's homeless policies and his ambitions to buy extremely expensive hotels to house them. It isn't that I don't want the homeless to be helped, but I am concerned about the methods being deployed mainly because of what happened in the Pacific region. Politicians ended up grifting the money while employing solutions that barely helped (or plainly didn't help) the problem while using the homeless populations as excuses to continue to make proposals for high price solutions so they could leech off the money. I feel that the causes of homelessness are very real problems in America, but I am very worried about the solutions being used to address it and am concerned that the city council may in some way be profiting from this problem while telling the public half truths about the matter.
I do feel they need to be housed, but I am also concerned that many of these folks may not actually be from Austin are and are being invited to live in the city due to laxed policies towards them and the more that come, the more problems it will cause while the city is making a real problem, a worse problem than it was...
You are right. Many people just show up in Austin because they have heard that we have good homeless services. If you live in Austin for 30 days without shelter you qualify for MAP Homeless and have access to medical care. If you are "literally" homeless you can get on the ECHO housing list. If there is mental illness the person has access to Integral Care, which also has access to case management for homelessness, intellectual disabilities and for housing. Yes, there are some resources. But, speaking generally, how is this any different then peolpe relocating to Austin for jobs and the general hype of Austin?
You are right. Many people just show up in Austin because they have heard that we have good homeless services. If you live in Austin for 30 days without shelter you qualify for MAP Homeless and have access to medical care. If you are ”literally” homeless you can get on the ECHO housing list. If there is mental illness the person has access to Integral Care, which also has access to case management for homelessness, intellectual disabilities and for housing. Yes, there are some resources. But, speaking generally, how is this any different then peolpe relocating to Austin for jobs and the general hype of Austin?
So once more I intend to come off respectfully as I share my concerns...
Mainly the issue is that, if they are relocating to Austin (or anywhere) with no intent on getting back on their feet but only want to ride on the system while for the lack of better words, making a mess of the city by throwing tents up everywhere they can, leaving trash, imposing public safety concerns and in some cases harassing citizens (and I don't mean just by begging for money, but out right harassing people and I've witnessed several circumstances on my own accord so my concern isn't based on heresy alone), remain on addictions, or routinely use the city as a place to camp but not as a place to improve their circumstances ... I do feel that it is good to assist people who want a way out of their struggles, hardships, homelessness, but I am growing concerned that many of these people do want the help, but don't want the change in lifestyle, or basically to get back on their feet again. They want only to be supported by the city and tax payer and I don't think that is fair for tax paying citizens.
People relocating to Austin for jobs are paying to live here, both in property (and fairly expensive property values at that) and taxes. They contribute to Austin's GDP as well as the financial wellbeing of the city and in return for their taxes, the city provides infrastructure, resources, healthcare, ect to further support the maintenance or growth of the city...
People relocating to Austin (or anywhere) with the intent of staying homeless, contribute nothing to the city. They degrade it and the quality of life by their acts (if they are not seeking to escape their situation).
My issue isn't so much that they are homeless and I feel it is good to help those people who want a change in their life, but rather my concern is of their intents that they may have no desire to escape their situation while the homeless population grows and grows in Austin while the city employs expensive solutions with that employ minimal effects to the overall problem thus taxing the working class out of the city.
As for the Hotel, the main problems with the Hotel are that for the amount of impact it will do to homeless people, it is extremely expensive, there are far cheaper alternatives that would house many more people but the city seems to completely ignore those which makes me believe they may have an agenda at play.. and what worries me is that, the homeless situation is a coverup for another money racket under the table. That plus they were non-transparent with WilCo when WilCo had been transparent about any projects or maintenance they intended within the Austin proper side of it. Why were they in such a rush to buy it without consenting with WilCo? (Okay truthfully we both know the answer to that, WilCo never would have approved it)
My answer isn't exactly to throw them into the woods, I feel its a complicated matter, but I also feel Austin, as well as several cities such as Denver, San Fran, LA, Seattle, Portland ect are encouraging the activity which is like adding gas to the fire.
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 03-08-2021 at 09:41 AM..
As for the Hotel, the main problems with the Hotel are that for the amount of impact it will do to homeless people, it is extremely expensive, there are far cheaper alternatives that would house many more people but the city seems to completely ignore those which makes me believe they may have an agenda at play.. and what worries me is that, the homeless situation is a coverup for another money racket under the table. That plus they were non-transparent with WilCo when WilCo had been transparent about any projects or maintenance they intended within the Austin proper side of it. Why were they in such a rush to buy it without consenting with WilCo? (Okay truthfully we both know the answer to that, WilCo never would have approved it)
My answer isn't exactly to throw them into the woods, I feel its a complicated matter, but I also feel Austin, as well as several cities such as Denver, San Fran, LA, Seattle, Portland ect are encouraging the activity which is like adding gas to the fire.
Please share with me these cheaper plans. Maybe even e-mail your city council person those plans. And tell me what you think about the hotels on Oltorf they're buying. Is that an issue for those neighbors too? Or is that a non-issue? Because it sounds a bit NIMBY to me if you're upset about the hotel by you but not about the ones down south. The neighbors on Woodland and Oltorf need to have the same respect as those up north.
Please share with me these cheaper plans. Maybe even e-mail your city council person those plans. And tell me what you think about the hotels on Oltorf they're buying. Is that an issue for those neighbors too? Or is that a non-issue? Because it sounds a bit NIMBY to me if you're upset about the hotel by you but not about the ones down south. The neighbors on Woodland and Oltorf need to have the same respect as those up north.
Trailers. Newsom for example purchased 1,300 for California during the Pandemic to house homeless spread across multiple metro's. That came out to aprox $50 Millions for somewhere between 1.3 and 1.6k homeless people. Dividing that out, the 150 Homeless in the hotel would have been cut down to about 1/3rd of the cost or aprox $5.7 Million rather than the $16 Million figure.. ..or... the $16 Million figure would have housed 3x as many people.
Modular Units as well, those can be constructed for as low as $20,000 - multiplied by 150 people would have housed the same population for 1/5th of the cost or $3 Million, and the $16 Million would have housed 800 homeless people, almost half of Austin's homeless population.
For NIMBY'ism.. ..I particularly haven't done a great deal of research on the hotels of S.Austin or how much they were purchased for and I particularly am non-impacted by the hotel going up by Lakeline so I have no bias regarding the placement of it but rather - concerned about the political aspect of the decisions mainly because of what I have been seeing happen in the financial realm of the Pacific states who carried out similar decisions and how it negatively impacted them.
...Although I will note that NIMBY'ism isn't necessarily always a bad thing, people do have a right to have concerns about the placement of entities that may negatively impact their neighborhoods either in home valuation (which it definitely will have some impact) or quality of life concerns. Some of their concerns are very real concerns and should not be squelched out under the premises of being NIMBY, and it isn't just homeless matters either, that goes for anything, similarly to how you feel about the mixed use community going up ('Velocity?') in SE Austin.. although for much different reasons.
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 03-08-2021 at 11:02 AM..
Trailers. Newsom for example purchased 1,300 for California during the Pandemic to house homeless spread across multiple metro's. That came out to aprox $50 Millions for somewhere between 1.3 and 1.6k homeless people. Dividing that out, the 150 Homeless in the hotel would have been cut down to about 1/3rd of the cost or aprox $5.7 Million rather than the $16 Million figure.. ..or... the $16 Million figure would have housed 3x as many people.
Modular Units as well, those can be constructed for as low as $20,000 - multiplied by 150 people would have housed the same population for 1/5th of the cost or $3 Million, and the $16 Million would have housed 800 homeless people, almost half of Austin's homeless population.
.
Did those trailers come with any support? Counseling, job training, transitioning housing? Because that's the point of the hotel setting. It will allow these providers to assist. Just giving housing isn't going to fix anything .You need to back it up with something. And as much as helpers like to help, we aren't doing it for free.
Did those trailers come with any support? Counseling, job training, transitioning housing? Because that's the point of the hotel setting. It will allow these providers to assist. Just giving housing isn't going to fix anything .You need to back it up with something. And as much as helpers like to help, we aren't doing it for free.
Just generally speaking, from what I read they purchased the hotel for $16 million, that was the cost of the property alone from what I understand. The cost of support would likely be an addition to that $16 Million.
If that is the case, any supporting party would still be paid accordingly regardless of which housing solution is employed, although those costs would be an addition to whichever housing solution was selected much like the hotel.
Wouldn’t more people be able to be supported at one given time in a denser and more populated community?
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.
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.
