Printable View
Anyone been reading about this?
The issue are homeless who do not want to go to shelters, cannot find shelter and so on. What would you think if your city did not try to fight it? The problem is all over the country and a case is now at the Supreme Court. Is it cruel and unusual punishment to tell people they can’t sleep in parks, sidewalks and so on?
They sh*t all over the place, drugs, alcohol, violence, trash all over. Look at San Francisco and Portland, homeless all over, who wants to visit when there’s sh*t all over the place?Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
No, I don’t call it cruel.
The issue is complex and years in the making. Seems like most of the ones we see here prefer to live in camps along creeks or woods where they can do what they wish. I am sick of the litter and constant dangerous fires. I don't think it's cruel to disallow camping in public spaces but then where will they go without a concerted effort to place them elsewhere?
Fentanyl. As long as it keeps coming, nothing will get better. Here's a good story from the city across the river from PDX.
https://epaper.columbian.com/html5/r...d-f6e684b614a3
These almost seem like theoretical issues for the homeless, generally there aren't enough shelters for the homeless population anyway, noone is even trying to shelter them all, though the shelters may also not be particularly safe. I don't want homeless in parks etc., I also think most of them have nowhere to go.
Oops cannot read it, subscribers only.Quote:
Originally Posted by KayLR
Substance abuse among the homeless is nothing new. Maybe more of it. Alcoholism has been an issue for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by KayLR
Because of issues around litter, human waste, crime, discarded needles, etc. I think that homeless should not be allowed to camp or otherwise occupy any public spaces or other places with no controls. At one time a lot of these people would have been in mental institutions. However, I don't think the federal government should be telling localities how to deal with this unless they are willing to pay for alternatives. Without further enlightenment, I think local governments should decide how to deal with the issue and have the approval of taxpayers on solutions.
Does a human being have a right to exist in the world?
Morally, of course, but the devil is in the details. The homeless need incentives to change their lifestyle and there's both the stick and carrot to balance, although neither seems to work perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Are there not already laws on the books criminalizing the problems that sometimes happen when homeless people exist in parks or other public places? It seems like it would make more sense to enforce those laws against the people violating them rather than simply criminalize the existence of people without housing. The city at the center of the current supreme court case has at least 600 homeless people and possibly twice that depending on who you ask. And precisely one homeless shelter. A private religious one with only 139 beds that requires that people be sober, not in romantic relationships, and willing to regularly attend religious indoctrination sessions if they want housing. The city itself apparently can't be bothered to even make a minimal effort to help the homeless since it operates precisely zero homeless shelter beds. What exactly are the unhoused people in that community supposed to do to avoid violating this absurd law?
Lifestyle--assuming you mean drugging and drinking--is just one cause of homelessness. Affordable housing seems to be a bigger reason for people being on the streets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homele...ousing%20costs. It's a very complex issue with no easy answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Depends.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
What country, status, etc. etc. etc.
In America, you can lose your right to exist, if convicted of a death penalty crime.
Then you could bring the whole abortion thing into this discussion and that brings another right to exist question.
But in general, over the centuries, no, people didn't have a right to exist. From times in Greece where weak babies could be discarded, to slaves of various countries, to those of another country, religion, etc, to even modern times, for example when my bio great aunt that I never met to the best of my knowledge, told me I didn't, from her deathbed.
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are kind of bedrock principals here. Maybe I missed the part about ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as long as one can afford a roof over their head’?
There are a couple of cities here that have pilot or test programs giving a basic guaranteed income to homeless that meet the test criteria. Up to to $1000/month for two years is one example. Out here in the burbs there are still some homeless, but the camps I've seen around are rare or gone altogether. I've talked with our country open space rangers and the approach seems to be they are first offered some sort of mental counselling and also some minimal housing. The they are served a 7 day notice that the camp will be removed. I think some of the housing may be with a time limit to stay. Some of the camps are so unsanitary they've required outside firms with specialized hazmat training and equipment.
I think the problems in the inner city are worse and homeless areas more common. They have a plan to covert old motels into homeless housing, but there doesn't seem to be enough space, especially with the influx of immigrants. To pay for all of it the city has proposed cutbacks in certain programs that maintain parks and other amenities. So all of this comes at a cost to the productive tax payer.
I have a friend who has volunteered at a soup kitchen. Her story is that about a third of the homeless have mental and possibly drug/alcohol problems, a third only have drug and or alcohol problems, and a third just prefer the lifestyle or have become trapped in it. Fact being that some could work given the incentives. Recent homeless immigrants are a different story from what I've seen. They generally want to work, but either can't find jobs or don't have the necessary work permits. The city tries to help, but there just are not enough resources to go around. My local recreation center was closed for a while to help the immigrant influx.
I'm probably missing something, but that's my take on things around here and some of it is working. However, I still don't think the federal government has the right to tell localities how to handle things. It's a complicated situation, but there are common fixes that use money or housing give aways at the expense of the tax payer and may involve a loss of other services within local budgets. Who's to say how that should go? There are no doubt people who consider these functional remedies as a version of socialism.
I think there is a spectrum of homelessness ranging from the totally feckless to people whipsawed by the housing market to privileged kids getting suspended from Barnard and whining about being homeless to claim some sort of intersectional merit badge. I think the problem needs to be addressed with a complicated spectrum of solutions.
My experience in the field has been that many people are simply not capable of the responsibility of homeownership even with steep subsidies. Public housing can be tricky from both a NIMBY and crime standpoint. Rent control and zoning can serve to warp the housing market in all kinds of ways.
Rhetoric about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all well and good, but the many differing segments of the homeless population will need to be addressed at different levels in many potentially messy ways.
I agree. However one of those ways of dealing with it should not be to simply criminalize existence and then shrug one's shoulders.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
As I understand it, the case before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with criminalizing anyone's existence but rather determines whether or not it's legal for local/regional ordinances to restrict how public spaces are used through civil or perhaps criminal penalties for mis-use.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I think we can all commiserate with poor homeless souls with little to no options for safe housing while also backing ordinances designed to protect public spaces from mis-use and possible destruction.
So where exactly should the homeless of Grants Pass sleep?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Your friend’s experience matches mine when I helped out at shelter dinners 20 years ago. There are some homeless people who simply like the lifestyle and don’t want to be forced into a normalized living situation. Should we then allow those folks to camp in parks and other public places, resulting in filth and crime that renders those places useless for people who would otherwise use them. Such as a park??Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
That's a good question. I suppose the first level of safety nets is family, then friends, then community. Although each of those probably comes with conditions that must be met and my guess is that those very conditions keep the majority of the homeless population from taking advantage of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I talked with a sheriff a month or so ago who had helped clear out old beat up RV type long term campers from a parking area in a county recreation area. One of them had caught on fire and caused some damage and there had been reports of car break ins.. He was putting up big "No Camping" signs. He apparently came from a conservative cut, but his take was that they get a slap on the wrist for minor infractions, like littering or trespassing, and that most of them just don't want to get a real job. I suppose the RV type homeless are a slightly different sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd
Actually fires are another concern where there are camps in creek bottoms or undeveloped areas and open campfires. At least here in the arid west.
fires were an ongoing problem with urban homeless as well. in my urban core neighborhood that was gentrifying decades ago, vagrants moved in to boarded up houses often caused fires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I knew a guy who returned from an overseas deployment to find squatters in his house. It took something like five months to get rid of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
That happened to us. But it was only one squatter (in my MIL's house that we were getting our renters to vacate so we could sell), and she was a substance abuser. Her social worker told us not to let us in. She changed the locks. The police told us to get off our property. It took 4 months and we lost the best of the selling season, so that was an added expense to be sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
But underneath these anecdotes about the homeless is a bigger systemic issue. My great-grandfather died in an "asylum" because he just didn't fit into mainstream society--do we go back to that model?
Edited to add: This is what Burllington's partial solution is. Pods that are located on the block between one of my son's house and the other. I haven't asked them lately what they think of it. Sounds like it's kind of working but with problems to iron out.
https://vtdigger.org/2024/02/04/one-...ods-a-success/
to add insult to injury, the taxpayers were paying the salary of that social worker to give that legal advice to the squatter in your MIL’s house. I seem to remember that was a different state so probably you were not paying her salary, but still. InfuriatingQuote:
Originally Posted by catherine
It was frustrating, that's for sure. It was in New York State.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
No kidding. That reminds me of this story.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/man...nia-homes/amp/
And if none of those options is available to the person it’s ok if the city makes it illegal for them to sleep?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
You’re offering to take a homeless person into your home?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I doubt this entire issue has anything to do with the occasional one off situation where someone sleeps in a public park one night. I'm sure if one evening you found someone sleeping in the HOA maintained space just outside your back door you'd probably not make an issue of it, but once it became every night and they started bringing in tents or other makeshift housing, making a fire pit for those frigid nights and start relieving themselves in your yard you'd probably start requesting someone do something about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I think that's the situation a lot of cities are finding themselves needing to address. It's too bad various activist types have taken the stewards of these public spaces to task for attempting to deal with the situation. If I'm not mistaken, that's why it's before the Supremes now.
exactly. It’s about setting up camps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
It's unlikely that homeless people are going to start camping on the hill behind our house. They already have places to camp. People with RV's camp on the road leading to the general aviation airport, and people without RV's camp in the park next to the main library. The RV encampment has county assistance with things like sewage pumpout to protect the wetlands that abut the road, and the park camp has porta potties and portable showers and such. There are also social service workers and such working to find everyone better housing at both locations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
https://www.marinij.com/2023/07/30/n...-camp-at-park/
https://www.marinij.com/2023/08/25/m...ato-road-camp/
At the end of the day the correct thing to do, at least in my opinion, is help these people find stable housing. Not criminalize their existence and then send them to jail when they can't solve their housing problem on their own.
Meanwhile, in Finland:
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdred...ic-071123.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Shinn and Khadduri point to the success of the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program as an example of an effective implementation of the Housing First approach in the United States. The program, which is designed to house veterans experiencing homelessness, has contributed to an 11 percent decline in homelessness rates among U.S. veterans since early 2020 (based on a 2022 Point-in-Time Count). Specifically, data show that on a single night in January 2022, a total of 33,136 veterans were experiencing homelessness in the United States, down from 37,252 in 2020. This decline represents a 55.3 percent reduction in the number of veterans experiencing homelessness since 2010.
Housing First makes sense. My brother suffered from alcoholism his whole life--bouncing around from place to place living in cheap motels when he had the money and when he didn't who knows where he stayed.. But he was able to acquire his own apartment on the campus of a VA hospital, with all the regular support services he needed to kick the alcoholism. Last week he celebrated his 3rd year of sobriety. One of the motivating factors he has told me about in staying sober is the knowledge that if he picks up a drink, he has a LOT to lose. He feel stable and happy for the first time probably in his life.
As for the biggest roadblock in Housing First, you have to have the housing to offer. The homeless in Burlington are on a 1-2 year waiting list, even for one of the new pods that are featured in the link I posted above.