Needles, Syringes, Feces, Bodies on our Streets

I'm not buying the "high home price" theory, because no one chooses to live on the street as opposed to moving to a more affordable area. The street people don't have a penny in their pockets so they can't afford a house no matter how cheap they are.

Yes, that IS something they could, and should, do. You are the 1st to offer an actual solution, as opposed to just complain about it. Thank you. Unfortunately lot of the homeless don't want to live in shelters because drug / booze use it forbidden,

 

Yours is an interesting post, and I do appreciate your having included actual data in addition to mere 'opinion' (as so many do here). But I do have one surmounting question, please: Why do you believe it is the responsibility of "the big corporations and businesses" to provide "more homeless shelters"? Why should they be penalized with higher or extra taxation for helping to create many more opportunities for prosperity and wealth among the huge majority of residents in a given area? Surely you aren't meaning to say that private businesses are to blame for someone choosing to become homeless, and remaining so...?

And, as you infer, if homeless people can't afford to live in places like California, Hawaii, etc., shouldn't they MOVE (hitchhike, or whatever) to places where the overall cost of living is lower?

 

Oh

Oh "F" this strong Dem state has been doing NOTHING that is Smart and the best things to do re: homeless since the 80's....and all Dem politicians.....Hell, I live here and see it all...

 

Exactly my point.

When you reward failure, you set people up to fail. It's about the most cruel thing you can do, as a Govt.

 

1) By not rewarding it. Failure should have consequences .. that's the natural order of the social mammal (and one we need to adhere to if we expect to have a natural order - IOW relative peace and harmony). Every time you protect someone from the consequences of their choices, you teach them to fail. That's bastardry of a high order.

2) See above. Those are largely consequences of failure (to parent properly, to compromise, to exercise self-discipline, to be answerable, etc - the kinds of things which lie behind the acquisition of mental illness and addictions).

3) Yes, of course they are. And they don't live in any kind of misery they don't choose. If they truly hated it, they'd do everything in their power to end it. They would get clean, and then get cleaned up. They'd move into shelters with strict rules - shelters which most homeless people hate, for that reason. They'd go home to their families. They'd enter one of the many programs available. Make no mistake, they're there by choice. That they go on to complain about it is entirely irrelevant. Taking their complaints seriously is like paying attention to a toddler's tantrum, instead of the bad behaviour which got into trouble in the first place.

 

Living on the street is not much of a reward in my opinion.

How is living on the street a reward? If they were given shelter, it could be considered a 'reward', but you argue they are already rewarded even though they live in on the streets in conditions most would consider hell.

I listed top-10 reasons for homelessness, but assuming we add bad parenting to the list, how are you going to fix that?

Ok, if its a choice, then why is it a problem?

 

You're not thinking this through at all.

When we're rewarded for doing nothing at all to save ourselves, we'll do nothing at all to save ourselves.

If you care most about avoiding the work of saving yourself, 'living on the streets' seems like a good option. That's why they stay there.

 

I am, but I don't think you are.

Speak for yourself, but I don't think it has anything to do with the topic.

Again, what is their reward in staying on the street? You suggest they are raking in all kinds of rewards, but they are penniless and live in total misery.

 

On the contrary, I've spent my working life dealing in human failure. It's this utterly irresponsible 'lay' idea of the homeless as noble peasant, which causes all the harm.

It has everything to do with it. When you reward failure (by protecting people from consequences), you deliberately set out to create more of it.

The reward is staying alive despite doing everything in their power to end themselves. In almost any other culture or time, that would not happen. Nature doesn't allow it, no other social mammals allow it, and healthy human societies don't allow it. It's a very particular cruelty of the privileged, to foster dissolution. Most societies care enough about their fellows to ensure they aren't compromised so.

 

Very briefly, what I've suggested many times before is that we should set aside tracts of unused or underutilized Federal Government land and let the homeless live there rent-free, and include free food, basic shelter structures, recycled clothing that has some 'good' left in it, etc. Nobody seems to share my appreciation for the concept because it would get them OUT of the cities and towns and put them essentially on a government 'reservation' where they can be controlled.

But, realistically, what's the alternative?

 

You keep repeating this, but you don't see the problem with that line.

I ask again: How are they homeless, if they were protected from the consequences when homelessness IS the consequence. It doesn't get worse than that. If they had been protected / rewarded then they would NOT be homeless.

I listed 10 actual reasons, and none of them are what you claim is the only reason. There are countries where homelessness is practically non-existent and they have cradle-to-grave welfare systems. If your argument was true, then they would have massive homeless populations all created by their welfare systems.

You argue California is doing too mush and others argue they are not doing enough. Go figure.

Do you think they would stay there?

 

I totally back it. My version of a solution for the homeless in existence today, is very similar. We know how to fix tomorrow - stop rewarding failure - but dealing with the (smaller) number who've already failed, can be managed this way.

My idea was that they would have to qualify, and maintain that qualification for the duration. Each gets a small off grid tiny house and a fenced tenth of an acre, with permission for one small or medium sized dog. They must all contribute a certain number of hours to the community garden and general food production etc, and there'd be zero tolerance of drugs/alcohol. Every individual 'home' would have to be maintained to a minimum standard, both internally and externally. There would be general neighbourhood limits on partying and noise, but otherwise residents would be free to do what they like. In exchange, they would have all they've ever claimed to want - a house, meaningful work, and a secure community. Heck, they'd even get a garden.

Obviously, anyone who turned it down would be verifying that they do not meet the criteria for 'need', in terms of any kind of assistance.

 

They would not have to, that's the point. However if they did leave, they would be exempting themselves from other forms of assistance. If they turn down a free 'good life' (more than you and I are ever likely to be offered), then they TRULY don't want help ... despite what they may claim.

 

Some do choose to live on the street, especially the junkies, but not all homeless are junkies.

 

Actually close to 100% of homeless have substance abuse issues. It's over 90%, at least.

Either way, the solution suggested would be universal. No one would be exempt unless they exempt themselves. Those who actually wanted the home/job/security they claim to want, would be provided with support for their sobriety.

Once again, it would be far more than you and I will ever be offered. That's how we'd know that those who turn it down truly do not want help. It's a self-policing solution, which is the most just and compassionate solution possible.

 

I would make it a 'three-strikes' kind of thing. They would be able to remain at the government-provided facilities for the rest of their lives if they wanted to -- and -- with FREE alcohol and FREE drugs. BUT, if they leave three times without authorization, and go 'camping' in cities and towns again, and breaking laws, then they don't get to go back to the government-provided facilities, and they're on their own....

The 'homeless' want their government-provided 'cake' and be able to 'eat it', too. We, the tax-paying people, are getting sick of it, and we're getting really sick of them spreading diseases, committing crimes, hassling people in public for money, pissing and sh*tting in our creeks and streams, and starting wildfires (especially in areas that are already dangerously afflicted by drought conditions).

 

The problem is that you assume that most of these people are responsible people who want to conform to a set of reasonable expectations and requirements. IMHO, they are NOT! And, that's why, to make a massive undertaking like this work on a nationwide basis, we must not make any expectations or requirements other than that once they are part of the government 'homeless compound' they must not LEAVE and go back into the cities and towns! We have to 'stop the bleeding' and keep this pestilence from overwhelming our communities! The only way we can do that is to give them the basics they need for life, give them alcohol and drugs, and KEEP THEM THE HELL AWAY FROM THE REST OF US! When you mash all the hyperliberal, sob-sister bullshit out of it, that's what we're confronted with... sad, but true....

 

Sure, but the idea is that refusing the offer means refusing the 'privileges' of the old system - like welfare, and camping in cities/towns. In refusing, they would be accepting no further welfare or access to street sleeping.

And to those bleeding hearts who wail "but what are they supposed to do, where are they supposed to go?", do you ask that about me? the guy you just passed in the street? or any other individual you quite rightly expect to sort that out for themselves? What they're supposed to do, is what all of us are supposed to do. Sort it out for themselves. They will have been offered exactly what they claim to want more than anything else (home, security, health, support, work, etc), so Govt and societal interest stops there. They'll have to find a way to live within the rules, just like the rest of us.

 

Not at all. Quite the contrary, actually. But you hit the nail on the head when you said "WANT". That's the reality .. they don't actually want what they say they want.

The people who perpetuate the lie that homelessness isn't a choice, have to contend with that reality ..... and live with their own complicity in perpetuating the problem.

 

Newsom just approved another Billion for homeless housing. No wonder people come here. Moderate weather, gullible people, cheap drugs, free phones, welfare just for being “you”, and three hots and a cot.
Is this a great state, or what?

 

Well, ignoring the impracticability of hitchhiking from Hawaii (, there are a few things we need to clear up here. One, making a corporation pay extra for using resources is nothing new. Back in the 50s, a food company wanted to build a brand new cannery in my hometown. The amount of sewage that the cannery produced was more than all the residents produced, combined and a new sewage system was needed, so the town council made the cannery pay for a band new sewer that could handled the extra waste. I have heard of towns making a company pay for the expansion of the local highway when the warehouse they built caused a gridlock due to all the extra traffic. So having a corporation pay extra because their presence is causing a hardship on the town is not unprecedented.

Two, can you show any evidence that shows the majority, or even a large minority of homeless people choose to be homeless? All my research shows otherwise.

Three, do you realize how expensive it is to travel? Hitch hiking is too dangerous to be an option (besides, who is going to give a homeless person a ride?) and out here in the west, public transportation is a joke. On top of that, to get any kind of government assistance, many times you have to prove you have been a resident for a certain amount of time. What do you do until you reach that threshold?

 

Just a blue state problem. In red states everybody found God and got a job like decades ago.

 

~ Meh ... Let us know when that housing is complete and the homeless are moving in ... "

 

It's the majority, actually. And yes, they do choose it.

An important part of their overall dysfunction (and one overlooked by far too many observers) is regretting bad choices, but not regretting them enough to stop. Worse ... it's a toddleresque kind of regret, based purely on the discomfort of the consequences, and not on any will to change things.

 

Back when Colorado was a 'red' state, you could see an occasional beggar or bum here and there, but now that we've been turned into a 'blue' state by huge influxes of ex-Californians and other migrant trash, we've got entire 'communities' of homeless camps all over the damned place. They're found everywhere, spreading disease, sh*tting and pissing in our streams and waterways, roaming around fugged-up drunk and stoned on drugs, committing crimes, and starting wildfires in a state that is wracked with drought.

Thank you California, and an equal 'thank you' to every other hyperliberal pesthole that disgorged exactly the worst kind of people to the state of Colorado. Another ten years and Colorado will be just as fugged-up as California already is....



search recall marker