City Council Allocates $2.8 Million... (Phoenix, Mesa: living, law, dangerous)

[john3232]

Originally Posted by 2410238

If we include all drug addicts as "mentally ill" then yeah. My experience with having been homeless is they're just all drug addicts. Resources are available but they really don't want to utilize them because they're perfectly fine having no responsibility as long as they can get high. Lots of homeless won't utilize shelters because they have rules (like a curfew)...

I've never been homeless I do remember a time in San Francisco when almost everyone on the streets clearly had some type of mental disorder. This began to change during the mid 80's when groups of people many in their 20's 30's and 40's took over downtown Civic Center. The Left said they were victims of Reaganomics but what I saw were people partying 24/7. Around this time panhandlers began to popping up on almost every major intersection throughout the city. At which point it was all downhill.


Today Homeless Inc. is big business in SF. and the amount of money the city squanders is mindboggling. 106k per homeless on the street is spent and the problem has never been worse.
https://www.hoover.org/research/only...public-toilets


Resources are available but they really don't want to utilize them because they're perfectly fine having no responsibility as long as they can get high. Lots of homeless won't utilize shelters because they have rules (like a curfew)...

In SF there are shelters where you can take a shower, sleep, receive mail ect but there are also rules: No drugs or alcohol for starters. Have an acquaintance who spent a year getting back on his feet in SF. He was willing to abide by the rules and within a few months moved from a shelter into a half-way house where he spent just over a year. He found a job in a car wash, saved his money and ultimately left SF.

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by john3232

I've never been homeless I do remember a time in San Francisco when almost everyone on the streets clearly had some type of mental disorder. This began to change during the mid 80's when groups of people many in their 30's took over downtown Civic Center. The Left said they were victims of Reaganomics but what I saw were people partying 24/7. Around this time panhandlers began to popping up on almost every major intersection throughout the city.

Today Homeless Inc. is big business in SF. and the amount of money the city squanders is mindboggling. 106k per homeless on the street is spent and the problem has never been worse.
https://www.hoover.org/research/only...public-toilets

Mind boggling how bad that is being handled.
That's why there's zero faith that the city (followed by many more fed buck$) will have a true impact.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by tijlover

Exactly! On a national average it costs taxpayers $42.5k a year to have one homeless person on our streets.

A homeless person is found dehydrated, he fell and broke his leg or hip, he overdosed, and off to the Emergency room he goes, and possibly to Rehab after that. Pretty darn expensive!

I worked in a LTC/Rehab facility and we were forever getting transfers from the Hospitals of homeless people.

I've been watching walking tours of cities around the world, and I'm mystified why I'm not seeing the homeless on the streets like our country, but then the Europeans spend a lot of money on social housing.

I'll never know why Americans accept homelessness as part of the scenery in this country.

It's not that we accept homelessness, but many of us don't believe that tossing more tax money, and/or beefing up government bureaucracy are effective solutions. Many homeless people are the way they are because of bad decisions, such as drug addiction, alcoholism, poor money management, and an extreme lack of motivation. How effective do you think millions more dollars will be when the existing funds for shelters & other services haven't been able to combat the problem?

I don't know what the solution is, unless more private charities could somehow become more involved. Many charitable organizations are available for those who are down on their luck, including the homeless. If shelters & services could be provided with private funds via charitable/corporate donations, then we should go that route. Then again, it's still no guarantee that the homeless would be any better off. Many of them simply don't care.

[tijlover]

^^

And, meanwhile, with that $42.5k a year we spend on one homeless person on our streets, we could take that money and build some shelters for them.

Salt Lake City, even being in a Republican state, has done an awesome job of getting the homeless off the streets.

If they go to prison, then we're looking at 40-50k per inmate, out of taxpayers wallets.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

It's not that we accept homelessness, but many of us don't believe that tossing more tax money, and/or beefing up government bureaucracy are effective solutions. Many homeless people are the way they are because of bad decisions, such as drug addiction, alcoholism, poor money management, and an extreme lack of motivation. How effective do you think millions more dollars will be when the existing funds for shelters & other services haven't been able to combat the problem?

I don't know what the solution is, unless more private charities could somehow become more involved. Many charitable organizations are available for those who are down on their luck, including the homeless. If shelters & services could be provided with private funds via charitable/corporate donations, then we should go that route. Then again, it's still no guarantee that the homeless would be any better off. Many of them simply don't care.

I don’t disagree with you^^^. I “vote” for whatever it (politically) takes to get people off the streets. I want it illegal to live on the street and for it enforced. I don’t want to worry about getting stabbed or have to look over my shoulder while I am being followed by a homeless person walking behind me or literally smell p_ss on the streets. So charge everyone working a homeless tax of $250 a year. Mismanaged or not, my problem is solved.

Hell, when I lived in Surprise, homeless people were camped out by Bashes a couple blocks away. Though the Surprise police didn’t a great job at vacating them (4 Surprise police officer neighbors in our hood helped).

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

It's not that we accept homelessness, but many of us don't believe that tossing more tax money, and/or beefing up government bureaucracy are effective solutions. Many homeless people are the way they are because of bad decisions, such as drug addiction, alcoholism, poor money management, and an extreme lack of motivation. How effective do you think millions more dollars will be when the existing funds for shelters & other services haven't been able to combat the problem?

I don't know what the solution is, unless more private charities could somehow become more involved. Many charitable organizations are available for those who are down on their luck, including the homeless. If shelters & services could be provided with private funds via charitable/corporate donations, then we should go that route. Then again, it's still no guarantee that the homeless would be any better off. Many of them simply don't care.

And at the same time you folks don't come up with any workable solutions.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

I don’t disagree with you^^^. I “vote” for whatever it (politically) takes to get people off the streets. I want it illegal to live on the street and for it enforced. I don’t want to worry about getting stabbed or have to look over my shoulder while I am being followed by a homeless person walking behind me or literally smell p_ss on the streets. So charge everyone working a homeless tax of $250 a year. Mismanaged or not, my problem is solved.

Hell, when I lived in Surprise, homeless people were camped out by Bashes a couple blocks away. Though the Surprise police didn’t a great job at vacating them (4 Surprise police officer neighbors in our hood helped).

I love talking to the homeless, some of the most interesting people you'll meet. Fascinating, actually, how they can live year round without a roof over their heads.

There's homeless in my area, most of them house themselves under the bridges of the Washes, and I've never, for a minute, felt unsafe around the homeless. The poorest of the poor I always feel safe with.

I took 5 chicken bus trips around Central America, only Gringo in the bus or at the bus depot. and no incidences to report all 5 trips.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by tijlover

I love talking to the homeless, some of the most interesting people you'll meet. Fascinating, actually, how they can live year round without a roof over their heads.

There's homeless in my area, most of them house themselves under the bridges of the Washes, and I've never, for a minute, felt unsafe around the homeless. The poorest of the poor I always feel safe with.

I took 5 chicken bus trips around Central America, only Gringo in the bus or at the bus depot. and no incidences to report all 5 trips.

On Main/Recker in Mesa there is a Walgreens and across the street is a Jack in the Box. It's not unusual to see people pushing a shopping cart and milling about the area after dark. Twice I've been confronted by a young man asking for change and talking a mile a minute. Meth would be my guess.

In any event I stay away after dark.


I took 5 chicken bus trips around Central America, only Gringo in the bus or at the bus depot. and no incidences to report all 5 trips.

Central America, Thailand, Cambodia, Philippines, an American traveling away from the tourist spots into areas where much of the population is dirt poor is asking for trouble. You can get killed for a $50 camera.

[FlurryCat]

Originally Posted by john3232

Central America, Thailand, Cambodia, Philippines, an American traveling away from the tourist spots into areas where much of the population is dirt poor is asking for trouble. You can get killed for a $50 camera.

But the odds are that ya probably won't. Let go of the fear and live a little.

[pantstofry]

[mod cut - off topic]

But anyway to be on topic, I'm an advocate for spending on solutions for homeless only if there's a stringent budget on how the money is spent. Too often it just gets thrown away on frivolities or positions that do next to nothing of actual value, or feel-good measures. I could go on and on but that's just my simple 2 cents.