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.
It’s an interesting study, but at the end of the day I predict will be another leftist failure. There is a reason most (not all) of these folks are homeless. They can’t manage life including money, responsibility etc. Giving them money will most likely just see it wasted. I would predict it will help a small % get off the street, those who just had bad luck and ended up there but are otherwise responsible.
Cities like San Francisco have already tried the “extended” helping hand approach and it has proven a failure. I think one of the problems is these cities try to take a one size fits all approach. There are homeless who are homeless for different reasons and therefore need a customized approach.
I couldn't agree more. I have been a volunteer at a local VA hospital for almost 8 years now, we have a feed the homeless veteran program.
I have to say there is definitely a reason why they are homeless. Giving them money is not a solution, it sounds enabling, not empowering to me.
With this said, if money is a solution, how about giving every homeless in that area equal amount. Totally unnecessary to discriminate against men.
The closure of sanitariums was due to funding and negative public perception. They had a reputation of treating their patients cruelly. Reform would have been a better solution than closing them down, which is what caused the mentally ill to end up on the streets.
The NYT has an interesting feature called the "Times Machine" where you can look up and read articles from times past. In this case I discovered an article from 1984 that is every bit as relevant now as it was back then. "How release of Mental Patients Began" The NYT allows me to make a "gift" of this article, so here you go, P&OC forum and don't say I never did anything for you!
Here are some snippets from a very fascinating article that anyone who is interested in this subject might find it worthwhile to read:
Quote:
THE policy that led to the release of most of the nation's mentally ill patients from the hospital to the community is now widely regarded as a major failure. Sweeping critiques of the policy, notably the recent report of the American Psychiatric Association, have spread the blame everywhere, faulting politicians, civil libertarian lawyers and psychiatrists.
A detailed picture has emerged from a series of interviews and a review of public records, research reports and institutional recommendations. The picture is one of cost-conscious policy makers, who were quick to buy optimistic projections that were, in some instances, buttressed by misinformation and by a willingness to suspend skepticism.
The records show that the politicians were dogged by the image and financial problems posed by the state hospitals and that the scientific and medical establishment sold Congress and the state legislatures a quick fix for a complicated problem that was bought sight unseen.
Dr. John A. Talbott, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said, ''The psychiatrists involved in the policy making at that time certainly oversold community treatment, and our credibility today is probably damaged because of it.'' He said the policies ''were based partly on wishful thinking, partly on the enormousness of the problem and the lack of a silver bullet to resolve it, then as now.''
The original policy changes were backed by scores of national professional and philanthropic organizations and several hundred people prominent in medicine, academia and politics. The belief then was widespread that the same scientific researchers who had conjured up antibiotics and vaccines during the outburst of medical discovery in the 50's and 60's had also developed penicillins to cure psychoses and thus revolutionize the treatment of the mentally ill.
(much more at the link I gave above)
We have recognized that putting the mentally ill out on the streets was a bad idea for over 40 years at least and still after all this time, we are as far away from a solution as ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
I do not agree that we should provide housing for "true" homeless people, as that will create a system ripe with abuse. As for the safety issue, I do believe we should have segregated shelters. Only women should operate and utilize a women's shelter, and only men should operate and utilize a men's shelter.
I have come to realize that, sometimes, discrimination is warranted.
You stated in your OP that 95% of the homeless people on our city streets WANT to be homeless. Fine, if true then why bother to provide shelters for them? Provide housing assistance for whatever per cent it is of those who do NOT want to be homeless and find some other way of dealing with the rest. Our disagreement here is in terms of numbers. You say 95% want to be homeless and I say 95% want to get off the streets. Perhaps we will one day know what the actual percentages are. We don't seem to now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
This program should be offered to anyone that is homeless. Yet, the organization admits it is mainly looking for women, transgender, or non-binary people to award. From The Daily Mail: "The participants - which will mainly be women, transgender and gender non-confirming individuals - will be chosen at random after applying and will more than likely begin receiving payments starting in November, according to ABC 7 Denver."
Men are homeless, too. Discrimination is not warranted, here.
It is my understanding from reading through the story that at this point the program is experimental. They want to see if doing such things would actually help, so they are starting out with a relatively small experimental group. I have no problem with this. If the results of this program warrant it, then I agree that it should be offered to all those experiencing homelessness who want to get back on their feet.
You stated in your OP that 95% of the homeless people on our city streets WANT to be homeless. Fine, if true then why bother to provide shelters for them? Provide housing assistance for whatever per cent it is of those who do NOT want to be homeless and find some other way of dealing with the rest. Our disagreement here is in terms of numbers. You say 95% want to be homeless and I say 95% want to get off the streets. Perhaps we will one day know what the actual percentages are. We don't seem to now.
No, I did not state that 95% of homeless people want to be homeless, I said they choose to. There is a difference. The only people who do not wish to be homeless are people who unexpectedly fall on hard times. Mentally ill people and drug addicts choose to be homeless, although their mental capacity that made that decision can be questioned.
Perhaps my percentage is high, though I only meant to convey that a majority of people who are homeless are so by choice.
The closure of sanitariums was due to funding and negative public perception. They had a reputation of treating their patients cruelly. Reform would have been a better solution than closing them down, which is what caused the mentally ill to end up on the streets.
It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.
This changed in the 1960s and 70s.
In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentally ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.
The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.
When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".
From Wikipedia:
The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:
•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;
•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;
•To guarantee and protect public safety;
•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;
•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;
•To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;
•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.
The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.
Is this sponsored by the Mexican drug cartels or the Denver-based liquor stores and pot dispensaries?
I cannot believe they forgot the 'BIPOC' people...
From the article:
At what point do people realize that 95% of homeless people are homeless by choice? There are three types of homeless people. The mentally ill, drug addicts, and people who fall on hard times. To end homelessness, sanitariums need to come back. Some people are not fit for society, but do not belong in prison. Send the mentally ill there, send the legitimately homeless people to shelters to get back on their feet, and then criminalize "living on the streets". Most drug addicts do not want to seek help, which is their right, but with homelessness being criminalized, they will not be allowed to live on the streets.
See, it is not that difficult to solve.
But it is really difficult to solve. To conservatives, it's the moochers, the homeless, vs the producers, the hard workers. Conservatives will certainly side with the hard workers every time and always reject the homeless moochers as disgusting human scum. Like it or not, when conservatives aren't looking down upon immigrants, illegal or not, it's homeless American citizens.
But it is really difficult to solve. To conservatives, it's the moochers, the homeless, vs the producers, the hard workers. Conservatives will certainly side with the hard workers every time and always reject the homeless moochers as disgusting human scum. Like it or not, when conservatives aren't looking down upon immigrants, illegal or not, it's homeless American citizens.
Do you agree the solution is to give them a lot of stuff?
What is your solution?
Should they be allowed to live amongst the general population, & live off fo them/us, while not doing their fair share to contribute to society? How is that fair to the rest of us?
If they are physically, or psychologically unable to care for themselves, or contribute in any way, then as a compassionate conservative, I'm all for helping them, while also removing them from the streets.
As I mentioned earlier, I know someone who would benefit from this program. She fell on very hard times and is living in a shelter while also working, but housing is just not affordable. She is not mentally ill, but life in the shelter is taking its toll. I do not know her to use drugs or alcohol. I met her at our local library a couple of years ago and have had fairly regular contact with her ever since. I sometimes take her to appointments when public transportation is not an option because she doesn't have a car. Twelve thousand dollars would made a huge difference for her and help her get back on her feet.
As I mentioned earlier, I know someone who would benefit from this program. She fell on very hard times and is living in a shelter while also working, but housing is just not affordable. She is not mentally ill, but life in the shelter is taking its toll. I do not know her to use drugs or alcohol. I met her at our local library a couple of years ago and have had fairly regular contact with her ever since. I sometimes take her to appointments when public transportation is not an option because she doesn't have a car. Twelve thousand dollars would made a huge difference for her and help her get back on her feet.
Sounds made up, but anyway why dont you take her in?
As I mentioned earlier, I know someone who would benefit from this program. She fell on very hard times and is living in a shelter while also working, but housing is just not affordable. She is not mentally ill, but life in the shelter is taking its toll. I do not know her to use drugs or alcohol. I met her at our local library a couple of years ago and have had fairly regular contact with her ever since. I sometimes take her to appointments when public transportation is not an option because she doesn't have a car. Twelve thousand dollars would made a huge difference for her and help her get back on her feet.
I wish her good luck.
And I am not trying to be mean. I wonder if you would even talk to her if she is not a woman. The reason I am asking this is because homeless men especially older men are neglected by this program.
Personally, I doubt giving money to all the homeless people will help. It sounds like enabling not empowering. But it sounds like your friend is a good candidate of this program.
All these being said, if if if money is the solution, why not give all homeless equal amount in that area.
What about homeless older men?
Sad
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.
