Politics Homeless people gain ‘de facto right’ to sleep on sidewalks through federal court

[Natebishop3]

You've made this claim several times...
Do you have any evidence or proof to back that claim up?

You can't just use the percentage of the nation's homeless population. If I were homeless in Denver or Salt Lake during the winter - I'd sure as hell look to move to another part of the country. If I was in Vegas or Phoenix in the summer - I'd be moving too.

Portland has a relatively moderate climate, which I suspect is a big driver in the homeless population.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...t-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study

https://www.streetroots.org/news/20...n-patient-dumping-nevada-psychiatric-hospital

Move how? They have no money. How do they get from Phoenix to Portland?

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...t-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study

https://www.streetroots.org/news/20...n-patient-dumping-nevada-psychiatric-hospital

Move how? They have no money. How do they get from Phoenix to Portland?

I used to do intakes for Portland's version of this program. It mostly pays for greyhound tickets and gas money and sometimes plane tickets. Some homeless folks found a way to game the system and would sign up and just pocket the per diem that was offered to people who were taking long bus rides.

 

[Natebishop3]

I used to do intakes for Portland's version if this program. It mostly pays for greyhound tickets and gas money and sometimes plane tickets. Some homeless folks found a way to game the system and would sign up and just pocket the per diem that was offered to people who were taking long bus rides.

I think the main gripe specifically was Nevada putting mentally ill people on buses with no plan for when they got there.

 

[tester551]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...t-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study

https://www.streetroots.org/news/20...n-patient-dumping-nevada-psychiatric-hospital

Move how? They have no money. How do they get from Phoenix to Portland?

There's hitch hiking. If I'm in that situation, I'd find a way.

Looks like California (primarily SF & LA) has been one of the biggest abusers of doing this. But again - Portland has their own program to ship homeless to other parts of the country.

 

[riverman]

A pitbull with a dog run along the sidewalk should work....or install a sprinkler system on the edge of the walk.....nobody puts a tent on top of a puddle of water or next to an angry pitbull

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Give them housing.
Force them to work for it.
Provide mental health support and training.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Half of fires in LA are related to Homeless encampments.

 

[riverman]

Give them housing.
Force them to work for it.
Provide mental health support and training.

absolutely right! We'll start by giving them your house! you can still live there and give them counseling and teach them about swords and shit! St Vincent de Paul does housing for the disabled here....they charge 165 bucks a month rent for nice small condos and disabled services gives them caregivers several hours a week and disability checks to live on. Jimmy Carter is doing his part as well....it's not enough though

 

[riverman]

Half of fires in LA are related to Homeless encampments.

You wanted to watch the world burn .....you moved to the right place bro!

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

absolutely right! We'll start by giving them your house! you can still live there and give them counseling and teach them about swords and shit! St Vincent de Paul does housing for the disabled here....they charge 165 bucks a month rent for nice small condos and disabled services gives them caregivers several hours a week and disability checks to live on. Jimmy Carter is doing his part as well....it's not enough though

NIMBY

 

[Phatguysrule]

Give them housing.
Force them to work for it.
Provide mental health support and training.

Slavery was ended a long time ago. It wasn't good for the slaves then, and it wouldn't be good for them now.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Half of fires in LA are related to Homeless encampments.

Yes. it would be SO MUCH less expensive to just house them.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Slavery was ended a long time ago. It wasn't good for the slaves then, and it wouldn't be good for them now.

Then just watch the numbers grow and grow the more you "take care" of them. The problems with crime, drugs and general nuisance will remain.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Yes. it would be SO MUCH less expensive to just house them.

We should make it illegal to be homeless.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Then just watch the numbers grow and grow the more you "take care" of them.

Most people wouldn't qualify for a home. Those who do qualify cost us far more in emergency services, maintenance, and police overtime.

Again, the only real way to address this is at the nation level.

 

[Phatguysrule]

We should make it illegal to be homeless.

Court already ruled on that one, as you know.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Most people wouldn't qualify for a home. Those who do qualify cost us far more in emergency services, maintenance, and police overtime.

Again, the only real way to address this is at the nation level.

You think that giving them housing while letting them be junkies will solve things, it won't. They will just be junkies who now have a free home.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You think that giving them housing while letting them be junkies will solve things, it won't. They will just be junkies who now have a free home.

Letting them be junkies with a free home works far better than letting them be homeless junkies. Streets are clean, it costs us half to a third as much, and most importantly, more people recover, and stay recovered when they are able to get treatment from a home as opposed to in the streets.

It worked great for 10 years in Utah, until the program wasn't re-upped at it's scheduled end date. Now they haves streets full of homeless again.

It's working well in Finland. It's really worked pretty much everywhere it's been tried, the only question is how much money you save. Not if you save money, but how much.

Cheaper, cleans up streets, higher rates of recovery and lower rates of recidivism.

Yeah, it works.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Letting them be junkies with a free home works far better than letting them be homeless junkies. Streets are clean, it costs us half to a third as much, and most importantly, more people recover, and stay recovered when they are able to get treatment from a home as opposed to in the streets.

It worked great for 10 years in Utah, until the program wasn't re-upped at it's scheduled end date. Now they haves streets full of homeless again.

It's working well in Finland. It's really worked pretty much everywhere it's been tried, the only question is how much money you save. Not if you save money, but how much.

Cheaper, cleans up streets, higher rates of recovery and lower rates of recidivism.

Yeah, it works.

Give them free housing, you'll see a skyrocketing in the number of "unhoused". You don't have a system of rules, they will take advantage.

Seems like the only place they tried it is a bunch of majority white areas.

 

[riverman]

Televangelists should be in charge of housing and caring for the homeless....tax free status should come with a public service fine print agreement ......provide rehab and life coaching, etc...send them to Tony Robbins island or Dr Phil's mansion...they've already made theirs.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Give them free housing, you'll see a skyrocketing in the number of "unhoused". You don't have a system of rules, they will take advantage.

Seems like the only place they tried it is a bunch of majority white areas.

Actually I think California recently adopted the policy. Which is awesome, if they actually do it right and have no strings attached to housing.

 

[barfo]

Give them free housing, you'll see a skyrocketing in the number of "unhoused". You don't have a system of rules, they will take advantage.

Seems like the only place they tried it is a bunch of majority white areas.

I'm fine with we-the-taxpayers providing basic shelter to anyone who wants it. If someone prefers that to their current living situation, then probably their current situation isn't too good.

barfo

 

[stampedehero]

California governor announces $12 billion homeless plan (yahoo.com)<<<<< 12 Billion!

 

[stampedehero]

Actually I think California recently adopted the policy. Which is awesome, if they actually do it right and have no strings attached to housing.

California governor announces $12 billion homeless plan (yahoo.com)

 

[Orion Bailey]

You guys are so mean! About to lose my house because of my bet on the Blazers here. @SlyPokerDog won't let me stay at his extra doghouse and @Orion Bailey's turned his extra space into a recording studio. Time to eat the rich!

sorry man i havecto look towards the future of all.
My space is reserved for someone else here.

he has the answers to solve the worlds problems and i must take the larger sect as the priority.
Save you or save Portland? Sorry i must save Portland and protect those with all the answers for a better tomorrow!

now if you can show me you have all the answers as well i may reconsider but you must be steadfast in your dismissal of any differing opinions as simply silly. if you are unable to take this stance then your out.

 

[Phatguysrule]

California governor announces $12 billion homeless plan (yahoo.com)<<<<< 12 Billion!

California governor announces $12 billion homeless plan (yahoo.com)

Assuming all of that money is spent in 5 years that's a huge savings.

$12 billion
÷161,000 homeless people in California
=$74k
÷ 5 years
= $15k per person.

San Francisco spends $40,000 per year per homeless person.

Extrapolate that across the state over the same 5 years and the cities of California are going to be paying $32 billion to NOT address the problem.

But we'll complain about the $12 billion rather than support the idea of clean streets while saving $20 billion every 5 years...

 

[julius]

Assuming all of that money is spent in 5 years that's a huge savings.

$12 billion
÷161,000 homeless people in California
=$74k
÷ 5 years
= $15k per person.

San Francisco spends $40,000 per year per homeless person.

Extrapolate that across the state over the same 5 years and the cities of California are going to be paying $32 billion to NOT address the problem.

But we'll complain about the $12 billion rather than support the idea of clean streets while saving $20 billion every 5 years...

It's as if you've never heard someone in the GOP talk before.

 

[julius]

It's as if you've never heard someone in the GOP talk before.

To continue on with my point, it's a purposely disingenuous approach to something that is the issue.

Yes, the 12 billion spent is 12 billion in "new" spending, but they are conveniently forgetting that the 12 billion (as @Phatguysrule stated) replaced 32 billion that they currently spend.

Like, I think we all (for the most part) know that the GOP doesn't like spending money on poor people or disadvantaged people as much as the DNC does (or claims to). But they will always argue that any proactive spending that the DNC proposes is always in *addition* to what is currently being reactively being spent.

Not saying that the DNC (or "liebruls") don't suffer from this too, but the GOP has mastered the ability to use this spin to their advantage.

 

[Lanny]

But they are very treatable if you just house them. No need to isolate them from us.

Do you know what I'm curious about this subject? I'm curious about why we have so many more homeless people than we did 50 years ago. My theory is that it has to do with wealth disparity, in fact, I'm sure of it. Two ways to remedy this: 1. Increase the minimum wage; 2. Increase the income tax on the wealthy.

 

[Lanny]

I agree, but I'd also add: eat the rich.

America isn't unique when it comes to the issue of wealth gap between the rich and the poor. In VN, I once lived an area where the locals (except for a very small percentage) wouldn't be able to afford. The lady that did our house cleaning has never even been inside of a shopping mall. Some of the meals at the fancy restaurants there would almost be a month's salary for some people.

I can't eat the rich.
1. Too much fat on the good pieces;
2. Everyone will be fighting and clawing for the pieces that don't have a lot of fat clinging to them;
3. Who wants to eat the lips and the ass?
The ears? Okay, you can deep fry them until crisp.
I think we should start on Sly, he's rich. Who's not afraid to eat the liver. Sorry, can't give you the heart because as we all know he has no heart.