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.
For all we know there was a fire at an encampment and a lot of homeless died or were simply trucked up to San Francisco.
Cincinnati has a higher than average homeless population because as a homeless puke from another city told me, it's one of the few cities where you can get 3 free meals 7 days a week.
That's possible because of the number of social welfare organizations (including churches) that enable homelessness.
Feeding the homeless does not solve the problem. It only encourages it.
The only way to solve the problem is Reservations. You can put one in Montana.
1) The mentally ill on a Reservation get their needs met in a one-stop shop. The mentally ill cause an enormous amount of property damage and other petty crimes resulting in waste and lost resources, and they interfere with businesses and residents but on a Reservation that would be impossible. They will never be "givers" in society but at least they would no longer be "takers."
2) The substance abusers on a Reservation get their needs met in a one-stop shop. Working is not conducive to the intense psycho-therapy they need to move beyond their petty fears and stop self-medicating. Contrary to Liberal commercials, people aren't addicted because of their brains they're addicted because they self-medicate and they self-medicate because they have emotional/mental illnesses. Having them take a 7 year time out from life to get their act together is not asking too much.
3) For everyone else, the paddy wagons cruising around picking up the homeless to take them to the Reservation will instill the proper motivation to get them to use the common sense insects have.
Long afterward, Reagan admitted that it was a mistake to release so many mental patients so quickly.
And yet the mentally ill hail Reagan as a hero.
Who on this forum would like to know why?
Closing the mental institutions forced the mentally ill to adopt coping strategies to live in the outside world.
Did they adopt the best coping strategies 100% of the time? Nope. Where all their coping skills beneficial? Nope.
But -- and here's the thing -- being outside the institution allowed the mentally ill to network with other mentally ill and learn other coping strategies and skills that did work by sharing their experiences which they were not allowed to do while institutionalized.
And more than that, there was a fundamental shift in Group-Think.
The mentally ill were not treated with dignity and respect until Reagan came along.
Now, for the first time ever, the mentally ill not only participated in their treatment plan, they were allowed to craft their own treatment plan with guidance from a mental health professional to move them toward some semblance of a normal life.
Even better, Americans were not forced to confront mental illness instead of pretending it didn't exist.
Mental illness has been destigmatized to a great extent and many are realizing that the antiquated mentality of suffer in silence and real people don't ask other people for help and fading away.
That what you get for keeping interest rates ridiculously low for decades - making money available to people who scooped up housing for short term rentals
The interest rates did not create the money. There is an animal called Interest Inflation. It affects those things tied to interest rates.
It does not create mo' money in spite of your claim, but it does enhance purchasing power.
$250,000 for 30 years at 6% is $1,498/month.
$250,000 for 30 years at 3% is $1,054/month.
There are several implications from that. One implication is that if you can afford $1,498/month at any interest rate then at 3% you can afford $350,000.
Instead of buying a $250,000 home you can buy a $350,000 home.
The effect of that is -- assuming you understand reality -- there are more than 600,000 housing markets in the US. You are limited for the most part (usually by your job) to only a few housing markets and if you are limited by a price-tag of $250,000 then in your locale where there might be 30-40 housing markets you might be looking at 5-8 markets because of price.
You reject the other markets in your locale because they are too expensive, or because the housing is too old or in a bad neighborhood or has poor schools or lacks the amenities you want.
Increasing your purchasing power to $350,000 allows you to look in markets you were previously shut out of.
You couldn't afford the markets were homes were $275,000 to $320,000 but now you can afford them and that increases demand where none existed before or above normal levels and since there's now 100 people wanting the house that is $320,000 the home seller can get $350,000 because people are willing to pay it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L00k4ward
The solutions?
- Immediately prohibit to turn residential housing into short term type rentals like VRBO and AB&B everywhere.
We have enough of hotels and resorts everywhere
That's very Stalinist/Command Market.
In the Free Market, AB&B exist because there is a demand for them. Why should I stay at a hotel just because you're uncomfortable with AB&B's?
Who are you to dictate how many hotels and resorts there should be?
One reason AB&B exists is because hotels and resorts are not where people want them to be not to mention not all resorts are cool places to hang out. Just because the Media or some cable channel says a resort is cool isn't proof that it actually is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L00k4ward
- Regulate/limit foreign investors buying up residential housing.
Why? Are you anti-Free Market or are you a fair-weather Free Market supporter?
Foreign investors do not diminish housing. The housing is still there and in the Free Market a lot of people prefer to rent rather than buy so it meets their needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L00k4ward
- instead of building new housing: rehab cities and towns with empty housing.
More Stalinism.
Government sucks at picking winners and losers and government loses far more often than it ever wins and it rarely wins.
In Cincinnati, the city council picked Main Street as the entertainment district and pumped lots of tax-payer money into it.
The Free Market picked Vine Street.
Vine Street won. Everything on Main Street is closed/out-of-business.
All that tax-payer money could have been used for something worthwhile but I'm sure a handful of lobbyists and political backers profited handsomely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L00k4ward
All sections 8, senior, low -income housing where people DO NOT PAY ANY RENT or symbolic rent should be assisted to move to those towns. Those people are obviously not working due to a number of reasons - so we don’t need to create jobs for them there.
That's very Ceausescu-like.
Who on this forum would like to know why low-income housing for seniors and worthless class is where it is?
In a word: Services.
They don't have cars. They often don't need cars 'cause after your stroke when you're in a wheely-chair a car isn't something you can drive.
They need bus service. They need taxi service so your Medicaid Dollars can take them to the casinos to gamble away the tax-dollars that you gave them. They need close access to lots of other stuff like medical care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L00k4ward
However, the best part - the government jobs created to provide service to low income or non-working people - will move to those blighted areas and brings jobs and money for rehabilitation of those struggling areas.
That might happen on Planet Dream out in the Dream Nebula in the Dream Galaxy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L00k4ward
Make it illegal to camp when we have plenty of housing in different locales.
It should be illegal to camp period because it is a health hazard.
Closing the mental institutions forced the mentally ill to adopt coping strategies to live in the outside world.
Did they adopt the best coping strategies 100% of the time? Nope. Where all their coping skills beneficial? Nope.
But -- and here's the thing -- being outside the institution allowed the mentally ill to network with other mentally ill and learn other coping strategies and skills that did work by sharing their experiences which they were not allowed to do while institutionalized.
And more than that, there was a fundamental shift in Group-Think.
The mentally ill were not treated with dignity and respect until Reagan came along.
Now, for the first time ever, the mentally ill not only participated in their treatment plan, they were allowed to craft their own treatment plan with guidance from a mental health professional to move them toward some semblance of a normal life.
Even better, Americans were not forced to confront mental illness instead of pretending it didn't exist.
Mental illness has been destigmatized to a great extent and many are realizing that the antiquated mentality of suffer in silence and real people don't ask other people for help and fading away.
We threw the baby out with the bath water. We have masses of unfunctioning mentally ill today who can only network with a meth pipe.
Where is the middle ground, giving the mentally ill the benefit of the doubt to function independently, but then instituionalize those ones who cannot?
Where is the middle ground, giving the mentally ill the benefit of the doubt to function independently, but then instituionalize those ones who cannot?
I agree re: middle ground that neither institutionalizes the mentally-ill nor dumps them onto the streets to fend for themselves (and be on display for others, some of whom are self-righteously appalled by homeless persons’ behavior).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Closing the mental institutions forced the mentally ill to adopt coping strategies to live in the outside world.
Statistically speaking, relative to homelessness and mental illness, we can see no treatment/shelter whatsoever is certainly not the answer i.e. ignorance is not bliss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
But -- and here's the thing -- being outside the institution allowed the mentally ill to network with other mentally ill and learn other coping strategies and skills that did work by sharing their experiences which they were not allowed to do while institutionalized.
What a bizarre (and disturbing) statement. (The type of) mental illness that is associated with chronic homelessness will not miraculously improve by way of ‘networking’ with others who are mentally-ill and/or drug-addicted sans identification and treatment of such. In fact, it tends to worsen it.
Sorry but seeing people sleeping on the sidewalk in neighborhood where I owned (outer Sunset) was something new.
How do you know they weren't steered there?
Seriously, how do you know it isn't a policy of your local police department to relocate them from one area to your area? I mention that because such policies do exist, although I don't know for a fact that is the case where you are.
It's a common Liberal tactic right out of Lenin's Red Book to manufacture problems where none exist in order to manufacture a "solution" for non-existent problem and that "solution" always involves more government control and interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
The problem is simply far more prevalent in the more urban areas and downtown areas as compared to neighborhoods like mine,....
Thank you for admitting Liberal policies are part of the problem.
The only reason you have major urban areas is because the Liberal policies of HUD and DOT created them.
Left to their own devices --- yeah, I'm talking about the Free Market --- those problems would not exist.
HUD and DOT through their Liberal policies violated the inviolable Laws of Economics.
When you violate the Laws of Economics, one or more people suffer. They may not suffer tomorrow or next week or next year or even next decade, but ultimately they will suffer and pay the penalty whether they like it or not.
You cannot stop the penalties exacted by the Laws of Economics any more than you can stop Earth from orbiting the Sun so it's pointless to even try and the only thing trying gets you is more suffering.
For all things in this Universe there is a carrying capacity whether it is a census tract, zip code, township, municipality, county, state or country.
There is a maximum number of people those locales will hold without over-taxing resources to the extent that there are not enough resources.
The Liberal policies of HUD and DOT violated that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I've never been too big on addressing a wall of comment like this.
Most Liberals are overwhelmed with facts and reality and thus disdain them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
As the article also notes, a third of all America's homeless is in California.
Did it ever occur to you that weather is a huge draw?
How many of those homeless pukes are native to California?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
If I were to preside over any group gathered to address the problems identified in this thread, the first thing I would do is insist no one refer to policies with labels like "liberal" or "right wing."
But they are so, whether you like it or not. Nothing like denying reality.
Any policy created is either based on Capitalist or Socialist Property Theories and/or Free Market or Command Market Economic Systems.
That is simply unavoidable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Blaming the other guys without the specifics is also right up there with the rest of the unproductive nonsense.
Liberals created the Department of Housing & Urban Development which then violated the Laws of Economics and also Free Market principles by taking money from everyone else and lavishing that money on literally a handful of metropolitan areas -- 0.46% of all metropolitan areas -- which is the root cause of the problems there.
That is undeniable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
So it's "thanks to liberals," for example, that we can't force feed drugs to people?
Then you admit to not having read the relevant court decisions by Liberal judges appointed by Liberals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
What does the alternative look like I wonder? It is a "choice" that someone is mentally ill to the point they don't take proper medication? The choice is what to do about that.
Certain persons have mental illnesses that are permanent. They will be mentally ill until the day they die and they will die sooner on the streets than they would on a Reservation.
I don't care if they take their meds or not. I only care that they do not harm themselves; that they do not harm others; that they do not interfere in the lives of others; and that they are treated with some dignity and respect.
Put them on the Reservation. They get a cot and 3 hots. Structure. Supervision. Medical care. Psychiatric care. They can wander around freely. They can have a little garden if they want. They can play with the animals if they want. They can watch TV.
The only thing they can't do is be a nuisance and harm others and cause $10s of $1,000s in property damage every year, because they're on the Reservation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
This about comparing to Indian reservations is truly rich as well.
You completely dodged the issue as I knew you would. It's a Reservation which is not a prison or a mental institution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Do liberals claim 28-day programs are successful? As if everyone is not aware what happens to most drug abusers after initial attempts at rehab? This about the abusers recognized by the VA 25 years ago somehow needs explaining far as you are concerned? This too something I don't understand?
Obviously you don't. You live in a glass bubble. You've never been around schizophrenics, those with schizo-affective disorder, bi-polar, PTSD, depression disorders, anxiety disorders, personality disorders, etc etc.
You've never been around people with dual-diagnosis which is the aforementioned people who also have a substance abuse problem because they're trying to medicate their problem with drugs and alcohol.
You've never been on a DV call. Never seen a spiral fracture in a child (that's where someone twisted their arm so hard it broke). Never been in combat. Never spent any time around homeless people or people who were homeless.
You think you just wave a magic wand or throw money at it or say nice things and it's all better.
Doesn't work that way. The seriously mentally ill will never get better but everyone can but then only if they want to get better and many of them don't.
Change is scary and frightening because people have to get out of their comfort zones and mental illness/substance abuse that got them into their comfort zones. First day of in-patient PTSD there were 12 of us and one guy said it was BS and left. The rest of us completed all 7 weeks. Did it help? A little. Not as much as the year I spent in prolonged exposure therapy, but that was a helluva lot of work. It was so much work I only did one contract they entire year (not that I needed the money.)
It also requires an environment that is supportive and conducive to change and the majority don't have that. Other people don't want them to change because they're using them and if those people change then they can't use them and if they can't use them, then what the hell good are they? Yeah, there's a lot of emotionally ill people out there.
That's where the Reservation comes in handy. They're in a supportive conducive environment and the only thing they got to do is work on themselves and if they don't wanna, then sucks to be them at least they're not sucking up and wasting resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Sorry but as I read further down the line of your rather "special" take about what is all the fault of liberals, I've really got to stop here, because it's a big pile of garbage from the start, as already noted.
And you have countered with no facts. Your unconditional surrender is accepted.
Nice spin try! Gotta give you the gonzo prize on this one! Lol
The linkage between immigration and sustained positive economic growth is pretty well documented. Both in the US and around the world. The same cannot be said for homeless populations. If there was less immigration, there would be fewer homes built in the first place (both by and for immigrants). If there was fewer homeless...probably no change whatsoever on either count.
I've wasted a little too much time in another thread this morning such that I'm out of time for more, but I want to consider your most recent comment a bit further than I can right now. Perhaps if/when time allows tomorrow. Until then, thanks for your ongoing contributions here. A subject "near and dear" to most of us.
Be us liberals or conservatives...
I wouldn't call it near and dear, I'd call it a matter of good governance. Approximately .2% of the US is homeless. In California, about 4% of ER visits and 8% of hospitalizations are homeless, and there's been many remarks that those not in hospitals are not necessarily well. That number goes much higher at certain hospitals in the cities. Zuck's hospital is nearly 20% for example. Except ER rooms are not meant for general wellness. Zuck's competitors have a significant advantage if they keep that burden on one group. Bakersfield had an estimate that 44% of the region's fires were caused by homeless. Certainly a high percent of San Francisco's errant fecal matter routinely left on the streets is from the homeless.
So what's cheaper? If the 99.8% all spent .2% more to take care of the homeless population....that seems doable doesn't it? But we all know that it will cost more than that.
In Mircea's follow-ups exemplify the other side well. People get sick and tired of homeless breaking laws. They get sick and tired of valuable resources being squandered. In reading those writings, one would think he's ready for a purge. Still, when the government spends money on individuals, there really does need to be accountability or we'll never have the stability needed to have this safety net not be in constant flux.
Plus, it's great to have multiple groups trying different things. But, it's just as important to not turn bad approaches into profitable businesses, complete with giant payrolls of people not doing value added work...and it's tough to ensure that in a not for profit environment. Plus, there's the very real effect of the net losers in a situation. The guy barely making it work in an SRO unassisted can easily be upset at seeing neighbors move in on the government dime. Just like raising the minimum wage up to $15 rankled some who had been at $14 and now were back at the bottom with everyone else.
The good news is, California had a bad homeless problem before. They were inundated with "Okies" looking to escape dire circumstances here in America. The conditions were terrible. The locals were upset that protective measures took away their Mexican labor that would migrate during season and then leave. These Okies were here to stay.....and that meant competition for jobs and resources. And eventually, a great many of them went on to become part of the working community and contribute just fine.
We have an opportunity to get some of the homeless back into contributing members of society. We also have an opportunity to get some homeless that cannot care for themselves into a better situation that isn't so expensive.
Whether you do it for compassion, law and order or you are interested in fiscal decency, all can win with accountability in finding what is actually working, who is actually executing well and boxing out those that are just profiting off of misery. Spending the money on resources that have the most impact....and allowing different groups to try different approaches for those critical service gaps that otherwise exist.
We can argue until the dogs come home about if the best answer is a specialized hospital, a nightstick, a physical place, a dry out facility. How much more/less is needed. We'll know more when we start keeping track.
I only used the term "liberal policies" because it had been used before me. I'm afraid this tangent changed the discourse of the conversation.
A count of the homeless will inevitably be imperfect....and frankly....not as important as tracking a specific group. If I am a diocese working with homeless in community x, that's the target point. We know of 48 individuals who are homeless. 18 fall into areas we believe we can help if we have additional resources. We can help these 18 people with funding of $240,000 of programs we know how to do.
Charity X believes it can help 29 of the people, but it will require $4.3M to do. The overlap between the two organizations is 5 of the people that can be helped by either party.
When you have a projection, you can have assumptions. These are later compared against actuals. If the diocese is funded, and indeed they manage to help all 18 to become housed members that can stay in society, they are definitely worth listening to again when the problem is re-evaluated. If 60 additional people become homeless during that time, that's not on them. They're getting it done. At the same time, if Charity X only manages to help 7 of their targeted people. Maybe they are simply not good at their job.
The shutdowns were terribly rough on key groups and we had a huge upswing of endangered families. Yes, there was a moratorium on rent evictions, but that didn't make the problem go away, it only deferred it. I had a long time tenant whose family were all banned from working. So they "moved out" and were homeless (for about as long as it took for the inspection to take place) and then moved back in with vouchers.
I obviously would agree this was good to keep a family from becoming unhoused, but did it really take a homeless family off the street?
Besides, I think when most think of the homeless problem growing, it has a lot to do with the growing sense of entitlement of some and the lack of law enforcement to separate people from those that are simply taking land and public spaces and allowed to do things that any other citizen would be arrested for doing. Unfortunately, the homeless will be seen monolithically by most people....and so long as this is the front runner....perception is going to be angry. Nobody wants that behavior spreading to their communities.
I mostly agree and very well realize the more data that can be collected about any problem will usually allow for better policy with respect to addressing the problem. Around where I live there are numerous agencies who do their best to collect that kind of information so that an intelligent approach to mitigating homelessness can be made possible. There is obviously some pleasure to see the latest numbers going down instead of up more generally speaking, and I'm quite sure that those tasked with addressing the homeless problem around here are doing what they can to "connect the dots" as to what's working and what's not. To the extent possible.
What liberal polices often do is exacerbate the problems by allowing them to continue/grow.
I've mentioned a homeless encampment near a rental property I own in Mesa, Az I am providing a photo (click link) which gives an idea of what I'm talking about. Something had to be done. Never mind the needles or stolen Amazon packages. If left uncheck this could have turned into a serious health hazard for the neighborhood. Fortunately, the city of Mesa bulldozed the area. https://ibb.co/YyGSgGf
I know of no liberal policies that are in place to allow homeless encampments to grow. Specifics please...
I also don't know of any liberal policies that promote the needles you are referring to or Amazon packages to be stolen. Again specifics please. What policies are these?
What I do know is that many areas are struggling with the resources necessary to provide more or better enforcement, ways to prevent crime besides incarceration and if incarceration, how to manage the numbers both in terms of court time/resources, jail times and capacities. All in order not to make the problem of a revolving door of people simply being put back on the street without much in the way of end result progress. Never mind the costs and concerns about raising taxes that no one is really comfortable with.
We all know of fairly significant homeless encampments that have been cleared. Some of those stories shared in this thread, but clearing homeless encampments doesn't reduce the number or do much other than push the problem on to somewhere else. That's not a policy either. It's an outcome resulting from the fact that simply clearing homeless encampments doesn't work like people want to believe.
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.
