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.
This is precisely the approach California tried to take in recent years. Watch the video to get an idea how that worked out for them.
And your proposal is....? Maybe drive the homeless from our cities and make them someone else's problem? Or forced relocation (that was popular in the mid-1800s), or perhaps internment camps (more of a 1940s thing). Or I suppose we could have our version of the Squid Game.
This is precisely the approach California tried to take in recent years. Watch the video to get an idea how that worked out for them.
This thread started with false claims that this area caters to the homeless and panhandlers. Now you are saying that we shouldn't offer services and programs to those in need that can potentially lead to a better life? You certainly have an agenda here and it isn't appropriate for this forum.
Maybe we should address the underlying causes of homelessness instead of vilifying the population. The lack of mental health treatment, drug rehabilitation, and housing makes it difficult for a homeless person to get a job and break the cycle.
This right here^^^! I don't even understand how anyone could not see what needs to be addressed. It's like they have blinders on.
And your proposal is....? Maybe drive the homeless from our cities and make them someone else's problem? Or forced relocation (that was popular in the mid-1800s), or perhaps internment camps (more of a 1940s thing). Or I suppose we could have our version of the Squid Game.
I am proposing that the Triangle should decide whether they want what L.A. has or not.
Not suggesting someone adjust their moral compass in a particular direction, as your little campaign seems to be doing.
The citizens of a given area should decide what they want it to be and shape it accordingly. Stepping on a human turd on your way to Starbucks is one thing... getting shanked in the neck in same activity due to violent crime is another. Increase in both has been happening in highly homeless and drug tolerant areas. Apparently neither of those ideas bother you, perhaps your fate is already sealed then.
Personally I think we are all accountable for our own choices, and it's not the responsibility of society at large to pander to self-created victims. That's a snowflake culture issue that didn't exist back in the days when it was safer out there, and we had a culture that didn't tolerate such BS.
Personally I think we are all accountable for our own choices, and it's not the responsibility of society at large to pander to self-created victims. That's a snowflake culture issue that didn't exist back in the days when it was safer out there, and we had a culture that didn't tolerate such BS.
Well the homeless people are still on the street in that scenario if there's no assistance. So what's the difference then between LA and Raleigh?
I think it's been well proven that the best way to eliminate homelessness is to provide housing so that people have the opportunity to get back to a sense of normalcy so they can return to being a productive member of society (or if not so that they can get the help that they need in a safe facility if there are mental or health issues).
California has a severe housing shortage which has exacerbated the issue in cities - the podcast 99% Invisible did a series last year about the limited resources local governments have in being able to house the homeless that they have https://99percentinvisible.org/need/
Well the homeless people are still on the street in that scenario if there's no assistance. So what's the difference then between LA and Raleigh?
I think it's been well proven that the best way to eliminate homelessness is to provide housing so that people have the opportunity to get back to a sense of normalcy so they can return to being a productive member of society (or if not so that they can get the help that they need in a safe facility if there are mental or health issues).
California has a severe housing shortage which has exacerbated the issue in cities - the podcast 99% Invisible did a series last year about the limited resources local governments have in being able to house the homeless that they have https://99percentinvisible.org/need/
The vast majority of homeless people are not on the street because there is no place to live. They are there because they cannot afford the housing in the city they prefer to be in. And the reason they cannot afford the housing is a side effect of poor lifestyle choices they have made.
Accommodating poor lifestyle choices by making it easier to live with those poor choices only encourages more people to make same choices.
Everyone on the planet with a substance abuse problem (which makes up a HUGE portion of the homeless population) got where they are because of their own decision to use that substance. Even if their ability to choose has diminished over time due to addiction, they are still responsible for how they got there in the first place. Realization of that fact is the first prerequisite to finding their way out of it and to a successful life.
So, by creating barriers and not making it easy on them to live on the street and beg for money, it encourages them to take responsibility for their lives and stop looking to others to solve the problems they've created for themselves.
I realize there are homeless due to reasons fully beyond their control and not just because they've managed their lives badly. So I do support a certain amount of government services to help those who have demonstrated their commitment to working hard and staying clean and sober, but that's a relatively small portion of them.
Most of them are doing what they do because begging is easier than working with a hangover.
The vast majority of homeless people are not on the street because there is no place to live. They are there because they cannot afford the housing in the city they prefer to be in. And the reason they cannot afford the housing is a side effect of poor lifestyle choices they have made.
Accommodating poor lifestyle choices by making it easier to live with those poor choices only encourages more people to make same choices.
Everyone on the planet with a substance abuse problem (which makes up a HUGE portion of the homeless population) got where they are because of their own decision to use that substance. Even if their ability to choose has diminished over time due to addiction, they are still responsible for how they got there in the first place. Realization of that fact is the first prerequisite to finding their way out of it and to a successful life.
So, by creating barriers and not making it easy on them to live on the street and beg for money, it encourages them to take responsibility for their lives and stop looking to others to solve the problems they've created for themselves.
I realize there are homeless due to reasons fully beyond their control and not just because they've managed their lives badly. So I do support a certain amount of government services to help those who have demonstrated their commitment to working hard and staying clean and sober, but that's a relatively small portion of them.
Most of them are doing what they do because begging is easier than working with a hangover.
Well the homeless people are still on the street in that scenario if there's no assistance. So what's the difference then between LA and Raleigh?
I think it's been well proven that the best way to eliminate homelessness is to provide housing so that people have the opportunity to get back to a sense of normalcy so they can return to being a productive member of society (or if not so that they can get the help that they need in a safe facility if there are mental or health issues).
California has a severe housing shortage which has exacerbated the issue in cities - the podcast 99% Invisible did a series last year about the limited resources local governments have in being able to house the homeless that they have https://99percentinvisible.org/need/
I believe that this is wishful thinking on the parts of many people. It is virtually impossible for most of us to put ourselves in the shoes of a homeless person, but people become homeless for a number of different reasons.
Just providing food and shelter is not always going to be a solution to this problem. Neither is making mental health counseling widespread going to completely solve it either. This is a complex problem with many different layers and it will require an equally complex solution.
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.
