Should people have a right to sleep on city streets?

part of the problem is these people are hard to care for and sadly some that choose these jobs are not qualified and do abuse patients - there needs to be rules to prevent these facilities from abusing patients

that and some are so dangerous, they need to be drugged.. but then some drug people just to make their jobs easier...

it's a tough issue

 

They'll never get better. Only 20% recover a useful degree of functionality.

From what I understand expensive federally specked buildings must be built if they are to be provided with shelter.

Organized tent camps provided outside of the city with a chow hall, running water, showers, and a warm place to take a dump, making them work to run their own show and subsist, just is not good enough. With ENFORCED rules: Cause trouble are you're out the gate.

Better off is not good enough, only perfection will suffice.

 

If HUD says they are spending $40,000 per homeless person 99 and 44/100th % of that is going to politicians !!!!

 

And there in lies the rub. If you don't drug them even moving them out of their quarters long enough to clean them can be nightmarish, if you do drug them is it to help them or you? The problem with the whole field of psychology is that while there are general inferences you can make they are not always applicable to everyone or everything. One dude's psychosis, maybe be similar to another's but the underlying cause can be a good bit different and what is a solution for one could make the other one worse rather than better.

 

And bureaucrats same is true of all welfare programs.

 

And I can agree with that as well. It does make sense to punish them for not caring for themselves- they are already doing that. I think the appropriate action is to not allow that to destroy the life quality of others around them, and that could mean setting aside places for those who choose that lifestyle. We already zone areas for commercial use, single-family use and such. We have regulations that require minimum sizes and standards for building homes, and these vary from place to place to keep a community standard intact. It would seem logical to zone an area for people who choose to live in this way- and as you say, providing a minimum of services (Say restrooms with showers, such as might be found in a camping park), a source of clean water and trash dumpsters. This does not prevent them from going elsewhere, but from using the streets for a home site or bathroom or drug party.

My point is the same- that until those people want to work for more, they won't have it, no matter what you give them.

 

I voted no but I am not sure that there is a legal remedy in many places. I see many signs at parks and beaches which clearly state: No Camping Here and cite some sort of statute. I do not believe that people should be able to camp out in residential or business districts with impughnity. Local governments should create statutes to protect home and business owners from being subjected to unsanitary or unsightly encampments in their areas. Perhaps designated areas could be provided for those unfortunate enough to be homeless which could be regulated and provide basic sanitary facilities. Some of those homeless people could be hired to keep the encampments clean and more liveable. The solution is definitely not to do nothing and let these people trash our neighborhoods and business districts. Local, State and Federal agencies should work together to create humane statutes, create a strategy of enforcement and provide temporary housing areas and facilities. It will take some effort and some resources but will end up being less costly than what will happen if we do nothing.

 

That's true.

 

Plenty of open land in Alaska. Build BIG compounds and move them there. Fences needed to keep the animals out.

 

Is this why we invented Soylent Green?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Shouldn't you be concern about homelessness in Australia? What are y'all doing about it?? You should fix your own house before you complain about our issues.

 

This seems very presumptuous. Do you actually have in mind what "working for more" actually entails when someone is homeless?

Many of those people, even if they did manage to get a job working full time, would still be living on the edge struggling not to be homeless.
That being said, there's often a reason they can't hold down a job, and the employer would prefer to hire someone else. Many of these older homeless people are missing teeth, have tattoos, or are otherwise unsightly. It's going to be a small miracle if someone hires them after seeing them.

 

These are not people just down on their luck, these are professional homeless predators. They do not want work or responsibility like you or I do. They want what you have in your pocket. Stop attributing a sense of normalcy to these monsters.

 

They are street bums that liberals want to shower affection and money on

 

We don't make it perfectly legal to live and sh*t on the street!

 

Working for more- means making the most of what you have. If you have deleted that reserve by your own choices, you are still responsible for the condition. Unfortunately, you have to start where you are at. Despite unsightly appearances, the right attitude will bring positive results- and despite attractive appearances, the wrong attitude will bring negative ones.Society has become a lot more tolerant of such people- I suppose because of the quantity of them. I know of two waitresses working in chain restaurants that illustrate it. One has the front teeth gone and the others around it in bad shape. She is always smiling, laughing- and takes good care of her customers. The other one is pretty much the same, except for a big and obvious tattoo on her neck that announces she is the "Boss Bitch".

Many people feel that we must see that people who will not do for themselves must be given a better life, and we must make it easy for them to have it. Why? IF you are a victim of something genuinely not in your control, I'm all for giving a hand-up. IF you are in a condition that genuinely prevents you doing for yourself , I'm all for providing some support. Outside of those parameters, if you are in the state you are in because you make lousy life decisions and don't give a damn- that is your choice and it comes with consequences that I won't insulate you from.

 

Mainly to federal salaries and federal retirements. Political payola.

 

Damn that Jesus Christ!

 

I would just point out that Austin has been a craphole for a couple of decades since the liberals have taken over. It seems they are jealous of San Francisco......not to be outdone they'll make it a much bigger liberal craphole just as you said. I avoid that city like the plague. Something about the smell of piss and the sight of panhandlers just doesn't do it for me.

 

Are you a Christian?

 

I am more of a Father God man and Christ is the icing on the cake.

 

Funny you should mention that since there is zero cities in the US that do not have homeless people that pee...Yet you only want to see the problem in so called "liberal cities" in which liberalism is a political philosophy not an economic model.

 

My comprehension must be down, I am not understanding what you mean. You want them packed up and moved to a empty suburban mall?

 

Instead of criminalizing the poor for... existing, maybe we should criminalize government officials for not doing their job and providing them with shelter.