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.
California politicians don't want to house hundreds of thousands of criminals, many of whom are minorities.
Ronald Reagan didn't want to house schizophrenics and closed all mental institutions. Now, they roam streets and shout to women and children, "I'll kill you!"
De-institutionalization of the mentally ill starting in the 1960’s. This movement started in Europe, and was supported by President Kennedy and a decision by a SCOTUS opinion and civil liberty concerns over forced treatment of citizens against their will.
Governor Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act in 1967, pretty much ending the practice of institutionalizing patients against their will. This was in 1967. nothing prevented any future governor or legislature from undoing the law. So don't blame Reagan for something that happened over 50 years ago.
So here we are, do we want to institutionalize people against their will now? Seems like we should if they commit crimes. But what about people who have never committed violence, or threatened violence against anyone? Should we lock people up against their will, from the assumption by some doctor who thinks they might become violent?
De-institutionalization of the mentally ill starting in the 1960’s. This movement started in Europe, and was supported by President Kennedy and a decision by a SCOTUS opinion and civil liberty concerns over forced treatment of citizens against their will.
Governor Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act in 1967, pretty much ending the practice of institutionalizing patients against their will. This was in 1967. nothing prevented any future governor or legislature from undoing the law. So don't blame Reagan for something that happened over 50 years ago.
So here we are, do we want to institutionalize people against their will now? Seems like we should if they commit crimes. But what about people who have never committed violence, or threatened violence against anyone? Should we lock people up against their will, from the assumption by some doctor who thinks they might become violent?
Nailed it. The whole Reagan blame game is tiring and wrong.
It is a myth that Reagan closed the mental institutions. The laws to do so were passed under Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Moonbeam's daddy. He was sued by the ACLU and others to do so, and he did. The closing simply finished under Reagan's administration, but was well under way with Daddy Brown.
It is not as though it was Governor Reagan's idea or decision.
Beyond that, Reagan was governor of only one state. How about the other 49 states closing mental institutions?
The myth that Reagan closed the mental institutions is just another lie foisted on us by the mainstream media.
Here is an article by the NY Times in 1984, before they became an outright wing of the Democrat party. Even The NY Times recognizes that the number of locked up mentally ill fell dramatically before Reagan was inaugurated.
HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN
In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved.
''They've gone far, too far, in letting people out,'' Brown said in an interview.
I always thought it was Lyndon Johnson era. When I was a kid in the 1950s and 60s, there was a state mental hospital and no homeless people. The patients who were able, could leave to go downtown, just like anyone else, but then they went back to the hospital where they had care, food and shelter. Their “rights” were probably violated because they weren’t allowed to live in a cardboard box in the sidewalk.
I always thought it was Lyndon Johnson era. When I was a kid in the 1950s and 60s, there was a state mental hospital and no homeless people. The patients who were able, could leave to go downtown, just like anyone else, but then they went back to the hospital where they had care, food and shelter. Their “rights” were probably violated because they weren’t allowed to live in a cardboard box in the sidewalk.
Here's what compassion looks like now, instead of putting these people in a hospital where doctors and nurses can provide them with care.
And if people think hospitals would cost too much, as yourself how much tax revenue and jobs are lost due to homeless crime and filth driving away jobs, businesses and citizens who flee the city. Then ask how much a life is worth, as these homeless people kill themselves or others.
If they rented an Air BNB they might. When most families rent houses at the shore, they cook a lot of their meals. I for one think breakfast out is a waste of money. So I'd make my own eggs and eat dinner out. I would also want to be able to go get my specific coffee creamer, and things like that.
I can agree to that regarding families. Kids require a lot of food throughout the day to keep them happy.
Well, in that particular Chicago suburb the annual real estate tax rate is 1.9% of fair market value, so do the math. IL, in general, has very high real estate taxes. The state average is 2.08%.
By law, there are caps on how much the tax RATE can increase, but what really determines the tax bills are increases (or decreases, and that will eventually happen) in a residential property's fair market value.
I did the math. That's why I was asking...
So the property you are using as an example valued at about $1.9 million then? Around here a property of that value would have a property tax of about $19,000/year. Which is a bit much for just about any less than wealthy American to pay annually, but of course the cap matters. A lot. When did you buy the property and at what value? How does it work in Chicago, because if the rate were not capped here in California where our home is now worth about that much, my wife and I would not be wanting or willing to pay that much in property tax per year either. That'd be a game changer for sure, and we've got a good many years of living here still in front of us. No doubt with more appreciation to be expected if the past is any indication about what to expect in the future. Fortunately, we're still paying the rate based on the purchase value of our property over 10 years ago now. As we can expect to do for the rest of our days here. Thank goodness!
Here's what compassion looks like now, instead of putting these people in a hospital where doctors and nurses can provide them with care.
And if people think hospitals would cost too much, as yourself how much tax revenue and jobs are lost due to homeless crime and filth driving away jobs, businesses and citizens who flee the city. Then ask how much a life is worth, as these homeless people kill themselves or others.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken
As you probably know, the law requires there be available housing or shelter before the homeless can be forced off the streets. Somewhere for them to go. Needless to say, no matter how anyone might think to force homeless people off the street, they've got to go somewhere. In some of the more conservative areas, the answer to that problem is to simply give them a one-way ticket (or air plane ride) to somewhere else. There's a rather affluent area not too far from our town (our town is not exactly a low-cost of living area either), and they are known for shipping their homeless to our town where the attitude toward the homeless is more what "compassion looks like."
Problem is, we take the law and the problem seriously and know better than to think there are any easy answers. Especially that don't take a good amount of money, which is also where a lot of conservatives balk. Here, we've got homeless shelters and all kinds of programs to help the homeless, but there simply is not enough low-cost housing or shelters where the homeless can be housed. As a result, we have the problem of homeless encampments popping up here and there with little end in sight as other areas ship their homeless here where we do try to treat them like human beings rather than a plague.
So I ask you, what is the REAL solution? If you were the king here in our area, how would you address the homeless problem? I mean seriously, financially and humanely?
I'm very curious what the conservative solution might be other than the ones that are really not solutions at all...
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.
