Can WE solve the homeless problem? (Kihei, Wailuku: to live in, costs, legal)

[armory]

Originally Posted by HawaiianGuy

Local hawaiian state government is so corrupt we will always have homeless problems, our roads are the worse in all US states, the local government will even dump raw sewerage into Honolulu Waikiki where tourists are swimming in every day.

The money allocated for our state to fix infrastructure are consistently misused every year.

How liberal is Hawaii state politics?

[hawaiian by heart]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

It's important to remember they should move if they can't afford to live in Hawaii.

If you don't have the education to have a decent job or skills to be in a well paying trade - live somewhere else where it is less expensive. Don't expect the taxpayers to bail you out.

Now come on is that a fair statement? Its cheaper to bailout a homeless hawaii resident then it is a big corporate business wanting to come to hawaii to start a business. All the tax breaks, costs of redevelopment, infastructure, grants etc etc. Why not the same standard? If big business cant afford to build there facilities and pay for infastructure or even pay there tax rate and pay a liveable wage. They have no business moving to an area. Why should taxpayers be giveing incentives to business stockholders to make personal profits?

I bet you cold hard cash that the money the taxpayers spend on redevelopments or quality of life issues etc to pander or get more rich people or big business in Hawai'i costs

[hawaiian by heart]

More then really supporting the homeless in Hawai'i. I bet its more expensive in the longrun to outlaw homelessness then to solve it tomorrow and house each individual or provide training etc.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by armory

How liberal is Hawaii state politics?

There's a separate thread already running on that topic... https://www.city-data.com/forum/36983401-post1.html

[Jonah K]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

It's important to remember they should move if they can't afford to live in Hawaii.

If you don't have the education to have a decent job or skills to be in a well paying trade - live somewhere else where it is less expensive. Don't expect the taxpayers to bail you out.

Suppose folks can't afford to move to a place that has a lower cost-of-living? Travel by air or ship aren't exactly free.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

It's important to remember they should move if they can't afford to live in Hawaii.

Clearly you have no compassion for others. I think it clouds your judgment.

If you don't have the education to have a decent job or skills to be in a well paying trade - live somewhere else where it is less expensive.

OK, so all the busboys and retail clerks and burger flippers and janitors and garbage men and fruit pickers and the like should just be rounded up and kicked off the islands? Then how are you going to fill the nasty jobs and the low skill service jobs except to raise all the wages? So why not raise the wages to a livable level to begin with? The problem with your "let them eat cake" attitude is that it doesn't work and can't work.

Don't expect the taxpayers to bail you out.

1. Who said anything about taxpayer bailouts? For working, but low income people SROs could be a profitable business. For hundreds of years simple and inexpensive housing for workers on the low end of the economic scale has been in good supply in many areas, and has provided income to property owners, but it has largely disappeared in this country since the 1970s. I've already named a few reasons, but the most insidious one may simply be the spread of "middle class values."

While somebody at the bottom of the economic scale may be perfectly happy renting a clean, safe 100 sq ft room, with shared bath and toilet and no cooking facility, middle class values say that's not "decent" housing, so wrong minded reformers have led drives to eliminate Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing from their communities, not realizing that they are actually condemning some people to living in their cars or on the street as a result.

Yet there are some observers seeing a bit of a comeback for multiple SRO units, and even "boarding house" type accommodations, in which a homeowner rents out rooms in their home. Forbes had a recent article about how aging Baby Boomers are starting to turn to renting out rooms in their homes as a way to stay in their houses at retirement, and not have to downsize.

2. For people without incomes, or living on minimal disability benefits, getting them off the streets and into government supplied SRO housing can actually reduce costs to taxpayers, due to reductions in public health and public safety costs, as many cities are finding. And for places with a supply of dilapidated commercial buildings that can be converted into SROs is becoming a no brainer to do so.

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by OpenD

OK, so all the busboys and retail clerks and burger flippers and janitors and garbage men and fruit pickers and the like should just be rounded up and kicked off the islands? Then how are you going to fill the nasty jobs and the low skill service jobs except to raise all the wages? So why not raise the wages to a livable level to begin with? The problem with your "let them eat cake" attitude is that it doesn't work and can't work.

You naively think with your weakness that busboys, retail clerks, burger flippers, janitors, garbage men (who are very well paid by the way), and fruit pickers can't afford to live here. They can afford to live here and do so.

You are right - I have no compassion for drug addicts and alcoholics who can't hold a job. None. Nor those who didn't pursue any education or learn a trade. None. Or, the ones that habitually are lazy and milk the system as much as they can. Or, those who can't seen to understand the concept of birth control. None.

The ones who get a pass and should get help are those with severe mental illness or disabilities. The rest, I don't care. In this economy, any able bodied person can get a job in Hawaii. It may require them to actually try and actually work.

[Mikala43]

A huge portion of our homeless are people who do not want help. Places were available but they didn't want to move anywhere with rules (no drugs/drinking, curfew, etc.).

Oddly a lot of recent policy decisions were to help these groups FIRST, as opposed to families who are motivated to use it as a stepping stone and get back on their own feet.

I completely disagree with that, and think it is completely counter-productive. Huge amount of assets will be used to help those who do not want it. It's a waste of money,.

[hawaiian by heart]

@Mikala43

I appreciate what your saying rules like no drugs and alcohol and no violence i understand and make since while a homeless person is getting on his feet. What i have a problem with is punishing or dehumaning a homeless or poor person who uses a service. I have a guy who works for me who is disabled but instead of getting on SSI or SSD he works part time. He uses section 8 housing. Despite the fact that he almost pays 75% of fairmarket value on his place he is forced to live with rules like he can only have 12 overnight visitors in a year. He subjected to random u/a's if asked and has to verify his income and sobriety every 3 months. Now mind you this person has been sober for over a decade. Now i ask you. Would a normal landlord be able to get away with this? Further i agree to rules everyone has them but the real world isn't institutionalised.

As for the waste? Its a matter of perception. Think of all the jobs that would be lost if we were to cut programs and welfare etc? Any illness in society

[hawaiian by heart]

exists because someone is profiting from it.