What would you do with or for homeless people?

Homeless people in many U.S. cities I visit are living unproductive lives; they are often sick, they are presumably very unclean, they excrete where they can, and they live in agglomerations of makeshift shelters made of tents and boxes. They scare local residents, annoy tourists, and burden sanitation services.

I make you homeless czar of any major city you may choose and ask you, what if anything, should be done to, with, or for these people. I realize there are separate classes of homeless people, as some (for example) cannot find work sufficient to pay for regular shelter, and others don't want to find work, and so yours may be a tiered approach.

 

You also forgot to mention, many have some serious mental health issues. A one blanket approach won't work.

 

How delightfully annoying. I didn't "forget," and I acknowledged that there are different classes of homeless. You offered no solution for ANY of them.

If your next post doesn't include some solutions instead of criticisms, kindly stay out of the thread.

 

I've noticed you also haven't given any solutions. Are you the type that had some one do your homework for you?

Being out of work isn't the only reason people live on the streets. Like I said, you can't use a one blanket approach. The problem is too complex for that.

Mental health issues could possibly be the number one reason why people live on the street. How about we address that first? You seem to have a lot of angst against homeless people. Do you propose we round them all up, send them to an island in the middle of the Atlantic so they are out of sight and mind?

 

I'd remove the minimum wage, get rid of rent controls, and most importantly, I'd open up some federal lands and let them homestead while keeping a close eye on how they use that land. If they can build a house while being productive members of society, they can stay.

For the mentally ill, there isn't anything that can be done. Sorry, but the science just isn't there yet.

 

Give them $10, a brown bag lunch and a parachute, and then kick their goat-smelling asses out the back of a C-130 on a drag run over Somalia or Libya or Afghanistan or some other hell-hole.

 

Obviously a "homeless" beautiful 18 y/o girl has a totally different set of options than a morbidly obese 70 y/o "homeless" man.

 

I'll pray for them.

 

So you're a communist and hate the Constitution. Got it. Thanks.

 

many suffer from mental illness and need treatment

 

No, I'm an ultra-conservative and love the Constitution.

There's no reason the homeless cannot be stripped of citizenship and deported like common criminals.

 

Look, I get it, comrade. You hate the constitution to your very core and urinate all over whenever you get the chance.

You don't really have to make it any clearer.

 

I would give them a home. Much like salt lake is doing

 

I will leave them alone to live out their lives in peace, without interference from me in any form whatsoever.

 

And the elderly too right? I mean they are a burden to society.....right?

 

There is no Constitutional basis for stripping anyone of citizenship based on homelessness or "deporting" them to someone else's country.

 

Homeless people are slowly dying.

There's a really old thread about this: homeless dropping dead like flies!

Maybe they could build a community for them somewhere out where land is cheap. The living arrangements would be very basic. Because they would be living in close proximity to each other the people could be separated into various different groups. For example, smoking and non-smoking, drug users and non-drug users, individuals who are able to keep things quiet and those who like to listen to loud music, and so forth, to try to keep everyone happy.

The living situation would basically be a concrete room, maybe 3 by 4 meters. Some of the homeless people could be hired to upkeep things, which would add a little money into the little community's economy. There could be vegetable gardens too, but one of the homeless people would probably have to be hired to look after it (make sure others did not steal all the food).

It really would not take that much money to take care of the homeless. Just keep the living conditions very basic but decent, no extras.

What would really help the homeless are small locked closets where they could store their possessions.
Maybe a low-cost cafeteria that employs homeless workers and only serves basic food like gruel. Something healthy, made from fresh ingredients, and cheap. Put them on a 90 percent vegetarian diet and only put a tiny amount of meat on their plate (keep costs down). You would be surprised how cheaply poor people in India can eat.

There would probably be less crime if poor people actually knew there was potentially somewhere to go if they lost their home, and did not have the fear of the terrible conditions that could befall them in such an event.

 

One could always evoke the general welfare clause...

It's been used by leftists for so long, that you can't argue against it.

 

The general welfare clause justifies creating a totalitarian one-world government with the anti-constitution as its guiding document.

 

Well, if you'd like to outdo the far left on collectivism and abandon the concept of individual rights, then sure, that would be a good start.

 

Unfortunately the U.S. is headed towards the direction of becoming a Third World country with massive poverty issues.
There's only going to be more homeless people, so the question is how is the situation going to be handled?

 

Very true.

However it is a good way to shut them up by causing them to rethink their previous evocation of the general welfare clause when it came to arguing in favor of their agenda.

If so, then I don't mind evoking the general welfare clause. Anything that gets them to actually start thinking again is okay in my play book.

 

Well, LeChef - I tried to begin a post a few weeks ago. I didn't put the question as plainly as you did, and you may get better ideas. I got clobbered. Maybe because it is so uncomfortable; deep down I think we all know it's a no-win. We can try to educate, to eradicate the causes of mental illness, drugs, victim-mentality -- and provide better care for our Vets. But we've been at it for a very long time and the problem is getting worse, not better.

I can tell you where we, as a nation, are right now. It is believed that simply building housing for homeless and low income people only creates a hell-hole down the line. The "projects" were not helping anyone - they just concentrated the dysfunction. Now there are new projects like High Point in Seattle https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_04092012_1.html, and Lake City, http://murray.seattle.gov/seattle-launches-integrated-city-planning-in-lake-city-neighborhood/#sthash.0jlC0bX3.dpbs.

The new projects are referred to as integrated housing, meaning middle class homes integrated with low income housing. A builder agrees to set aside a proportion of the units he is developing for below-market rent or sale, enabling a low income family to move in. The housing is subsidized partially by tax incentives for the builders, with limited federal money and state money being thrown in towards the building expense. The balance is paid by the neighbors, who are paying higher than market price for their units or homes to cover the costs. You can read in the linked articles that there are many fine stories of families having a renewed sense of pride, and their children being given a fighting chance by integration with middle class kids and absorbing their values. This is probably the best answer we currently have for the problem.

But it does have a down side. Crime rate in High Point is remarkably higher than the surrounding, "un-integrated" neighborhoods. There is the ongoing expense of case managers, especially for the homeless who often do not know how to live indoors -- the home quickly looks and smells like the underside of a bridge. One homeless person can need as many as three caseworkers, for occupational therapy, for health and diet, and for medical. When a homeless person finally has a home, all the "friends" show up on the doorstep; out of sympathy and having "been there", the homeless person can't say no to floppers. There are problems with behaviors, such as schizophrenic rantings, lewdness and drugs. Hopefully, these are rare, but they happen.

But for me, it's the fact that this heavy expense is never born by the rich. They live in their private, gated communities; their gated mansions with hundreds of acres surrounding them. And they come up with schemes to throw tax payer dollars at it - to which they do not contribute a fair share. It's the middle class who, once again, is getting stuck holding the tab.

When many carry a few, it can be borne. When few carry many, it is unsustainable.

 

Some are. After 60 years of contributing, paying taxes, working, producing, sweeping the front steps, giving to their churches and charities, helping neighbors in need, making sure their kids behaved....

 

Do you know the story of every homeless person?