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.
Yep- it will happen in CA this year - greasy gavin's groupies will bail on him .... pretending that the law says criminals and insane can't be housed in secure facilities indefinitely is no longer working for the greasy gavin groupies--everyone is finding out the truth about how this was created and being handled.....laws are meant to be changed or modified if need be-- change em and take it to the SCOTUS if need be.... or right away !! gonna be hard to get votes this year gavin...
If a person is deemed mentally unstable to the point of being a danger to society yes you can force them to be locked up. Are you suggesting that we just let them roam around and hope they don't hurt anyone?
You don't think we as a society have a right to lock this person up? Prisons are not the right environment for mentally deranged people.
You can't force people into institutions. We used to do that, but it was found unconstitutional.
Sure, in some select cases where crimes have been committed, some individuals can be admitted to a mental institution - but you cannot simply force them into an institution for being mentally unstable (even if it's the best thing for them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
This is not why the problem exists. It exits because most turn their heads to it. It exits because people have made poor life decisions that they are not able to overcome. Some can't get off of drugs, some have jail or prison records that prevent them from gaining employment. There are many more reasons why this problem exists.
I never used the words "why the problem exists". I specifically said "why the problem persists". There is a difference in those words.
The reasons for the existence of homelessness are varied and complex (a few of which you alluded to above).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Do you really think that providing free dedicated housing is really going to fix the homeless issue? What about the behavior issues? The drug addictions, the deranged minds like the link I posted. The sit on your ass all day and expect to be given a free ride in this lifetime mentality...you think all of these issues will simply fall away if these folks are provided free dedicated housing?
Sure, in an ideal world that doesn't exist, giving free housing would solve homelessness. I never said anything about fixing mental instability or any other issue you mention.
That said, I actually don't think it would be for the best to do that even if it were possible (politically and economically), so I wouldn't agree with that method.
Realistically, I think we need to do a much better job of getting more of the chronic homeless into shelters - but I recognize the immense complexity (and expense) of that. Especially with the previous point of not being able to force people into doing something being kept in mind.
So, realistically: what would you propose given the above points?
No the one's who won't move from public property once they've been warned. The one's who steal and set up bike chops shops, the ones who deface public property and so on.
If a person goes to jail repeatedly for minor offenses this should lead to longer and longer jail sentences. Laws should be made to deter bad behavior not just slap you on the wrist repeatedly.
Trust me if a person sets up a tent in Houston and the police show up and say move it and they don't...trust me they will be arrested.
Houston did it the smart way. They first tackled the homeless veterans. Next they moved on to the chronically homeless who were willing to do what it takes. They already deal with wondering crazies and drug addicts. Those folks get locked up instantly.
Fact: you can't force the homeless off the streets unless there is adequate shelter space, Houston provided both supportive permanent housing and temporary shelter space, so they can legally move people off the streets. In the meantime, even in Cities like LA or San Francisco the police can enforce encroachment laws and prevent the homeless from pitching tents on sidewalks or in front of businesses, but it's sort of like herding cats, when the cops move one camper out three more move in to take his/her place, and there are more cats than there are herders.
Fact: No one will ever pass a law that will lead to long term imprisonment for committing minor and mostly status offenses, so why entertain the idea?
Fact: You can detain the seriously mentally ill but they have to be released when they are rational and don't pose a danger to themselves or others, the average confinement of a seriously mentally ill person in an acute mental health facility is 7-13 days. One of the problem with the mentally ill homeless is that they aren't under the regular care of a clinician who can see that they are taking their meds and make sure that they are working. My friend has a mentally ill adult son and his medication works for 4-6 months and then he gets really bad until the doctor can find another drug or combination of drugs that work.
By the early 2000s, the US Interagency Council on Homelessness under President Bush decided to try something else. Instead of a "housing-ready" model, they would switch to "housing first." Instead of giving a person in need a bowl of soup or a cot, they tried giving them the keys to a low-cost apartment.
Through a creative mix of public and private funding, Urban Pathways has moved hundreds of chronically homeless New Yorkers from the streets into safe, clean apartments, and the transformations can be nothing short of miraculous.
This is a great idea but we severely lack affordable housing. We need to build.
You can't force people into institutions. We used to do that, but it was found unconstitutional.
Sure, in some select cases where crimes have been committed, some individuals can be admitted to a mental institution - but you cannot simply force them into an institution for being mentally unstable (even if it's the best thing for them).
Jails and prisons are institutions and yes you can be forced into them when you commit a crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
I never used the words "why the problem exists". I specifically said "why the problem persists". There is a difference in those words.
Does not matter my answer remains the same. This is not why the problem persists. It persists because most turn their heads to it. It persists because people have made poor life decisions that they are not able to overcome. Some can't get off of drugs, some have jail or prison records that prevent them from gaining employment. There are many more reasons why this problem will continually persist. Homelessness is not curable. Why? Becasue you can't force anyone into permanent housing or shelters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
Realistically, I think we need to do a much better job of getting more of the chronic homeless into shelters - but I recognize the immense complexity (and expense) of that
Perhaps SF should take notes from Houston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
So, realistically: what would you propose given the above points?
The same plan that Houston devised. Keep in mind Houston was able to do this without and State income Tax. Texas does not have a state income tax and look what the city of Houston was able to come up with!
The bottom line is people don't get the right to treat public land for purposes it's not intended. The reason SF looks like a human wasteland in many areas is because the police don't enforce the laws. You can walk through DT Houston and be stunned at how beautiful and clean the sidewalks and train station is. You won't find people stumbling around babbling and screaming, you won't find people shooting up in broad daylight, you won't find human excrement on the sidewalks, you won't find people sleeping on the side walks etc.
When you let certain folks in society know that you are not enforcing the laws you get what we see in SF and LA.
Houston's plan entailed:
100 Vets in 100 days - In March 2012, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) named Houston one of 10 struggling areas across the country to receive extra technical assistance.
Houston would house 100 chronically homeless veterans in 100 days by teaming up with the city’s public-housing authority, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and other agencies. They wound up housing 101. By the end of the year, several hundred had been housed.
Mayor Sylvester Turner: “When you start small and have success, you develop credibility,” he added. “Then you get the private sector and the community on board.”
In 2013, Parker (Houston's then Mayor) set a new goal of housing 300 veterans in 100 days, and she hired a special assistant on homeless initiatives, Houston’s first. “We went to her and said, ‘We need a high-profile office for this. It can’t be buried in the city bureaucracy,’?” Icken said.
****The sprawling city of Houston spends no money from its general fund on homelessness, unlike Seattle, which in 2014 spent more than $22 million from its general fund, up from $9 million in 2005. Houston’s shelters are funded by private entities, such as churches and foundations.****
Rather than spend time divvying up dollars, Parker’s new adviser, Mandy Chapman Semple, concentrated on breaking down and then revamping the way the city and its partners addressed homelessness.
In 2011, the Houston area’s point-in-time estimate tallied 1,146 homeless veterans. This year (2016), the estimate was 537.
Last August, Parker announced Houston had “effectively ended” veteran homelessness by building the ability to house any veteran quickly if that person qualifies for services ***and accepts help***.
For years, a maze of Houston churches, charities and nonprofit organizations had served the homeless, each with its own screening criteria, shelters, meal programs and housing projects.
Chapman Semple’s team persuaded most of the area’s funders — public and private — to align their resources. They brought the Houston and Harris County housing authorities on board and put an umbrella organization in charge. They wanted to replicate their work with veterans, one subpopulation at a time. The next group was chronically homeless adults.
The Houston area had about 1,500 permanent housing units with supportive services, such as mental-health and substance-abuse counseling, for chronically homeless people.
There wasn’t much new homelessness funding, so they used federal money previously spent on an array of affordable-housing programs.
Under the new approach, more than 70 organizations worked together, with streamlined screening criteria. Some cut down on work they had been doing — serving meals or handing out bus passes — to become cogs in the housing-first machine.
Replacing the maze, there would be one door — and it would lead to housing.
That door is coordinated access, and Houston began using it in 2014 at The Beacon, the drop-in center outside of which Humphrey was sleeping.
If a city that does not have a State Income Tax can make this happen...a State such as CA can easily use the billions of tax dollars it takes in yearly to fund such an effort. However, the people of CA would rather see that money go towards funding bloated government pensions and other ridiculous government misappropriation of funds.
And it's interesting to note that Houston didn't arrest it's way out of the homeless problem, they did exactly what most people recommend:
No it's not what most people recommended. Most people just said give them free permanent housing for life.
Houston came up with a plan and utilized many resources.
Bleeding hearts are incapable of coming up with a sensible plan. They can only voice their demands but never offer up a plan for how to achieve any goals.
More great news for the wandering criminal groupies -this is the quality of life they advocate - they want the taxpayers to buy homes for the "homeless" and give them all expenses paid....nothing nice for the innocent people any more. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/...d-in-berkeley/
Interesting article Matadora. Thank you for supplying it. The politicians of San Francisco do seem to have an inability to look at best practices from others.
No it's not what most people recommended. Most people just said give them free permanent housing for life.
Houston came up with a plan and utilized many resources.
Bleeding hearts are incapable of coming up with a sensible plan. They can only voice their demands but never offer up a plan for how to achieve any goals.
It is not logical or feasible to house homeless in the most expensive parts of the country.
Agreed 100% we have to figure out a way to house folks but not in one of the most expensive spots...especially folks who are currently unable to work. My husband and I recently made the mistake of walking down the wrong street in SF and these folks appear to have some sort of substance abuse or mental issues (or both) based on their behaviors which would not allow them to work.
I have sympathy because my husbands uncle has a developmental disability and is in his 50s. He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia in addition to his existing disability and his mother who used to house him in her home just passed away. Luckily his mother provided him with some money (not enough for long term) and his siblings have worked together to pay rent on a tiny studio until they figure out a better permanent solution for him probably involving some sort of government subsidized housing. I see some of those folks on the street and wonder what if his uncle did not have a family who helped him all these years.
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.
