Not In My Backyard. Local SF Residents Raise Money NOT To Have A Homeless Shelter Near Them

I’ve worked with the homeless a lot
a……lot

One out of a hundred can be re-educated, or saved
Quick rewards for too long
Most have either a stretch or some humongous restitution they’re facing
Not much incentive to go straight when you can knock over a 7-11 and get high the same night

As far as poor hapless families?

There just ain’t that many

But there will be
 

Aunt Bea said:
IMO the first step is to stop assuming that all homeless people are the same.

The second step would be to simply talk to them and find out why they believe that they are in this situation and what they need to turn things around.

Some people will try to run a con or will return to the streets several times before they finally make a transition, some may even die on the streets but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to help them.

As far as the people currently on the streets if they are breaking the law by stealing, public nudity, drug dealing, etc... then arrest them, not because they are homeless but because they are criminals.
Click to expand...
Yes, let us not assume that they are all innocent victims who only need someone to give them a home and they will become productive members of society.

Secondly, the woman tried talking and got a broken wrist for her efforts.
 
"Yes, let us not assume that they are all innocent victims who only need someone to give them a home and they will become productive members of society."

Exactly, we have been 'helping' the homeless for years. If 'helping' them were the answer, the problem would be solved.

Just like the 'war-on-drugs' if it were working, the problem would be solved after what ? 50 years.

Some people just choose to separate from the norm, normal society. Only they know why, but they do it all the same. Once they make that choice it is next to impossible to 'help' them 'rejoin' & behave differently.

I believe those that truly need help are the minority. And a very low number, those I would like to help, & am willing. But as I said earlier, it is hard to weed them out . Because those that are bums by choice, just take it all.
 

People who are "bums by choice" are usually mentally ill. So, what is a society that calls itself civilized supposed to do about them? Just ignore them? Punish them? What is the best way to deal with people living in the midst of other people who choose to live in starvation, filth, and squalor? (This is not a rhetorical question, it is a real question. Does anybody have any answers?)

I don't believe that the best way to deal with them is to move them to a luxurious neighborhood, provoking resentment and unimaginable social problems. But what IS the best way? Does anybody have any answers?
 
Sunny said:
People who are "bums by choice" are usually mentally ill. So, what is a society that calls itself civilized supposed to do about them? Just ignore them? Punish them? What is the best way to deal with people living in the midst of other people who choose to live in starvation, filth, and squalor? (This is not a rhetorical question, it is a real question. Does anybody have any answers?)

I don't believe that the best way to deal with them is to move them to a luxurious neighborhood, provoking resentment and unimaginable social problems. But what IS the best way? Does anybody have any answers?
Click to expand...


Wrong.....you did not comprehend what I said. "Bums by choice" are just that....I said there are those that truly [need help] the 'mentally ill' . But I believe, & it is supported by count, that they are the minority of the homeless.

As such the "problem" is the "bums"....and for them, I have no compassion.

As for dealing with the mentally ill? reopen the asylums & mental hospitals.......give them the care, the medical attention they need. Along with that they get a roof over their head, good nutrition, and maybe some healthy ? interaction with other people.

Closing these facilities was a huge mistake, in my opinion.

Do I have the absolute answer? No!...Do you?
 
Sunny said:
People who are "bums by choice" are usually mentally ill. So, what is a society that calls itself civilized supposed to do about them? Just ignore them? Punish them? What is the best way to deal with people living in the midst of other people who choose to live in starvation, filth, and squalor? (This is not a rhetorical question, it is a real question. Does anybody have any answers?)

I don't believe that the best way to deal with them is to move them to a luxurious neighborhood, provoking resentment and unimaginable social problems. But what IS the best way? Does anybody have any answers?
Click to expand...

I think as a society we should be able to provide everybody with the basic necessities of life. As a country we can certainly afford it. So what if a small percentage of them are just plain lazy and don't want to work? The way automation and robotics are going we don't need everybody to work. We pay farmers not to plant certain crops to avoid surpluses. Why not pay people not to work to avoid a surplus of workers? It beats having a bunch of hungry people out on the streets. Hungry people are dangerous. Like the man said: "Let me have men about me that are fat, Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, He thinks too much; such men are dangerous."
 
Trade said:
I think as a society we should be able to provide everybody with the basic necessities of life. As a country we can certainly afford it. So what if a small percentage of them are just plain lazy and don't want to work? The way automation and robotics are going we don't need everybody to work. We pay farmers not to plant certain crops to avoid surpluses. Why not pay people not to work to avoid a surplus of workers? It beats having a bunch of hungry people out on the streets. Hungry people are dangerous. Like the man said: "Let me have men about me that are fat, Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, He thinks too much; such men are dangerous."
Click to expand...

Absurd. Paying people not to work; then what's the motivation for anyone working? I'm not ready to hand over the money I WORKED for to someone who chose not to.
 
C'est Moi said:
Absurd. Paying people not to work; then what's the motivation for anyone working? I'm not ready to hand over the money I WORKED for to someone who chose not to.
Click to expand...
A good point, that was the downfall of many of the communes of the '60s - '70s. The theory was that everyone would do whatever they wanted and all would share equally. However, to some their idea of "contributing to the general good" was to impregnate as many women as possible. And there were the people working hard in the garden in the heat of the sun being other than delighted with the dude "contributing" by fulfilling his dream of being a wood carving artist.

And yet here we are today seeing the failed concepts of then being offered up again. Ya gotta wonder - were they commune - ists back in the day? If so, what happened to their memories.
 
Many years ago the Government of Puerto Rico had the brilliant idea of building public housing near high end residences. The politicians being ever so much smarter thought that having poverty level next to wealthy would encourage the poverty striken to adapt to the way the wealthy cared for what they had.


The youth adapted really well. They would scale the fences to swim in the backyard pools. The home owners soon learned to put out larger trash containers so the kids would not leave it laying around. And bless their little hearts they used those containers most of the time. It took almost a year befor deterioration really began to set in. Within three years property values were so low giving away their homes seemed to be the best option if they wanted to live the kind of lifestyle they worked hard to achieve.


End result the poverty stricken didn't adapt, they destroyed what used to be a great place to live. The wealthy did adapt, they left. Instead of gaining revenue from property taxes, the government lost that resource.


Yep government knows best. <----sarcasm.
 
Trade said:
I think as a society we should be able to provide everybody with the basic necessities of life. As a country we can certainly afford it. So what if a small percentage of them are just plain lazy and don't want to work? The way automation and robotics are going we don't need everybody to work. We pay farmers not to plant certain crops to avoid surpluses. Why not pay people not to work to avoid a surplus of workers? It beats having a bunch of hungry people out on the streets. Hungry people are dangerous. Like the man said: "Let me have men about me that are fat, Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, He thinks too much; such men are dangerous."
Click to expand...

Wow! Thank god some folks never went in to politics.
 
Sunny said:
People who are "bums by choice" are usually mentally ill. So, what is a society that calls itself civilized supposed to do about them? Just ignore them? Punish them? What is the best way to deal with people living in the midst of other people who choose to live in starvation, filth, and squalor? (This is not a rhetorical question, it is a real question. Does anybody have any answers?)

I don't believe that the best way to deal with them is to move them to a luxurious neighborhood, provoking resentment and unimaginable social problems. But what IS the best way? Does anybody have any answers?
Click to expand...
They obviously need to be tended to. And a person needing tending obviously cannot be free to wander wherever they please - they need supervision. So, is placing such people in a structured environment "punishing them" - is it "imprisoning them"?


We need to lock them up - not as punishment but as a way to provide the structure they require.
 
But what a slippery slope you've created, Ray. They "need to be tended to?" We need to "lock them up?" Lock who up? Who gets to decide what people are "different" enough to be forcibly placed in a "structured environment" against their will?

What if somebody is walking along the street in a wealthy neighborhood, dressed like, oh say, The Dude in the movie The Big Lebowski? Sloppy, unkempt, probably just squeaking by... but harmless? Maybe even a wealthy person who chooses to dress like a slob? (Ever watch the satirical show Silicon Valley?)

I think moving a group residence for the homeless (the people you would call bums) into a decent residential neighborhood is a terrible idea. But locking people up because they "need tending" is an even worse idea.

Maybe shelters are needed for those who need them, and stay in them voluntarily. (From what I've read about it, most homeless people hate the shelters, feeling safer on their own out on the streets.) But those shelters shouldn't be inflicted on a neighborhood that doesn't want them. Maybe out in the boondocks? (But how would the people be transported to and from them?)

No easy answers here.
 
The answer is no answer

Let ‘em live…best way they can
Resentment, both sides, is diminished to an understandable level

When living with the homeless, I found the homeless take care of themselves
Oh, it’s not as structured as a county or city government, but it’s there in the rawest of forms
It’s called humanity

Now, one person, by themselves…there’s most times a reason for that

If they’re new at it, they find a way, a shelter, a mission, a hobo camp

If they’ve been at it awhile, they me be just plain nuts
My schizoid son did it a year

Thing is, in regard to the rest of the folks, not everbody thinks a house in the burbs with a nice job is the best

Being left alone is their goal, and it really shouldn’t take much for that to happen

Mainstream society ain’t for everbody
Never will be

Those think it is may be the root of the problem that isn’t

A structured place for homeless to be, won’t be
and where they are, won't be near anybody’s backyard (they don't like you either)

More like under an overpass or bridge, or in an abandoned warehouse
Or near the waterfront

Wanna do sumpm?
Donate to the food banks
To the churches
They'll be in the lines for it

Keep government out of it
 
I agree that taking peoples rights and freedoms away from them is a very slippery slope.

If you take a right away from a homeless person you've taken that same right away from everyone in society.

I've been thinking about this and IMO spending the money to build a permanent center to assist the homeless is not a good idea. By their very nature the homeless can live anywhere they choose and a permanent structure may not be what is needed to assist them. It seems like some form of an outreach program to assist those people that need and want help from existing agencies could be developed. Depending on a person's needs they could be relocated to a treatment facility, transitional housing, be given help completing forms, etc... If a soup kitchen is needed it seems like a mobile version of a soup kitchen could be equipped and sent to targeted areas where assistance is needed.

IMO we should all do what we can to support local organizations that assist people in our community. If we can't in good conscience support a group we should at least do no harm to the people in need of assistance/support.
 
Sunny said:
But what a slippery slope you've created, Ray. They "need to be tended to?" We need to "lock them up?" Lock who up? Who gets to decide what people are "different" enough to be forcibly placed in a "structured environment" against their will?

What if somebody is walking along the street in a wealthy neighborhood, dressed like, oh say, The Dude in the movie The Big Lebowski? Sloppy, unkempt, probably just squeaking by... but harmless? Maybe even a wealthy person who chooses to dress like a slob? (Ever watch the satirical show Silicon Valley?)

I think moving a group residence for the homeless (the people you would call bums) into a decent residential neighborhood is a terrible idea. But locking people up because they "need tending" is an even worse idea.

Maybe shelters are needed for those who need them, and stay in them voluntarily. (From what I've read about it, most homeless people hate the shelters, feeling safer on their own out on the streets.) But those shelters shouldn't be inflicted on a neighborhood that doesn't want them. Maybe out in the boondocks? (But how would the people be transported to and from them?)

No easy answers here.
Click to expand...
My commnets were not in regard to someone walking down the street.I thought it was clearly in response to "People who are "bums by choice" are usually mentally ill".

Under those circumstances, would you care to reconsider your offensive "the people you would call bums" and think in terms of the people referred to and their needs?
 
Aunt Bea said:
I agree that taking peoples rights and freedoms away from them is a very slippery slope.

If you take a right away from a homeless person you've taken that same right away from everyone in society.

I've been thinking about this and IMO spending the money to build a permanent center to assist the homeless is not a good idea. By their very nature the homeless can live anywhere they choose and a permanent structure may not be what is needed to assist them. It seems like some form of an outreach program to assist those people that need and want help from existing agencies could be developed. Depending on a person's needs they could be relocated to a treatment facility, transitional housing, be given help completing forms, etc... If a soup kitchen is needed it seems like a mobile version of a soup kitchen could be equipped and sent to targeted areas where assistance is needed.

IMO we should all do what we can to support local organizations that assist people in our community. If we can't in good conscience support a group we should at least do no harm to the people in need of assistance/support.
Click to expand...
The problem with that approach is that it maintains people in that deplorable condition rather than helping them out of it. Remember, the comment "mentally ill" is involved.
 
People's true colors frequently come out when it comes to property values along with appearances. Was talking about a near by town and I couldn't believe the words coming out of someone's mouth in regards to the town when some local real estate news came up. Yet they are die hard church goers and publicly liberal. It's not the politics but the contradiction. They said stuff about the town and changing demographics. I simply couldn't believe it from them anyway. They're worried since they'll probably sell their house over the next year. They always been a bit snobby but their comments were jaw dropping. They're also constantly passing comments about contractors and renovations in their neighborhood complaining/commenting it's taking them too long-not even in sight of their home. Yet a few years ago they didn't give too hoots about what was going in their neighborhood.

Or simply a really nasty case of not in my backyard syndrome.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top