[Sometimes] groups of people hang out for hours, some drink in public, aggressively panhandle, fight, urinate and defecate in nearby doorways and alleys, deal and use drugs — especially crack cocaine and heroin — and engage in prostitution....A kindly crackdown.
Rhodes-Conway is supporting modest environmental changes to the space, such as temporary removal of several benches, adding fencing around a larger planter near Ian’s Pizza, 100 State St., lighting changes, and limiting the electricity from outlets used by people to charge cell phones or power other devices.
“The spaces allow for a larger number of people to congregate,” the mayor said. “We want to encourage people to be in the space, but not to be there for hours and hours.”...
The city, Rhodes-Conway stressed, will continue to focus on helping the homeless through the creation of housing, outreach and other means. But it will also take new measures to improve quality of life on the upper State Street area, including adding more portable toilets in discreet locations and extending the mall concourse services to include Central Library so city employees can do cleaning and tag belongings left there with warnings that they must be removed or they will be taken away and stored for pick up at another location.
The mayor is also supporting the efforts of the volunteer homeless outreach group Friends of State Street Family to locate small clusters of lockers for temporary storage in the area.
ADDED: I have a little video showing this area of Madison. It's one of my favorites, only 10 seconds. Watch:
The man is saying "All the assholes are over on the other side." This was back in 2011, and he was referring the anti-Scott-Walker protesters, who were doing a protest that involved camping on the street (and calling it "Walkerville"). I think there was some sort of concept that this side of the Capitol Square (the part Satya Rhodes-Conway is concerned about) was a place for non-political loitering and the people who were living on the street to express opposition to the governor were somewhere else.
Posts
186 comments:
Why not arrest people for crimes like loitering and public urination?
In Lincoln, former Nebraska state Senator Dave Landis (D) got ticketed for public urination in a parking garage. He was forced to quit his government job.
Why not arrest people for crimes like loitering and public urination?
While public urination is indeed a crime, loitering is not. The 1st amendment covers even the homeless, as much as you may not like it.
Criminalizing homelessness is by far the most expensive way to deal with the problem. It is amazing how much some people are willing to incarcerate people while refusing to fund less harmful and cheaper alternatives.
Emphasis on crack.
At one time, some shopping centers would broadcast classical music in their parking lots after closing to get the youth to move on.
Build a fence? I am told such barriers don’t work.
MORE portapotties? Are the ones there now lined up? Is that why there is shit on the sidewalk, the portapotty lines are too long?
Reduce power? How will the poverty stricken charge their iPads?
Awww, little LA/San Fran/Austin coming to a corner near you.
That’s so sweet, walking their talk.
We’ll check back in a few years....
Perhaps UofW can give up an old dormitory.
A few arrests for loitering, etc, and people will move elsewhere, say Frederburg.
Well you wanted all these 'curbside communities' with bums.. ops, 'homeless'.
Lots of luck with them. Maybe you can do like real estate developer Gene Gorelik in California and throw money at them asking them to leave... hahahahaha.. what a gas!!
Liberalism is self destructing. All this 'free stuff' is not free. It really cost lots more than if you demanded people work... no work, no eat.
incarcerate people while refusing to fund less harmful and cheaper alternatives.
Like tent city Austin?
The DNC Convention in 2020 is in Milwaukee. So, to make the folks and setting look normal, they'll probably arrest all homeless the week before all the cameras and reporters get there.
Maybe, Madison can get a convention and do the same to their fine city.
I didn't know that area had gone to hell.
I worked out of the downtown library while in college. Drove the library delivery truck. I wonder if the Silver Dollar bar is still there?
Liberalism is self destructing.
I still haven't heard a truly conservative solution to homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. You are quite ready to bash liberal solutions but appear to have no solution of your own, except to move them somewhere else where they will be less of an eyesore or incarceration.
Give them all bus tickets to Santa Cruz
Seeing Red has a point. Why do we incarcerate people for rape, or arson? Incarceration is expensive. I bet it's cheaper to hire the guy a hooker or buy him an empty house in Detroit to burn. You law enforcers, YOU are the real problem, you stingy buggers!
It really cost lots more than if you demanded people work... no work, no eat.
Are you suggesting that it should be illegal to feed the homeless?
How many severely mentally ill or drug addicted people are you willing to give a job?
How about we round them all up and put them in reeducation camps?
Criminalizing homelessness is by far the most expensive way to deal with the problem. It is amazing how much some people are willing to incarcerate people while refusing to fund less harmful and cheaper alternatives.
That don't work. The only way "homelessness will be solved is by reopening psychiatric hospitals.
That's how it began in the 60s.
Why do we incarcerate people for rape, or arson?
Are you seriously contending that homelessness and its associated problems and causes are equivalent to rape or arson?
How many severely mentally ill or drug addicted people are you willing to give a job?
How about we round them all up and put them in reeducation camps?
How about reopening certain institutions?
BTW there are cities who are experimenting with options and 1 or 2 creative ideas has promise.
That don't work. The only way "homelessness will be solved is by reopening psychiatric hospitals.
First off, as a physician you should know that homelessness is not a psychiatric ailment.
What you are suggesting is incarceration (and very expensive incarceration because you would have to have much more medical staff to maintain the illusion) by another name.
"...incarcerate people while refusing to fund less harmful and cheaper alternatives."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Madison has spent quite a bit of money on "less harmful and cheaper alternatives". Seattle, San Francisco and Austin have also spent lots of money on "less harmful and cheaper alternatives".
Those "less harmful and cheaper alternatives" don't seem work (anywhere).
Ah Freder, sometimes I forget your dishonesty. Thanks for reminding me.
Are you seriously contending that serial murder is like eating ice cream cones?
How about we round them all up and put them in reeducation camps?
How about we put the mentally-ill in mental hospitals and the addicted in rehabilitation centers. Yes, it will be expensive.
Homeless percentage mnemonic CATO
40% crazy
30% addicts
20% tramps
10% out of luck
Only the latter benefit from help. The others only increase.
There's the old shopkeeper trick, playing classical music to drive the young away.
First off, as a physician you should know that homelessness is not a psychiatric ailment.
As a non-professional Freder, you are sadly ignorant.
The vast majority of the homeless are psych cases. Psychiatric hospitals are human ways of caring for them.
The only way "homelessness will be solved is by reopening psychiatric hospitals.
And yet, if I asked you if every American is entitled to access to adequate and comprehensive (including mental health) health care services, I bet I know what your answer would be.
Blogger Michael K said. That don't work. The only way "homelessness will be solved is by reopening psychiatric hospitals. That's how it began in the 60s.
We are on the same page here, Doc.
Freder, please tell us in detail about the successful "less harmful and cheaper alternatives". What programs work? Which cities are showcases for the successful handling of the homeless?
After living in Santa Cruz for 30-years, I've encountered thousands of homeless. In addition to the crazies, there are druggies who are strung out all the time, Urban Outdoorsmen (Hobos), trustafarians (usually white kids or couples with family money who grow dredlocks, smoke ganga spleef and work the system) and then there are poor working folks folks who live in their cars/RVs because of housing costs.
As my Mom used to say: "It's a big problem and something's gotta be done about it"
Los Angeles, Madison, San Francisco, Austin... Please tell me why I should care about a left wing problem?
The vast majority of the homeless are psych cases. Psychiatric hospitals are human ways of caring for them.
Both statements are untrue. About 25% of homeless are mentally ill, another 20% have serious drug problems. Far from a "vast majority". If you have contrary statistics, please provide them with a link to your data. (I will provide you a link to my numbers when you use more precise language than "vast majority").
And while it is possible for psychiatric hospitals (although involuntarily detaining someone is rarely humane) to be humane, that is certainly not the experience of involuntary commissions to mental hospitals in this country.
We didn't hospitalize the mentally ill just for their good but also ours.
If I went to "downtown" Cottage Grove, Wisconsin and squatted in the street and defecated I would be arrested. If I sold drugs there I'd be arrested. If I disrupted the local citizens and blocked traffic I'd be arrested.
Why do these folks have special rights in Madison?
Meanwhile in the rest if the atate:
https://mobile.twitter.com/PollsAndVotes/status/1149676256260231173?fbclid=IwAR2OaIAHwE0t7cfeLfODOpaibC-GppFKI3r5n03oqq3wSk8qXRMy0ma4Rt8
Blogger Beasts of England said...
Los Angeles, Madison, San Francisco, Austin... Please tell me why I should care about a left wing problem?
No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man
is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine;
if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe
is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as
well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine
owne were; any mans death diminishes me,
because I am involved in Mankinde;
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
Freder, please tell us in detail about the successful "less harmful and cheaper alternatives".
Well, for starters we could start building and properly maintaining public housing again (and no, I do not mean subsidized housing built by for profit companies).
Adequately funded comprehensive outreach, housing programs, outpatient mental health and drug counseling including job and life skills training would also (and does, unfortunately availability far outstrips demand) be helpful.
But of course you have to fight the nimbys (and yes I will concede nimbyism is also rampant among liberals) and be willing to pay for it. But my solutions would certainly be less expensive than criminalizing and institutionalizing your way out of the problem.
"I still haven't heard a truly conservative solution to homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. You are quite ready to bash liberal solutions but appear to have no solution of your own, except to move them somewhere else where they will be less of an eyesore or incarceration."
First of all, there have been no liberal "solutions" because none of the liberal programs that have been tried on any scale have produced "solutions." Second, as Craig Howard said at 8:37, there were conservative solutions at one time, specifically putting the mentally ill in mental hospitals and the drug addicts in rehab. Unfortunately, some liberal judges decided managing and treating the afflicted with the only method that has ever been successful was unconstitutional. As is normally the case, when leftist do gooders get involved the people they were trying to help are the first casualties.
Take up the White Man's burden —
Send forth the best ye breed —
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild —
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden —
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden —
The savage wars of peace —
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden —
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper —
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden —
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard —
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light: —
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden —
Ye dare not stoop to less —
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden —
Have done with childish days —
The lightly profferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
What would be the process and personnel involved in the involuntary commitment for an indefinite time period of someone who is NOT "a danger to himself or others"?
You're hitting the glass pipe a little early this morning, aren't you Howie?
There’s only one way to fix this problem.
Put a fence around “them” and call it a concentration camp.
I still haven't heard a truly conservative solution to homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. You are quite ready to bash liberal solutions but appear to have no solution of your own, except to move them somewhere else where they will be less of an eyesore or incarceration.
1) Immediately locate and deport all illegal aliens. This will provide both jobs and homes for the homeless willing and able to work.
2) Bring back involuntary commitment for the mentally ill.
3) Incarcerate illegal drug users. Give them treatment while in jail.
4) Put a residency requirement on welfare, so people don't move from low welfare states to high welfare states.
What would be the process and personnel involved in the involuntary commitment for an indefinite time period of someone who is NOT "a danger to himself or others"?
The same ones who are now letting the mentally ill roam feral because they aren't a danger to themselves or others. Everyone acknowledges that these people are mentally ill, but somehow the idea emerged that allowing them to roam free is morally better than treating them.
And while it is possible for psychiatric hospitals (although involuntarily detaining someone is rarely humane)
No it's much more humane to consign them to the streets where they can't function rather than give them a bed and treatment.
OMG! Trouble right there in River City? Where are the hordes gonna get their Fentanyl? Send 'em to Freder's place. Put those theories to work Freder! Lotsa empty bedrooms in Mad town. Libs are such chumps.
1) Immediately locate and deport all illegal aliens. This will provide both jobs and homes for the homeless willing and able to work.
2) Bring back involuntary commitment for the mentally ill.
3) Incarcerate illegal drug users. Give them treatment while in jail.
4) Put a residency requirement on welfare, so people don't move from low welfare states to high welfare states.
Number 4 is clearly unconstitutional (it has been tried by Alaska with their payments of oil revenues to residents and other states for welfare).
As for the other three, how and who is going to pay for those very expensive options. Even if you instituted these solutions you have only solved half the problem (see my stats above, which have yet to be contradicted). Since you are most likely opposed to increasing (or even having) a minimum wage, it does not solve the problem of people who work but simply can not afford housing, especially in our larger or rapidly growing cities.
How many of the 'home'less are hopefull to be homefull?
In Austin they commute to 'work' >>> preferred location stakeout during daytime.
Triple down on “outreach”. That should do it. Oh, and build houses. But first you need to beef up the outreachers. And hire more city planners.
Send 'em to Freder's place. Put those theories to work Freder!
I live in New Orleans. Our homeless problem is a serious as almost any city's, and much worse than most.
Freder believes homelessness is a result of the high price of housing. Bless his heart.
Bring back the flop houses.
Oh, and build houses. But first you need to beef up the outreachers. And hire more city planners.
Cheaper than building prisons and mental health institutions and their associated guards, medical personnel and support staff.
Illegal behavior will not be tolerated unless you’re actually an illegal, so come on over!
There’s a homeless problem in a party city?
Isn’t that part of New Orleans charm?
He believes 20% of the homeless have drug problems. Sad.
Freder believes homelessness is a result of the high price of housing. Bless his heart.
Are you implying that the lack of affordable housing is not a factor in homelessness? If you can not afford to pay prevailing rent, where exactly are you supposed to live?
Freder
Youtube has Seattle Dying. Watch it.
Will there be questions on census form asking about
C
A
T
O
Check all boxes that apply.
And yet, if I asked you if every American is entitled to access to adequate and comprehensive (including mental health) health care services, I bet I know what your answer would be.
That every American can get access but access to doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll get services?
Semantics.
Unless it’s abortion. Oh I’m sorry, “health care.”
'I live in New Orleans. Our homeless problem is a serious as almost any city's...'
New Orleans hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1872. You broke it, you bought it, Fredo.
"What would be the process and personnel involved in the involuntary commitment for an indefinite time period of someone who is NOT "a danger to himself or others"?"
The same ones who are now letting the mentally ill roam feral because they aren't a danger to themselves or others.
You? Me? We're letting them roam around because we're not stopping them.
If they aren't a danger to themselves or others, they're just obnoxious.
Everyone acknowledges that these people are mentally ill, but somehow the idea emerged that allowing them to roam free is morally better than treating them.
So how obnoxious do they have to be to be officially crazy?
Arrested for being passed-out drunk + trespassing and given the choice between a week/whatever in jail and .... what? An indefinite time in different place where you still can't drink? What if he chooses the week in jail?
Are you implying that the lack of affordable housing is not a factor in homelessness? If you can not afford to pay prevailing rent, where exactly are you supposed to live?
You can’t really believe homeless stay put in a certain area.
You don’t think they don’t follow the money?
He believes 20% of the homeless have drug problems. Sad.
Like I said, if you have some other number, please provide it.
Check out what happened to Milwaukee via Chicago a decade or more ago. There’s a reason Wisconsin tried to change the rules.
Freder
Housing costs are a factor for many but not most. Drugs are the main problem and turning our attention from that to housing is part of the reason it is and will remain intractable. Watch Seattle Dying.
Are you implying that the lack of affordable housing is not a factor in homelessness? If you can not afford to pay prevailing rent, where exactly are you supposed to live?
Somewhere where the rents are lower.
Madisonians (perhaps liberal thinkers more generally) are predisposed to treat homeless people with kindness. If homeless people want to drink and defecate or have sex in public, or if they want to use drugs, or shout at invisible audiences, or wear smelly clothes, then homeless people should be allowed to behave like this. But just do it somewhere else, not near the state capitol and on the main (pedestrian/bus only) street that runs from the capitol to UW campus. How about this for a not too costly solution. Find a state park in some fairly remote part of the state; provide tents, toilets, and shower facilities; provide meals at a central messhall; provide free alcohol and drugs (providing drugs probably requires some change in law); some provision for visits by medical people. Anytime a person is picked up in Madison (or Milwaukee, or any place in Wisconsin) for some of these behaviors, and the person has no fixed address, move the person instantly to the new state park facility. I don't envision the facility as a jail -- people will be free to leave whenever they wish; but it will be in a location that makes it hard to travel to Madison (the residents will have been transported there) and it should be relatively easy to sieze and remove any bikes or vehicles that arrive from outside.
An Olde English Fair like a pilgrimadge to Canterbury Cathedral for two weeks is traditional. All the Cathedrals had a 5 acre open area in front for such crowds But never going back home again was not in the bargain.
And then Winter comes.
More people are incarcerated in America than anywhere else in the world. Many are POC. This must stop!
And make all drugs legal. Tax it.
'Somewhere where the rents are lower.'
But how will lefties be able to virtue signal if we let the free market handle the solution? That's almost cruel!! ;)
Freder
“Like I said, if you have some other number, please provide it.”
Not how it works. Show us support for 20%
Somewhere where the rents are lower.
Like where Beasts of England lives? He doesn't care about the problem so his home town might be the perfect location.
The difference here is definitional. Remember that "homeless," as used by government and academia, includes people in shelters, people housed by the government at temporary locations like motels, and people living at friends'/relatives' houses. Those are the socially functional homeless people. The more visible homeless population subset that is living rough on the streets -- it would not surprise me if they are almost all addicted or mentally ill.
In Oakland, a developer tried to pay the homeless to leave. This was the response:
Homeless advocates decried the stunt, asking the community "to stand together to protect our curbside communities against hate, xenophobia and anti-homeless behavior” in a counter event posted on Facebook.
Get that? Curbside communities? And somehow, being opposed to homelessness is a bad thing?
"What would be the process and personnel involved in the involuntary commitment for an indefinite time period of someone who is NOT 'a danger to himself or others'?"
Doesn't that depend on how one defines "danger to himself or others?" Let me take a stab at some criteria for your consideration (A indicates danger to himself, B danger to others):
- Does the person leave medical waste such as syringes in public areas? A&B
- Does the person defecate and urinate in public areas? A&B
- Does the person's sanitary habits and living conditions foster disease or public health problems? A&B
- Does the person's sanitary habits and personal hygiene foster vermin and pests that can affect the community at large? A&B
- Does the person pose a physical threat to other citizens? B
- Is the person capable of making rational decisions? A
- Does the person appear to be delusional? A
- Is the person capable of looking out for his own welfare? A
- Does the person support his lifestyle through criminal acts? B
The process would involve sorting through the street population and determining the answers to those questions. The next steps would be taking him off the street until he is no longer considered to be a threat to himself or society.
Like where Beasts of England lives? He doesn't care about the problem so his home town might be the perfect location.
Maybe. There are plenty of communities around the country that are hollowing out as the youth moves away. But most of those places don't have California weather or welfare payments.
"The city, Rhodes-Conway stressed, will continue to focus on helping the homeless through the creation of housing, outreach and other means."
Glad to hear that Madison is interested in attracting some of our "homeless", and you're welcome to as many as you like, but I don't think they will stick around once it starts snowing. If you really need year-round homeless, you'll have to set up a breeding habitat, and that's not cheap.
"Mental illness" is as good a catch-all as any, I guess, to explain stuff.
Blogger Beasts of England said...
You're hitting the glass pipe a little early this morning, aren't you Howie?
What, you don't like classic conservative white male philosophical poetry?
The Church of my youth always fed the homeless outside and an encampment was created on the street behind it after the hippies in the late 1960s. But everybody behaved then or police came.
This continuous tradition started in 1865 when Atlanta was as far as the RR line took the wounded and destitute soldiers trying to return home after Appomattox. They fed them for several weeks until they were strong enough to walk the next hundreds of miles to reach their southern homes.
Giving our food and the needed care to those half dead from the scoundrels Lincoln sent to kill us is a traditional Southern Christian way of life. Didn't those prisoners in their now despised Madison graves die of hunger? Lots of luck to these Madison homeless today.
Not how it works. Show us support for 20%
So how is it supposed to work? You throw out phrases like "vast majority" and deride my figure without providing contrary data. How exactly does that work?
And the figures I gave were 25% mentally ill and another 20% with serious drug problems (45% total). But since you asked and are unwilling or unable to provide what you think the proper number is, here you go.
I look forward to your link that cites a different statistic so we can explore why there is a discrepancy.
Giving our food and the needed care to those half dead from the scoundrels Lincoln sent to kill us is a traditional Southern Christian way of life.
Tell that to the POWs at Andersonville.
Apparently, even the homeless are smart enough to move out of Deploraville.
Like I said, if you have some other number, please provide it.
Freder,
Please consult Mark Twain on that issue.
Are you implying that the lack of affordable housing is not a factor in homelessness?
YES!!! The main thing that affordable housing does it that it tanks the market for older, smaller, fixer-upper, single-family homes of the sort that the wife and I bought forty plus years ago. If Freder had a working brain (ha!) he’d realize that anyone who cannot afford an older fixed-upper can not afford a brand-new “affordable” townhouse.
Or does Freder imagine that affordable housing is free?
'He doesn't care about the problem so his home town might be the perfect location.'
You can keep your lefty problems where you made them, Fredo - don't try to pawn off your failures on me. And I promise you that the homeless can't afford to be near either of my homes...
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Freder, please tell us in detail about the successful "less harmful and cheaper alternatives".
"Well, for starters we could start building and properly maintaining public housing again (and no, I do not mean subsidized housing built by for profit companies).
Adequately funded comprehensive outreach, housing programs, outpatient mental health and drug counseling including job and life skills training would also (and does, unfortunately availability far outstrips demand) be helpful.
But of course you have to fight the nimbys (and yes I will concede nimbyism is also rampant among liberals) and be willing to pay for it. But my solutions would certainly be less expensive than criminalizing and institutionalizing your way out of the problem."
Freder, the solutions you list above are all in place (at considerable cost) in Madison. Do you have any solutions that work?
Criminalizing homelessness is by far the most expensive way to deal with the problem. It is amazing how much some people are willing to incarcerate people while refusing to fund less harmful and cheaper alternatives.
You’re not criminalizing homelessness; you’re “criminalizing” criminal behavior. And if Freder understood economics even st the level of balancing his checkbook he’d realize that so-called cheaper alternatives are either (1) futile or (2) more expensive.
Hey Freder! A homeless illegal immigrant killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco. Did you figure in the cost of her funeral into your calculations?
“Their latest scheme in Seattle is to build city-funded “tiny-house villages,” a euphemism for semipermanent homeless tent cities subsidized by taxpayers. Advocates have touted tiny houses as an alternative to illegal encampments, but the results have been uninspiring. After the city opened a drug-friendly tiny-house village in Licton Springs—costing taxpayers $720,000 a year—police reported a 221 percent increase in crimes and public disturbances. Neighbors have witnessed an explosion of property destruction, violence, prostitution, and drug-dealing”
City Journal.
YES!!! The main thing that affordable housing does it that it tanks the market for older, smaller, fixer-upper, single-family homes of the sort that the wife and I bought forty plus years ago.
When you bought your home median cost for a single family home was just over twice the median salary (23,600 v 9800 in 1970). Now it is almost 4 times median salary (226000 v 59000) and much higher in some cities. (It is now 1.7 million in San Francisco)
If they aren't mentally ill or drug addicts, then they are choosing to live on the street. I do not, do not, do not, buy the idea that there is a "housing crisis," because it's easy to move somewhere else where housing is cheap. It's easier to enter the job market now than it has been in my lifetime. Failure to do so is a choice. People live on the street because they can, and the solution is to say no, you can't.
When you can remember a time when there weren't people lying on the street everywhere, you stop believing the excuses. It's not an economic phenomenon, because this wasn't happening during the recession.
That being said, I think moving people out of tent city shantytowns into some kind of housing is cheaper than incarcerating them. But it has to be paired with enforcement of civilized norms. No begging, no loitering, no open-air drug deals downtown.
I live in Portland, Oregon.
Adequately funded comprehensive outreach, housing programs, outpatient mental health and drug counseling including job and life skills training would also (and does, unfortunately availability far outstrips demand) be helpful.
Are you saying that we the taxpayer provide programs to the homeless that they refuse to take advantage of?
Or did you make a mistake and mean to write that "demand far outstrips availability", presumably because we taxpayers are too selfish to provide more.
Former mayor Paul Soglin proposed a Downtown Pedestrian Protection Ordinance that would have limited daytime loitering. The city council rejected it - only one vote in favor. The people of Madison have gotten what they wanted. They can now enjoy it or avoid it.
Freder Frederson said...
"So how is it supposed to work?"
It's not supposed to work, Freder. "Solving the homelessness problem" means paying people to be homeless. And this is a rare case where you get what you pay for. There are lots of places with zero homeless. And they don't spend a penny on the problem. Then there are places with thousands of homeless. And they spend a fortune "solving" the problem, which only gets worse. Funny that, hey?
But it has to be paired with enforcement of civilized norms. No begging, no loitering, no open-air drug deals downtown.
The Freders of the world will tell you that people have a Constitutional right to beg, loiter and generally make a nuisance of themselves.
Too many people want the freedom to live on the street rather than work a low-wage job.
We don't need to subsidize them.
I work for minimum plus 30 cents an hour and write books in my spare time. They aren't bestsellers.
The less money you make, the less sympathy you tend to have for people who won't work. Richer people see that homeless people will never have their middle-class lifestyle and go, oh, poor souls.
What they don't get is that life doesn't end if you aren't middle-class. Working people have lives, they are worth living, and putting up with homeless crashed out in the street has nothing to do with economics.
>>Freder Frederson said...
An estimated 26% of homeless adults staying in shelters live with serious mental illness and an estimated 46% live with severe mental illness and/or substance use disorders.<<
So you've told us about those who stay in homeless shelters when the issue is the mass of bums, addicts, and nutbars that are living on the street. Try again.
There are lots of places with zero homeless. And they don't spend a penny on the problem.
And those places are?
I'm a tour guide, and I gave an indoor tour with twelve people, one of whom was homeless. Some do-gooder bought the homeless guy a ticket.
He seemed to enjoy the tour, but the other 11 people had to endure the smell for 40 minutes. If you've experienced the smell, you know what I mean.
Are the tourists terrible people for not liking the smell? No. I didn't like it, either, but I was getting paid to do a job. The tourists just wanted an educational and entertaining tour, which was ruined by the stench. They paid good money to be exposed to something they didn't sign on for. Sure, the homeless guy had a right to be on the tour. That doesn't mean it was good for everyone else.
The quality of life of everyone else besides the homeless matters. Stepping over used drug needles, trash, and human waste isn't fair to people trying to go to work. Even the tent encampments and trash piled along the Interstate is an eyesore. It tells everyone "these people are more important than you." I don't feel guilty about wanting to live in a clean city. I don't feel guilty about not wanting tramps going through my trash and spilling it on the street.
The idea that homelessness is some kind of sainthood is BS.
The people support this by their votes.
If the people don't support this, they would vote against the candidates who endorse such policies, or leave.
So you've told us about those who stay in homeless shelters when the issue is the mass of bums, addicts, and nutbars that are living on the street. Try again.
Here is another citation of citing 33% with serious mental illness. I'm done looking up facts until one of you can find a link that supports the contention that the "vast majority" of homeless are mentally ill or drug addicts.
The Freders of the world will tell you that people have a Constitutional right to beg, loiter and generally make a nuisance of themselves.
I tell you that because that is what the Supreme Court says. If you want to pass a constitutional amendment that limits the 1st to only those who are not mentally ill, not addicted to drugs, or have a certain net worth, be my guest. The 1st amendment currently applies to everyone, even those who annoy you.
I tell you that because that is what the Supreme Court says. If you want to pass a constitutional amendment that limits the 1st to only those who are not mentally ill, not addicted to drugs, or have a certain net worth, be my guest. The 1st amendment currently applies to everyone, even those who annoy you.
I wonder if there were any vagrancy laws when the First Amendment was written and passed?
"creation of housing, outreach and other means."
Does the Mayor possess powers not seen since that loaves and fishes incident in the middle east some 2000 years ago or is she an off spring of Mandrake the Magician>
Freder Frederson said...
"And those places are?"
Well, nowhere you've ever been, I guess. Let's keep it that way, shall we?
“With thousands of homeless people addicted to heroin or methamphetamine and open-air injection a top complaint for years in San Francisco, there is clearly a mountain of work ahead for the new team. There’s no official count of street addicts, but 41 percent of the 7,499 homeless people counted in the city’s last one-night survey, taken in 2017, admitted to drug or alcohol abuse. Street counselors assume the actual number is higher, especially among longtime hard-core homeless people.” SF Chronical 10-16-18
Freder, how is homelessness (however defined) a 1st Amendment issue?
We don't need to subsidize them.
I hate beggars. A couple of days ago we were on the front porch and some young guy who looked like the gangsters in "Breaking Bad", wearing a new/fancy-looking "sports" jacket came up the front walk asking for cigarettes. I was pissed and blocked his way and said, well, kinda yelled "we don't have any cigarettes or booze or anything else you want, so beat it!" He looked a bit shocked and then left but started in with the "you fucking asshole all I did was ask!" as if the pompous piece of shit thought he had some right to trespass and bother people he doesn't know in order to beg for drugs. After thinking about it I decided that it should be legal to wack people like that in the head with a big stick.
Freder, how is homelessness (however defined) a 1st Amendment issue?
Laws that criminalize loitering in public areas or panhandling have been found to violate the first amendments guarantees of assembly and free speech.
I'm sure Ann has had many lectures on just that topic.
Where are all these addicts getting their fixes? Somebody must be selling the stuff, and making money from it. If selling narcotics on the street is an illegal activity, how do they get away with it? Are the cops ordered to turn a blind eye or are they paid off to do so? Asking for a friend.
Liberalism is self destructing.
Liberalism is divergent. Progressivism is monotonic. Conservativism mitigates perturbations. #PrinciplesMatter
Narayanan
How many of the 'home'less are hopefull to be homefull?
My guess would be less than half. Years ago I had a conversation with a homeless person. He was among the more competent homeless, as he worked on a newspaper for homeless people. I pointed out to him that (at the time),one could rent a two bedroom unit on the diverse side of town for $400/mo. (Yes, rent is higher today.) Four could share the unit for $100/mo each. His reply was that he would rather live in the woods- commute to downtown to beg- than live in the diverse side of town.
Regarding affordable housing, I would mention that decades ago San Francisco had an ample supply of SROH. (single residence occupancy hotels). For a very reasonable monthly rate you would get a single room - some hotels gave you access to a kitchen with stove and refrigerator. San Francisco, dominated for decades by "liberals" and "progressives", has very few SROH left. Life Inside SF’s Vanishing Single Resident Occupancies.
There's a better way
Some cities have undertaken a program that puts panhandlers to work. They do manual labor (picking up trash, for example) and get paid in cash at the end of the day. They also get a free lunch during the day.
Albuquerque, Portland (Maine), Austin, Tucson, Seattle and Spokane, Honolulu, and Denver. There may be other cities doing it, these are the ones I found after a quick search.
The Better Way program gives work to those who want a steady income and something to do. It also tends to cause the ones who are unwilling to work to look for another city to panhandle in.
Homelessness aka bums and the mentally ill living on the streets is a problem that NEVER gets solved by blue state cities. Because the liberal/leftists who live there don't WANT to solve it. The homeless exist so they can virtue signal and feel good about themselves. Why, they gave a homeless man $10 dollars! Why they, told their city council member that something MUST BE DONE! to help them.
They don't want to truly solve the problem. Or it would've been solved years ago.
The "Homeless" problem has nothing to do with people not having homes. How ridiculous. Its a mental illness problem, for the most part. Also an illegal alien problem, in some places. Anyway, after hearing about the problem all through the Reagan years, its good to see someone is finally doing something about it. They'll solve it this time. LOL.
The Mayor of Madison does have it a bit easier than the Mayor Of Paris, France..
Hundreds of migrants and others associated with the so-called “Black Vests” group stormed the Pantheon in Paris demanding the French state grant them residency papers and free housing.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/07/13/watch-migrants-storm-paris-pantheon-demanding-papers-and-free-housing/
Blogger Beasts of England said...
'He doesn't care about the problem so his home town might be the perfect location.'
You can keep your lefty problems where you made them, Fredo - don't try to pawn off your failures on me. And I promise you that the homeless can't afford to be near either of my homes...
Can we also keep our lefty money in the form of federal taxes overspent in red districts? You guys get enough free stuff, it needs to end.
How many homeless people would Freder be willing to take into his home?
Just wondering.
Some years ago, I noticed a homeless person sleeping in the patio of a unit by the pool. I called the HOA's manager, who called the police. Within 20 minutes, a policemen was on the property. He informed the homeless person that if he were caught again on the property,he would be arrested. He hasn't been back. After he left, the policeman told us that alcoholism was a big factor in homelessness.
I knew that this particular homeless person had a drinking problem, as several weeks previously I had seen him drinking beer near the property with another resident. They invited me to drink with them, but I cordially declined. (I later found out they were former brothers-in-law.)
It appears that merely throwing government money at the homeless, as is done in Seattle and San Francisco, doesn't help reduce homelessness, but exacerbates it. Conclusion: additional funding may assuage liberal guilt feelings, but it doesn't help solve the problem.
We will need in some manner to spend government money on the homeless. However, we need to be very rigorous in evaluating such funding. Does such funding reduce or increase homelessness? Apparently funding for the homeless in Democrat-dominated cities doesn't reduce the problem.
San Francisco, dominated for decades by "liberals" and "progressives", has very few SROH left.
I don't know how you can blame liberals and progressives for problems that stem from capitalism working as God intended it. If you own a SROH and can kick its residents out, gut or tear it down, and convert it to million dollar condos, well that is the way the world should work.
Blogger tcrosse said...
Where are all these addicts getting their fixes? Somebody must be selling the stuff, and making money from it. If selling narcotics on the street is an illegal activity, how do they get away with it? Are the cops ordered to turn a blind eye or are they paid off to do so? Asking for a friend.
About 2-years ago, ICE raided the Beach Flats area of Santa Cruz looking to round up MS-13 bangers. The City Mothers and Sisters had the vapors. We regularly attended the Santa Cruz Warriors G-League games in downtown. Before the raid, there were usually at least 4 teams of drug dealers (mostly Black) working the streets of South Pacific Avenue. After the raid, these guys were gone for about 2-months until I guess they could re-up their supply. So yes, libtard towns and cities turn a blind eye to open drug dealing.
I noticed a homeless person sleeping in the patio of a unit by the pool. I called the HOA's manager, who called the police. Within 20 minutes, a policemen was on the property. He informed the homeless person that if he were caught again on the property,he would be arrested. He hasn't been back.
i don't know what the point of this little anecdote is. While the problem may now be out of your sight, it doesn't sound like anything was actually solved by having the cop tell the guy to move along.
Freder
I don't know how you can blame liberals and progressives for problems that stem from capitalism working as God intended it. If you own a SROH and can kick its residents out, gut or tear it down, and convert it to million dollar condos, well that is the way the world should work.
The "free market" in construction operates within the constraints of local regulations. Regulations in San Francisco are particularly onerous, and are a big reason for the housing shortage.Apparently you haven't noticed that San Francisco has a big housing shortage. ‘Historic laundromat’ owner files suit vs. San Francisco for delaying construction of 8-story tower
Making good on his frequent threats to sue the city if delayed or denied in his quest to transform a laundromat at 2918 Mission St. into an eight-story, 75-unit tower, landowner Robert Tillman today took San Francisco to court — in an abuse-of-discretion claim he described as “a $17 million lawsuit.”
At issue was the Board of Supervisors’ June decision to delay the construction of his project, pending studies that would analyze potential shadows the tower could cast upon an adjacent school’s playground — at hours when the playground would be open if it was participating in the city’s nascent San Francisco Shared Schoolyard Project. Which it is not.
It was a surreal moment in public governance: A city official later likened the scene of the board scrambling to devise a means to delay Tillman’s project to a desperate man frantically digging through his couch cushions in search of loose change. This move came on the heels of Tillman being made to fund a 137-page, $23,000 study to determine if his laundromat was a historic resource (two-word synopsis: It isn’t).
NIMBY complainers are also a problem.
Librul war on infrastructure because growth inducement is fuel for many negative externalities.
I'm done looking up facts until one of you can find a link that supports the contention that the "vast majority" of homeless are mentally ill or drug addicts.
"There are lies, damn lies and statistics".
Howard said: Can we also keep our lefty money in the form of federal taxes overspent in red districts? You guys get enough free stuff, it needs to end.
I always wonder how this is calculated. Does it include military spending? Social security recipients moving South? That Wyoming's 600,000 people get more per capita highway spending because they can't take care of I-80 on their own? Western and mountain states have more of their land owned by the government so BLM spends more cash there? Farm states are generally redder so they get "more than their share" of Ag money?
Seriously, if anyone knows....
i don't know what the point of this little anecdote is. While the problem may now be out of your sight, it doesn't sound like anything was actually solved by having the cop tell the guy to move along.
The point of the anecdote was that alcholism/drug addiction is a big problem among the homeless. While there was probably no ultimate solution- the homeless alcoholic getting his act together- there was at least the beginning of a potential solution. He was bluntly informed that his dysfunctional behavior- sleeping without permission on someone else's property- was not tolerated at this property. Regarding what he did with that feedback I don't know.
Well, don't tell Freder, but the homeless problem just got worse.
A sexually confused columnist at the NYT is demanding that we call him, "they". Something about the inclusiveness of plurals. I guess he is grammatically confused too.
"They" might have a few too many voices in their head.
And, if we check back in 10 -15 years after this nonsense runs its course, "they" might be homeless.
Tcross
The sale or possession of small amounts of narcotics (ie heroin,oxy) is not prosecuted in Seattle.
A good start to solving the problem is to ban plastic straws.
Easy solution: #NoJudgment #NoLabels #EverythingsLegal
"Laws that criminalize loitering in public areas or panhandling have been found to violate the first amendments guarantees of assembly and free speech."
Generally because of vagueness; some good background here, here, and here. The laws were criticized because they were found to be so over-broad as to infringe on first amendment rights. More narrowly-constructed laws have passed scrutiny.
NIMBY complainers are also a problem.
Well, yes part of the problem in lack of affordability in San Francisco is indeed restrictions on building. But this is not always caused by onerous regulations but often by people who want to maintain the character of their neighborhood and fight tooth and nail to prevent high density and subsidized housing. This is not a liberal or conservative problem, it is a common attitude among all political persuasions. If you want to say that liberals are more hypocritical, because they are supposed to care about poor people while conservatives blame the problems of the poor on the poor or liberals, you will not get any argument from me.
In LA and San Francisco I don't doubt that housing costs are part of the problem. I think people are attracted to live there even if they can't get jobs there. And it is difficult to get a job that pays for housing if you aren't mentally stable. Finding a roommate if you don't have connections isn't easy, and keeping a roommate if you aren't mentally stable is very hard. So even though California attracts people who are struggling, it is really only affordable for people who can work and co-ooperate with others. But once you are there and you are someone who is kind of on the outskirts of society, why would you leave? To go back and be unemployed in a wintery place?
I don't know what's happening in Madison, but be careful. Detroit will show you how hard it is to get rid of squatters in abandoned homes and buildings (much better living in the snow and cold)
The point of the anecdote was that alcholism/drug addiction is a big problem among the homeless.
Well, if that is the point, then why bother. No one, not even me (although you will now claim I did) claimed that such problems are not a big problem among the homeless. What I pointed out is that you have been overstating the problem by claiming that a "vast majority" of the homeless have drug and alcohol problems.
When you bought your home median cost for a single family home was just over twice the median salary (23,600 v 9800 in 1970). Now it is almost 4 times median salary (226000 v 59000) and much higher in some cities. (It is now 1.7 million in San Francisco)
Back from the gym, where I had a great workout. And then I discovered that Freder had put this non sequitur into the thread. First of all, Freder, you're trying to argue statistics with a mathematician. You should know better, or you would know better if only you had a working brain cell and a touch less undeserved self-esteem. Secondly, resorting to median figures is meaningless because, practically speaking, their income is essentially zero no matter what the median income is. Nor does the median cost of a home have anything to do with the cost of affordable houses (which are hopefully a bit below the median!) nor anything to do with the cost of older fixer-uppers.
As regards you later defense of San Francisco, you need to read with Dr. Tom Sowell has to say about the affordable housing scam. You might learn something.
'Can we also keep our lefty money in the form of federal taxes overspent in red districts? You guys get enough free stuff, it needs to end.'
Show your work, Howie.
'A good start to solving the problem is to ban plastic straws.'
Well, duh - it's the most pressing problem in the history of the world!! Why do you hate the planet? 😂
A good start to solving the problem is to ban plastic straws.
The problem seems to be green lawns. China may be in progress to force a narrative change.
Secondly, resorting to median figures is meaningless because, practically speaking, their income is essentially zero no matter what the median income is. Nor does the median cost of a home have anything to do with the cost of affordable houses (which are hopefully a bit below the median!) nor anything to do with the cost of older fixer-uppers.
So what is a meaningful basis of comparison between the cost of buying a house 40 odd years ago and today? Your point seemed to be that since you managed to buy a house 40 some years ago there shouldn't be a barrier to anyone buying a house today? What is the proper measure of affordable housing if not the median?
So Big Mike, show me some of that math wizardry about how someone with an income of basically zero is supposed to buy and fix up an old house. I can't wait to see your calculations.
Freder Frederson said...
"While the problem may now be out of your sight, it doesn't sound like anything was actually solved by having the cop tell the guy to move along."
It doesn't? Do you have a lot of people you don't know sleeping on your property, Freder? Do they steal your stuff, and shit on your sidewalk?
As regards you later defense of San Francisco, you need to read with Dr. Tom Sowell has to say about the affordable housing scam. You might learn something.
Maintaining open spaces certainly does have a cost. But you can also increase density to add housing. I bet Dr. Tom Sowell lives in a nice tree lined neighborhood, on a large lot, somewhere in the bay area. And I also bet he would be the first in line screaming at his city council if someone bought up a bunch of lots next to his and decided to put up a high rise moderately priced condo.
If you think people pitch tents on the sidewalk inSF and Seattle and live there for years because of the high cost of housing you are delusional or believe these souls to be too stupid to relocate somewhere cheaper and get a job. It is for many, if not most, a lifestyle. Chosen.
Do you have a lot of people you don't know sleeping on your property, Freder? Do they steal your stuff, and shit on your sidewalk?
Like I said I live in New Orleans. Furthermore, I live in a mixed race, mixed income neighborhood. We have our share of homeless who wander around collecting cans and some who will steal anything that isn't tied down. Also car break ins are a problem (cops say they are mainly looking for guns). I don't have to go far to find homeless encampments, they are concentrated under I-10 and in the French Quarter, where they are a big problem, which is about two miles from my house. Occasionally, there will be a couple camped out quite close to my house. And they often sleep on the levee about a quarter mile from my house.
And while your problem may have indeed been solved, it simply became someone elses problem, which is my point.
Freder
Very difficult to get a building permit for housing in SF Land costs are so astronomical building “affordable” housing would result in “affordable” rents way out of reach of the homeless. Light years. The NIBY thinking in much of coastal California makes development a very very difficult thing to get done. There is a lot of literature on the topic.
You could no more buy up a bunch of lots near Sowell and decide to build a high rise affordable rental than you could win Wimbledon. Not zoned for it. Not permitted.
Freder
BTW I hope you and your neighbors are spared from the storm.
You could no more buy up a bunch of lots near Sowell and decide to build a high rise affordable rental than you could win Wimbledon. Not zoned for it. Not permitted.
Which is exactly my point. Sowell's solution is to build in undeveloped areas. Sprawl brings its own problems.
And how do you know that Freder isn't just a play on Federer?
BTW I hope you and your neighbors are spared from the storm.
Why thank you. So far it has been much less than advertised. The worst is further west in Morgan City and Lafayette.
Freder Frederson said...
And while your problem may have indeed been solved, it simply became someone elses problem, which is my point.
Maybe, maybe not.
First of all, there is something to be said about not being the friendly to the homeless neighborhood. So sending one guy away may actually keep more ad more from coming.
But...being a using alcoholic need not be a permanent state. Making it easy to be a using alcoholic isn't actually helping anyone. One can dream that someone being pushed out of their comfortable place to use may make him realize his life has become untenable, and that he can seek help.
In our area, if you tell a cop you need help from your addiction, they will hook you up with a group that will help you find that help.
Good to hear, Freder.
So Big Mike, show me some of that math wizardry about how someone with an income of basically zero is supposed to buy and fix up an old house.
You're starting to get it. They can't. Which is why affordable housing is in no possible way a solution, not even a partial solution, to homelessness.
The point I was making is that building affordable housing makes it difficult for a person on the lower end of the economic ladder to sell an older single-family home. Some of these homes will, of necessity, be abandoned, driving down the value of surrounding homes and turning a formerly solid, middle class neighborhood into a slum.
Not that you, or any other smug liberal, care very much about the difficulties of people less well off than yourself. You may emote all over the homeless, but the working poor and lower middle class are treated by you with contempt.
Sprawl brings its own problems.
And what if your problem is to choose between sprawl and homeless encampments?
Which is what the problem really is.
Freder Frederson said...
"And while your problem may have indeed been solved, it simply became someone elses problem, which is my point."
If the problem is that certain people are unwilling or unable to exist without having people around them that they are allowed to victimize, then the only possible solutions are
1 - they must cease to exist, or
2 - they must have someone to victimize.
If you are offering to be that someone, good on ya, Freder. That would solve the problem, except I kind of doubt that your resources are really up to it. I think you are prepared to contribute your noble sentiments, and think it only fair that the rest of us pay the bill. Fine, generous sentiments they are, I will say.
Freder: “That’s what the Supreme Court says...”
And that’s why fewer and fewer people respect the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has become an extra-Constitutional way around representative government. The unelected justices no longer show ant deference to elected branches, as used to be the custom.
Freder: “The 1st amendment currently applies to everyone, even those who annoy you.”
The First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with public health. The First Amendment is not a license to do as one pleases. The right of the people to “peaceably assemble” is an assembly for a purpose, not a lifestyle. Vagrancy laws are Fourteenth Amendment issues — SCOTUS struck down many of these laws in the 1960s because they were too vague, not because they were bad in and if themselves. City officials are charged with making cities livable. Whatever the case, wrong Amendment.
Freder: “Sprawl brings it’s own problems.”
Such as? Sprawl is the result of people wanting to be free of urban politics that made normal life unlivable. See John Lynch’s comments above.
n.n: “Easy solution: #NoJudgment #NoLabels #EverythingsLegal”
Seems to be the answer to everything these days. Except ideas have consequences. Like incentivizing homelessness. My goodness, in Los Angeles they have homeless advocates negotiating on the homelessness’s behalf. Who gave them such agency? Did the homeless agree to this? More lawlessness in the name of social justice championed by those who do not have the consent of those they claim to represent. It all sounds nice, but no one benefits but government agencies and third parties that are perpetuating the problem.
Sounds like a city problem.
As long as it's contained in cities, I say poop, shoot up, and crazy away!
The more, the merrier!
Sounds like a city problem.
Actually it isn't exclusively a city problem. As for shooting up, apparently you haven't heard that the areas most impacted by the opioid crisis are rural areas.
Cities filled with Democratics turn into shitholes.
The answer, cry Democratics like Freder Frederson?
More Democratics policies!!!!
Eleventy!!!!!
After all, as the expression goes...
If at first you don't succeed, try again with more OPM.
And yet, we're not stepping in human poop or needles where I'm at.
Again, city problem.
Feeder said:
Cheaper than building prisons and mental health institutions and their associated guards, medical personnel and support staff.
I don't believe you. Prove it.
Why not arrest people for crimes like loitering and public urination?
In my ethical framework, if anything is a Human Right, the right to piss in extrema, is a Human Right. What else is expected of us and for how long? I ask.
Here’s my compass on ethics: What if everyone did that?
If there species fails, it’s unethical. If it thrives, it’s ethical. If it doesn’t matter, it’s not an ethical problem — it may be a moral problem, just not an ethical one.
There, that’s my ethics.
>>Hundreds of migrants and others associated with the so-called “Black Vests” group stormed the Pantheon in Paris demanding the French state grant them residency papers and free housing.
I saw many homeless folks begging and sleeping on the sidewalk during my last visit to Paris.
Without exception, they were middle eastern. Two years apart, I saw the same woman, clad in black from head to toe in Place de Clichy hollering at Metro riders, with a sign saying something about Syria.
Whatever the French social welfare services are doing, it keeps French men and women from begging on the streets. Begging is apparently a job the French won't do.
Some commenters here seem to be unaware that anti-vagrancy and loitering laws were invalidated by the courts a long time ago. That was a major factor in the development of indoor shopping malls. Bums could be kept out, at least at first.
Seattle, I read somewhere, spends around 100k per homeless person annually to address homelessness. Stunning number but likely correct. Now that huge amount of money in no way goes to the actual homeless but rather to the Homeless Industry which navigates the shoals of Free State, Local and Federal money to pay itself and concoct new schemes for solving the problem that provides their own comfy but concerned lives. This is how the solution rolls.
First off, as a physician you should know that homelessness is not a psychiatric ailment.
What you are suggesting is incarceration (and very expensive incarceration because you would have to have much more medical staff to maintain the illusion) by another name.
First off, as a physician, I know infinitely more than you do about psychiatric illness. Why don't you read :"My brother Ron" an excellent basic education on the topic. I spent 40 years teaching at LA County Hospital. What is your experience.
\
I was out on the ocean today instead of trying to educate the uneducable.
I see Freder had the sense to discontinue his buffoonery about homelessness.
I used to take my medical students on a tour of the homeless shelters of LA every year. The Directors told us, without exception, that 60% of the homeless were psychotic, 60% were alcohol or drug addicts, and half of each group were both.
I suspect the addict population is now a higher percentage.
Can we also keep our lefty money in the form of federal taxes overspent in red districts? You guys get enough free stuff, it needs to end.
This is so laughable it’s hilarious, yet blind arrogant lefties sure love to spew this crap.
Red districts tend to have more retirees (social security) and more military bases than blue districts. When you even those two out, blue states and districts become WAY more dependent on government money.
Stop spreading this nonsense. Because that’s exactly what it is.
Freder: While public urination is indeed a crime,loitering is not.
That's simply not true. Else, this would not exist:
III. CHALLENGES TO VAGRANCY, LOITERING, AND CURFEW LAWS
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/casesummaries_3.html
Micheal: That don't work. The only way "homelessness will be solved is by reopening psychiatric hospitals.
This.
And while I hardly attack from the Left, Jordan Peterson explains why the Right's "pull yourself up" philosophy is imperfect.
Short version, 10% of the population has an IQ of 83 or lower and, based on decades of Army recruitment experiments, cannot find any productive role in our complex society.
That's 33 million Americans.
So what do you do with the people that are incapable of providing for themselves?
There is no "homeless" problem. What there is, is a "professional city manager" problem. Also, a "progressive pastor at a (fill-in-the-blank) church" problem. In short, what we have is a situation in which certain highly-educated parasites use a problem they have created to increase their incomes and the powers they wield. This much is clear. What is not clear, at least to me, is why the people who pay local property taxes tolerate this shit. Since I am a member of the latter group, I suppose I need to practice some introspection.
Fen said...
"So what do you do with the people that are incapable of providing for themselves?"
Well, that kind of depends. If you are saying that these are people you have grown up with, who speak your language, are long-standing members of your community, and see themselves as such, then perhaps you regard them as persons you have an obligation to assist.
If you have somehow concluded that every basket case on Earth belongs in your basket, well, go for it, Jack. But with your stuff, not with mine.
Some commenters here seem to be unaware that anti-vagrancy and loitering laws were invalidated by the courts a long time ago
City of Hagerstown, MD / The Code / Part II: General Legislation
Loitering.
Remaining idle in essentially one location and shall include the concepts of spending time idly, loafing or wailing about aimlessly, and shall also include the colloquial expression "hanging around."
Enforcement.
[Amended 2-4-2004 by Ord. No. 2004-3]
Whenever the presence of any person in any public place is causing any of the conditions enumerated in § 142-2 or 142-2.1, any police officer may order that person or persons to leave that place. Any person who shall refuse to leave after being ordered to do so by a police officer shall be guilty of a violation of this chapter.
Violations and penalties.
If any person commits an offense as set forth in this chapter, said offense shall be considered a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days.
If you have somehow concluded that every basket case on Earth belongs in your basket, well, go for it, Jack. But with your stuff, not with mine.
I'm not trying to do that. I can't help 33 million Americans. I can maybe help one or two. And if I did so, I certainly would NOT assume any right to demand you do the same.
My question is, if it's true that 10% of the population is incapable of providing for themselves, what do we do with them. Obviously we need a social safety net, but that will be exploited by the Marxists to be used against us, similar to how Democrats have enslaved blacks to the welfare system, making them dependent on it to capture their votes.
So what are the alternatives?
And how do you know that Freder isn't just a play on Federer?
Because Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927; talking about great science fiction…) was a German film? In which the principal character, Freder Frederson, was obviously named after his father, also a character….
Go ahead, Freder, tell us your moniker here isn't drawn from Metropolis.
Fen said...
"So what do you do with the people that are incapable of providing for themselves?"
Did you watch your Jordan Petersen clip all the way to the end? He answers your question.
So much virtue signaling from the left. Which would be a lot easier to take if the usual suspects were putting their money where their mouths were and supporting these people on their own dimes. And Freder reminds me of the upright liberal citizen who hands a bum ten dollars and then proceeds to tell him exactly how to spend it.
"Red districts tend to have more retirees (social security) and more military bases than blue districts. When you even those two out, blue states and districts become WAY more dependent on government money."
If the Swamp wanted to, it could easily track federal benefits paid by zip code. Every federal payment should have either a tax ID or zip code associated with it. I'd love to see how much welfare money is paid to the big cities and welfare includes cash payments, WIC, Medicaid, CHIP, unemployment, college grants, etc. I'd love to see how much welfare money is paid to illegal immigrants.
In short, what we have is a situation in which certain highly-educated parasites use a problem they have created to increase their incomes and the powers they wield.
Exactly. This was shown way back in the Johnson Administration where the problem really began. People paid to supervise make-work welfare programs slowed things down to increase their own incomes.
Reopening mental institutions will be expensive but how much is spent on "Homelessness?" I spent a summer working in a VA Psych hospital when I was a medical student. There was one psychiatrist for 200 patients. There were a few nurses and the rest techs. All they had to do was make sure the schizophrenics took their meds. It was pure custodial care. Some got well enough that they could go to "half way houses" but the hospital was always there to back up the caretakers in the half way house.
25% of prison populations are psychotic
I rarely share my story with people, not only because it put me at the lowest point ever but because it made me a person of ridicule among family and friends. I put all I had into Binary Options ($690,000) after hearing great testimonies about this new investment
strategy. I was made to believe my investment would triple, it started good and I got returns (not up to what I had invested). Gathered more and involved a couple family members, but I didn't know I was setting myself up for the kill, in less than no time all we had put ($820,000) was gone. It almost seem I had set them up, they came at me strong and hard. After searching and looking for how to make those scums pay back, I got introduced to maryshea03@gmail.com who helped recover about 80% of my lost funds within a month.
Post a Comment