A Conversation about the Homeless

StarSong said:
I knew that would be controversial when I wrote it. No, it's not necessarily "fair," but it might be necessary. Many dorm-type homeless shelters and temporary housing units aren't conducive to sheltering animals while attempting to get homeless people on their feet. Perhaps foster care could be arranged for pets while people are getting themselves together.

I guess the question is whether it's better to leave people on the streets so they can keep their animals, or better to tell them they have to give up their animals - at least for a while - so they can pull themselves together?
Click to expand...
Noticing your location- are you familiar with https://www.angelhanz.org/ ?
If there's one long-time "worthy cause" that genuinely cares and tries to help, that's it.
 

Don M. said:
Years ago, most metro areas had several "Mental" hospitals. Then, they started to be known as "insane asylums", which raised the Ire of the Politically Correct, and they started shutting down. Now there are few facilities dedicated to those issues, so those who suffer are left to fend for themselves....on the streets.
Click to expand...
I don't know what's going on in other areas, can only speak from locally but I'm sure it's more widespread- I don't believe it was so much about 'politics' or money 'funding' as this idiotic 'PC' approach that you can't tell people what to do. Even individuals who are a danger to others cannot be made to accept medical care or 'treatment' for drug/alcohol problems.
 
Jamala said:
Before we start sweeping the homeless off the streets, take time to find out why they are there. Providing sandwiches, a cup of soup or a cup of coffee is not the answer. This is only a momentary fix.
The answer is hounding local authorities to help, petitioning and helping in real and tangible ways.
Click to expand...
Remy said:
My question is how we do that?
Click to expand...

Hounding local authorities can get a homeless encampment moved, but here in Sacramento that only happens when businesses complain. California law gives homeless people the right to live on a public sidewalk or in the doorway of a convenience store, butcher shop, bakery; just about any business that isn't owned or operated by the state. By observing the "rights of the homeless" to live and use the toilet pretty much wherever they like, the state doesn't have to actually worry about homeless people, nor act on complaints from housed people. A win for the state.

Whenever the state HAS gotten a yes from Californians to build housing for the homeless, billions of dollars disappears and maybe 40 or 50 low-income apartment units open. 50 low-income, 2-bedroom apartments for something like 100-thousand homeless people state-wide, give or take.

For example, I think it was the 2016 election cycle when Californians agreed to be taxed a total of 1.9 billion and got 42 2-bedroom apartments out of it. And in 2018 it was 52 units for 2.2 billion. But it gets worse; most recently we paid 2.6 billion for no units. The money was gone before even a handfull of dirt was displaced.

I might have those ^ years wrong, but not the figures, or vice-versa. And I probly saved a news story and video about it, but it would be deep in a mountain of others, and you probly wouldn't watch it anyway - but you can google it.

In brief, historically, only certain people's complaints are addressed, Californians keep giving the state tons of money to take care of the homeless knowing they're not going to, and (I didn't even mention) the state manages to make climate and water issues sound far more urgent than the immediate needs of at least 170,000 homeless people, including about 50,000 children.
 

Paco Dennis said:
My solution...tax the rich 80% EVERYWHERE. Use this money for community development. Create affordable housing, and half-way houses. Find jobs for these people, and get them medical and mental health care. These people are our relatives.
Click to expand...
"Find jobs for these people?"
I don't know if you ever got to know anyone with a mental issue, but I know a couple of people with Autism. There is no way they could ever have a job; they would quit after a few minutes. They're not lazy & it's not their fault; that's the limit of their attention span.
Mental health care costs money & there is really no cure, anyway.
 
win231 said:
"Find jobs for these people?"
I don't know if you ever got to know anyone with a mental issue, but I know a couple of people with Autism. There is no way they could ever have a job; they would quit after a few minutes. They're not lazy & it's not their fault; that's the limit of their attention span.
Mental health care costs money & there is really no cure, anyway.
Click to expand...
I have seen facilities that hire Autistic and handicapped people,?
 
Murrmurr said:
Hounding local authorities can get a homeless encampment moved, but here in Sacramento that only happens when businesses complain. California law gives homeless people the right to live on a public sidewalk or in the doorway of a convenience store, butcher shop, bakery; just about any business that isn't owned or operated by the state. By observing the "rights of the homeless" to live and use the toilet pretty much wherever they like, the state doesn't have to actually worry about homeless people, nor act on complaints from housed people. A win for the state.

Whenever the state HAS gotten a yes from Californians to build housing for the homeless, billions of dollars disappears and maybe 40 or 50 low-income apartment units open. 50 low-income, 2-bedroom apartments for something like 100-thousand homeless people state-wide, give or take.

For example, I think it was the 2016 election cycle when Californians agreed to be taxed a total of 1.9 billion and got 42 2-bedroom apartments out of it. And in 2018 it was 52 units for 2.2 billion. But it gets worse; most recently we paid 2.6 billion for no units. The money was gone before even a handfull of dirt was displaced.

I might have those ^ years wrong, but not the figures, or vice-versa. And I probly saved a news story and video about it, but it would be deep in a mountain of others, and you probly wouldn't watch it anyway - but you can google it.

In brief, historically, only certain people's complaints are addressed, Californians keep giving the state tons of money to take care of the homeless knowing they're not going to, and (I didn't even mention) the state manages to make climate and water issues sound far more urgent than the immediate needs of at least 170,000 homeless people, including about 50,000 children.
Click to expand...
I appreciate what you are saying, but I have this dream which I hope can be turned into reality that the homeless can be found homes and not have to "move on" or live in doorways. Everyone has the right to food and shelter.
 
Jamala said:
I appreciate what you are saying, but I have this dream which I hope can be turned into reality that the homeless can be found homes and not have to "move on" or live in doorways. Everyone has the right to food and shelter.
Click to expand...
...but just to play devils' advocate here... ''do they ?... I mean does everyone have the right to food and shelter at the expense of others?...
 
win231 said:
"Autism" & "Handicaps" cover a wide range of severity. Some people are mildly autistic & can function & be employed.
Others can't. The few autistic people I know could not.
Click to expand...

The autistic people I know are also unemployable. However, they aren't homeless. They live with family or in group homes that are fully or partly underwritten by social services.
 
StarSong said:
The autistic people I know are also unemployable. However, they aren't homeless. They live with family or in group homes that are fully or partly underwritten by social services.
Click to expand...
Altho' many are not, I would go as far as to say that most people who live on the streets are addicts of some type or another. Whether this is a product of their circumstance or a cause and effect is open to debate, but most of them do not want to give up their addiction..
 
hollydolly said:
Altho' many are not, I would go as far as to say that most people who live on the streets are addicts of some type or another. Whether this is a product of their circumstance or a cause and effect is open to debate, but most of them do not want to give up their addiction..
Click to expand...
True. The people I feel deeply for are veterans with PTSD and people with mental illnesses like schizophrenia or bipolar. These people are victims.

Addicts are usually their own worst enemies.
 
Don M. said:
Years ago, most metro areas had several "Mental" hospitals. Then, they started to be known as "insane asylums", which raised the Ire of the Politically Correct, and they started shutting down. Now there are few facilities dedicated to those issues, so those who suffer are left to fend for themselves....on the streets.
Click to expand...
As I recall the main issue was civil rights lawsuits that the state lost. Those suits may have been brought by the “politically correct”, perhaps relatives of the incarcerated, but ultimately it was a legal issue. The state provided aid and housing (half way houses) for those released, but they didn’t care for rules and headed for the alleys, where they could get drunk and do drugs. San Francisco at one point provided very fancy single stall outside toilets, but those were turned into mini apartments and drug sale centers and had to be removed. Now the city has established drug use reservations!

“SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- They say that pictures speak louder than words. We continue to talk about the drug problem in San Francisco, but one video is getting a lot of attention because it shows kids getting off a bus and then having to walk past an entire block of people with drug paraphernalia. Open drug use in San Francisco's South of Market area has become predictable. Drug users nodding off, shooting up or smoking fentanyl is a matter of course for residents living near 8th and Mission Streets.”
https://abc7news.com/sf-drug-crisis-tenderloin-homeless-video-use/12044189/
 
hollydolly said:
...but just to play devils' advocate here... ''do they ?... I mean does everyone have the right to food and shelter at the expense of others?...
Click to expand...
In my opinion, yes, but with "rights" come "responsibilities." When individuals claim rights yet are not required to follow rules nor do anything in their own behalf (even when they are capable), it's a recipe for disaster.
 
ElCastor said:
California had a series of state hospitals for the mentally I’ll and addicted - Napa, Agnews, etc. Many years ago a decision was made to close most of these and open a series of half way houses in bigger cities where former inmates could receive treatment and be transitioned. It was a disaster. The former inmates didn’t like the rules and bailed out in favor of parks and alleys.
Click to expand...
In this area, the top reason individuals chose homeless camps over shelters was shelters have rules.
 
oldpop said:
That was very kind of you dseag2. I have found that keeping acts of kindness to myself creates a lot less hubbub. JMO.

​

Click to expand...
Good point....you don't want to get a reputation as a soft-touch.
Some people sitting on the street 'begging' are acting as look-outs for thieves. Some pick a spot near an ATM, watch who draws out money, then pass the description on to their cronies. The victim is followed and robbed as soon as an opportunity arises.
 
Jamala said:
In my opinion, a resounding 'yes' .I am willing to dispense with a few luxuries in order to let another live. Most of us have too much as it is, including myself.
Click to expand...
And who’s going to decide what “too much” is? You? The government? No thanks. That never works out.

And since you feel you would be willing to give up a few luxuries for the sake of others, why wait for a government program when you can do it on your own? Think of all the virtue signaling you could do then.
 
Last edited:
Lavinia said:
Good point....you don't want to get a reputation as a soft-touch.
Some people sitting on the street 'begging' are acting as look-outs for thieves. Some pick a spot near an ATM, watch who draws out money, then pass the description on to their cronies. The victim is followed and robbed as soon as an opportunity arises.
Click to expand...
.and that's often the case with muggers of people wearing high end watches.. which there seems to be a raft of in England currently.. My husband wears a very expensive watch.. and I was always telling him not to wear it on a daily basis, because it's easily spotted in the bars or equally at the ATM..
 
ElCastor said:
As I recall the main issue was civil rights lawsuits that the state lost. Those suits may have been brought by the “politically correct”, perhaps relatives of the incarcerated, but ultimately it was a legal issue.
Click to expand...
Far too many people were committed in mental institutions against their will and were ultimately discovered to be perfectly sane, which is why the laws were changed to make it more difficult. Political correctness had nothing to do with it.

"Incarcerating" (your word) people in mental institutions for unspecified amounts of time, forcing drugs that keep them in a stupor (so they're easier to manage), and providing no easy path for them to get themselves released, is indeed a civil rights violation. God help anyone in that situation if their family and the institution are hell bent on keeping them institutionalized.

Psychiatric false imprisonments still happen, but much less so than in the 50s & 60s when divorces were difficult to obtain. Back then plenty of women were committed by "caring" husbands whose main goals were getting the wife out of the picture so they could play around with new girlfriends.

Mind you, I'm not against involuntary commitment to mental institutions in some cases, but rolling laws back to pre1980s isn't a good answer.
 
hollydolly said:
.and that's often the case with muggers of people wearing high end watches.. which there seems to be a raft of in England currently.. My husband wears a very expensive watch.. and I was always telling him not to wear it on a daily basis, because it's easily spotted in the bars or equally at the ATM..
Click to expand...
I almost never wear expensive jewelry anymore for exactly this reason. No need to make myself a target.

Your husband was already a target @hollydolly because of his love of exotic cars. You were wise to advise cautious about flashing his expensive watch.
 
CarolfromTX said:
And who’s going to decide what “too much” is? You? The government? No thanks. That never works out.

And since you feel you would be willing to give up a few luxuries for the sake of others, why wait for a government program when you can do it on your own? Think of all the virtue signaling you could do then.
Click to expand...
If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? – 1 John 3:17
 
StarSong said:
I almost never wear expensive jewelry anymore for exactly this reason. No need to make myself a target.

Your husband was already a target @hollydolly because of his love of exotic cars. You were wise to advise cautious about flashing his expensive watch.
Click to expand...
you;re absolutely correct SS.. and this was always a concern for me with regard to the cars. His reply was that you cannot live your life in fear.. and he;s right to a degree.. but why make yourself a flashing target is what I think...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top