Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-09-2009, 12:20 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,323,682 times
Reputation: 29336

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The way to address homelessness is through housing--in the long run, it costs less money.
At issue is who it costs less money.

I raised five children and kept them, their mother and myself housed until they all struck out on their own, including their mother .

Should I now be required to house the homeless, including those who are homeless by choice?

Hobos at least worked for their vittles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2009, 01:01 PM
 
8,680 posts, read 17,197,096 times
Reputation: 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
At issue is who it costs less money.

I raised five children and kept them, their mother and myself housed until they all struck out on their own, including their mother .

Should I now be required to house the homeless, including those who are homeless by choice?

Hobos at least worked for their vittles.
It costs the taxpayers money either way. The difference is that housing makes it a lot easier for folks to get off the street and back on the path to being taxpayers (instead of homeless people.) Currently, there isn't much effort to actually get people off the street, which means they remain a tax liability instead of being able to return to being a productive member of society.

And for those who won't ever return to being a productive member of society, due to physical or mental disability, there is plenty of evidence to show that they cost the system less money when housed than when not housed--fewer trips to the ER, to jail, to psych wards.

As for those who are homeless by choice, that's a relatively small number of the overall total. And no, I'm not suggesting housing them. As to figuring out which is which, it's pretty much just a matter of asking people.

To repeat, you and I (the taxpayers) will pay for it either way; the choice is whether we want to solve the problem (which in the long run will cost less) or pretend it doesn't exist (which in the long run will cost more.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2009, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Downtown Rancho Cordova, CA
491 posts, read 1,256,362 times
Reputation: 402
If you take away all of the moral platitudes and the Utopia ideas, the bottom line is that no one likes to live around low-income areas. I live in one right now (Rancho Corodova) and I'm ready to leave.

I have no power to influence what goes on in the state legislature or the local politics. My one vote doesn't really amount to anything because at least in this state, it's the same crap year after year. Nothing ever changes. There are too many other people with agendas that take precedence over mine, so I have no choice but to either put up with Ghettoville or leave.

It's so easy to make judgments and talk about "Oh, where are the homeless going to live, Oh we need to house them, Oh, we have to let them live in what ever areas they want to."

But, I don't like living around it and I'm going to get out as soon as I can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2009, 04:40 PM
 
8,680 posts, read 17,197,096 times
Reputation: 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectroPlumber View Post
If you take away all of the moral platitudes and the Utopia ideas, the bottom line is that no one likes to live around low-income areas. I live in one right now (Rancho Corodova) and I'm ready to leave.

I have no power to influence what goes on in the state legislature or the local politics. My one vote doesn't really amount to anything because at least in this state, it's the same crap year after year. Nothing ever changes. There are too many other people with agendas that take precedence over mine, so I have no choice but to either put up with Ghettoville or leave.

It's so easy to make judgments and talk about "Oh, where are the homeless going to live, Oh we need to house them, Oh, we have to let them live in what ever areas they want to."

But, I don't like living around it and I'm going to get out as soon as I can.
The word "utopia" literally means "nowhere," so in my mind the people who want poor people and/or homeless people to just live "somewhere else" are the real utopians. Living in an area with low rents means that people who can only afford cheap rents will want to live there. Living in an area with high rents and not enough low-rent units means that people will end up living on the streets due to lack of other options. The point isn't that we "have to let them live in whatever areas they want to" but that everyone has to live somewhere--and unless you take that into account, they will end up wherever they will fit. If that ends up being in your backyard, you're stuck dealing with it anyhow, so why not plan for it in the first place?

Homelessness has always been around, but it has not always been this bad. The loss of millions of units of low-cost urban housing during the middle part of the century left many people with nowhere to go, and no replacement housing was ever built. Ideally, such housing should be driven by the free market rather than by government programs--by making housing units smaller (for single individuals) and simpler (sticking to the basics needed for human safety and comfort) it might be possible to turn affordable housing into a paying proposition for a developer willing to take a risk--and some already do. Not everyone is so opposed to living in a low-income area--many people with low incomes (including the working poor, folks making minimum wage or thereabouts) would undoubtedly prefer to live in a low-income area than on the street. But again, where do they live? Utopia (nowhere) is not an answer in the real world--so what's the real world solution to this real world problem?

Maybe you don't have influence at the state level, but local politics is a different matter--I have known a lot of people (just regular folks) who made a difference at a local level in Sacramento through community activism. Rancho Cordova is a smaller city with fewer ingrained traditions. It may be easier to just move if you aren't comfortable with your neighborhood, but it is not the only option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2009, 05:13 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,323,682 times
Reputation: 29336


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Carmichael, CA
2,410 posts, read 4,420,083 times
Reputation: 4378
In responding to the base thread of Sacramento becoming worse, I have to say that, irregardless of other things going on, the recession is hurting the city a lot. It seems like all I see are empty storefronts and empty houses.

And one of the (apparently) leading candidates for governor next year is campaining on a platform that she will immediately lay off 40,000 state employees. Irregardless of your feelings on state employees, that many suddenly unemployed in the area will be devastating. Hopefully some of the younger ones can pick up and move elsewhere, but the home owners are pretty much stuck.

I originally joined this forum to search for someplace other than Sacramento to live, but I'm now totally stuck and unable to sell my house, and the future just doesn't look that good.

To comment on other posts, yes, the smog (and my allergies) are a lot worse than 10 years ago, and even though my neighborhood (Carmichael) seems relatively the same (except for all the foreclosures of course) I'm getting increasingly leery of areas that I used to think were perfectly safe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
302 posts, read 861,812 times
Reputation: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
I wanna see. What did you post?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 08:28 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
302 posts, read 861,812 times
Reputation: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The word "utopia" literally means "nowhere," so in my mind the people who want poor people and/or homeless people to just live "somewhere else" are the real utopians. Living in an area with low rents means that people who can only afford cheap rents will want to live there. Living in an area with high rents and not enough low-rent units means that people will end up living on the streets due to lack of other options. The point isn't that we "have to let them live in whatever areas they want to" but that everyone has to live somewhere--and unless you take that into account, they will end up wherever they will fit. If that ends up being in your backyard, you're stuck dealing with it anyhow, so why not plan for it in the first place?

Homelessness has always been around, but it has not always been this bad. The loss of millions of units of low-cost urban housing during the middle part of the century left many people with nowhere to go, and no replacement housing was ever built. Ideally, such housing should be driven by the free market rather than by government programs--by making housing units smaller (for single individuals) and simpler (sticking to the basics needed for human safety and comfort) it might be possible to turn affordable housing into a paying proposition for a developer willing to take a risk--and some already do. Not everyone is so opposed to living in a low-income area--many people with low incomes (including the working poor, folks making minimum wage or thereabouts) would undoubtedly prefer to live in a low-income area than on the street. But again, where do they live? Utopia (nowhere) is not an answer in the real world--so what's the real world solution to this real world problem?

Maybe you don't have influence at the state level, but local politics is a different matter--I have known a lot of people (just regular folks) who made a difference at a local level in Sacramento through community activism. Rancho Cordova is a smaller city with fewer ingrained traditions. It may be easier to just move if you aren't comfortable with your neighborhood, but it is not the only option.
When he said Utopia, he was probably referring to what a lot of us think of as "happy place". And he's right, on a very tough love level--we may feel sorry for the homeless, but we don't want to live around them. Really.

As well-intentioned as programs like Section 8 and other subsidized housing is, it attracts a different element of society into one that may be better left segregated. The people (not always, but generally) who are low income are usually the ones with the least education and the most domestics, punching holes in their walls and forfeiting deposits the most frequently. Do I want to live in ghettohood with them? No way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 09:18 PM
 
Location: 95468
1,382 posts, read 2,377,539 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy1369 View Post
Hey, everybody. Just talked with a friend of mine who's renting an apartment in Sacramento. I forgot which area, but I believe it's kinda near Auburn Blvd. I live in Grass Valley (an hour away from Sacto, but am currently East for school), and the stories she shared with me was horrifying. Dead bodies, shootings, police cars everywhere, helicopters, and the extremely ghetto-ization of Sacramento. As I only pass through Sacramento, I don't know if it really is that bad. I did explore around a bit on Google Street View, and noticed many neighborhoods were starting to put up fences and some windows were either boarded up or had bars on them.

When I was a kid, Sacramento seemed okay...boring but safe. Is it now different and becoming a mini-LA/Richmond? In some ways, I kinda see many suburbs becoming into what Back to the Future II's alternative 1985 was, and fear for the future. Do you think Grass Valley/Auburn/surrounding areas has a chance to become that way too?

Am looking forward to seeing your insight.

Andrew
Your friend has an overactive imagination. This city is mild.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 09:27 PM
 
Location: 95468
1,382 posts, read 2,377,539 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityx View Post
And please don't forget what the local news <cough KCRA cough> cheerfully refers to as "haze" on the weather report. Let's call a spade a spade shall we? -- it's called smog. It seems the grotesque brown gunk that we're forced to breath in much of the year has also become much worse as well.
The Sacramento Valley had lousy air before automobiles. John Sutter remarked on it.
I'm no big fan of Sac but you seem to be grinding that ax a little too vigorously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top