Why is Portland so infested with homeless? (legal, food)

[Homelessadvocate]

Originally Posted by oldtintype

So now you have a landlord? So much for being homeless. Story changes each time.

Boy some of you guys REALLY know how to misconstrue statements! I didn't say I was homeless now, I said Ive been homeless many times in the past and would be again soon! But I choose to be homeless in a place with FAR cooler temperatures where it actually feels good to be outside and not bake like a thankgiving turkey! I WAS going to be homeless at the end of july regardless, now Ill be homeless sooner! So I had no choice but to move my trip up..

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Homelessadvocate

Hehe, I admit what I am, I'm a homeless bum! that's true.. But I am not a troll, I usually tell it like it is.. Some people don't seem to like it though.. And if these options were so "affordable" for low income people, wouldn't there be a lot LESS homeless? You would think so..

Heh.

[Homelessadvocate]

Originally Posted by Woof

Heh.

Even if someone TEMPORARILY has someones couch to sleep on(or in my case, someones walk-in closet) that doesn't make them any less homeless.. When someone has NO space of their own, no house, no apartment, they are homeless, whether they sleep in the woods, on a sidewalk, or on someones couch! makes no difference... They are still considered literally and LEGALLY to be in the "homeless" class..

[pdxMIKEpdx]

oh you poor baby

[GeorgiaTransplant]

Originally Posted by Homelessadvocate

Even if someone TEMPORARILY has someones couch to sleep on(or in my case, someones walk-in closet) that doesn't make them any less homeless.. When someone has NO space of their own, no house, no apartment, they are homeless, whether they sleep in the woods, on a sidewalk, or on someones couch! makes no difference... They are still considered literally and LEGALLY to be in the "homeless" class..

Keep diggin' that hole. Gets less credible each post.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Homelessadvocate

Even if someone TEMPORARILY has someones couch to sleep on(or in my case, someones walk-in closet) that doesn't make them any less homeless.. When someone has NO space of their own, no house, no apartment, they are homeless, whether they sleep in the woods, on a sidewalk, or on someones couch! makes no difference... They are still considered literally and LEGALLY to be in the "homeless" class..

Nice expansion of the definition of homelessness in order to make people more sympathetic to the homeless.

Someone who has a place to sleep is by definition not homeless. Your definition makes everyone who doesn't own property homeless, which is absurd.

[kyled]

Originally Posted by Homelessadvocate

Even if someone TEMPORARILY has someones couch to sleep on(or in my case, someones walk-in closet) that doesn't make them any less homeless.. When someone has NO space of their own, no house, no apartment, they are homeless, whether they sleep in the woods, on a sidewalk, or on someones couch! makes no difference... They are still considered literally and LEGALLY to be in the "homeless" class..

That can't possibly be part of the legal definition of homeless...that would include every single child in the world (as long as they're not emancipated) and every single person who stays with family without rent.

[Homelessadvocate]

Originally Posted by kyled

That can't possibly be part of the legal definition of homeless...that would include every single child in the world (as long as they're not emancipated) and every single person who stays with family without rent.

This from merriam-webster
Definition of HOMELESS

: having no home or permanent place of residence

[GeorgiaTransplant]

Originally Posted by Homelessadvocate

This from merriam-webster
Definition of HOMELESS

: having no home or permanent place of residence

This from common sense:

In America, having a couch to sleep on, indoors = not homeless.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by kyled

I don't drink coffee but I think what woof meant was Starbucks made high quality/good tasting coffee popular (I'm not saying they make high quality/good tasting coffee, just saying they made it popular)...(s)he isn't saying they invented it. Before Starbucks most people seemed content to have their regular cup of coffee but, after Starbucks became more popular, people nation-wide seemed to become more connoisseurs of coffee and more willing to pay a bit extra for something they'll enjoy a lot more.

Nationwide, coffee has always been pretty dismal, but that has never been the case on the West Coast. In New York City, the Times actually published an article about Stumptown opening an outlet there, about three years ago. The theory was that New Yorkers would actually be able to make their own cup of decent coffee instead of paying Starbucks prices. It's really pretty pathetic.

In any case, saying Starbucks popularized good coffee is kind of like saying McDonalds popularized fast food hamburgers. They weren't that revolutionary, they just had a better franchise system.

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, soup kitchens serve Folgers, Boyds, or whatever is cheapest. There are two kinds of coffee: Arabica, which is the gourmet kind but hard to grow, and Robusta, which tastes like burned cardboard but produces a bumper crop every year. Most of America is still stuck in the race to the bottom, and drinks Robusta. That's what you get at Dennys or iHop. It's cheaper, and most Americans can't tell the difference. The West Coast has avoided the curse, though hotel/motel chains and restaurant chains still serve crap coffee. If you buy cheap coffee, that's what you get. Coming from Vegas, HA will find cheap Portland coffee to be mostly free, and worth every penny. He won't find that anywhere that serves decent coffee.