Should people have a right to sleep on city streets?

None of it. It's OUTRAGEOUS that addicts and bums think they can pick and choose where they live, while clean living working people don't have that luxury.

 

Scooped up homeless should be processed
and sorted by needs. Including family group needs.
Not mixing populations in one big, charitable snake pit.

I do believe among them are Not Addicts, Not Bums, Not Psychiatric types
who fall on hard times.

Residential facilities should make every effort to move a resident
to independent living. Job training AND Placement for example.
The ticket out of Bakersfield

 

What is someone supposed to do if they lose a job and as a result their home is foreclosed. Let's say this person has no extended family to take them in while they look for another job and the shelters are full, unsafe and they cost money. I have been asked for about 5 dollars by a homeless guy, to pay the nightly shelter fee, so that he could have a place to sleep indoors that evening. I believe this was on a day when we had sub zero temperatures. No one would choose to freeze to death on the streets, if they had somewhere else to go. I have routinely seen them congregated in the subway during the winter, when I'm coming and going to work, because it's warm in there. And people do DIE out there on the streets because shelter wasn't available for them in this "First World". I remember seeing a family with an infant out on the streets. I've seen homeless people who were obviously too mentally ill to get their act together. It's so easy to judge, until you find yourself in a similar situation. A lot of these people need help and if we are the "First World" then we should provide a safety net for vulnerable citizens.

 

It won't work. All of those things are available now, and rejected.

 

It only lacks the force of law as vagrancy laws got diluted.
Time for some of those judicial decisions to be challenged.

 

I'm from Detroit, although I haven't lived there in decades. Cold winters with lots of snow are the norm in Michigan, as you know. Anyway, would you vote against this pay to stay practice, if you could? Can you?

 

we have not been able to here, republicans forced it on us

 

Yes, but if some chose not to use those tools and opportunities, should that mean that the homeless people who want to make a good life for themselves should be denied assistance?

 

It's not that I don't like the answer, it's the answer makes no sense! So can you tell us what the great benefit to your neighbourhood would be?

 

Not really, because the Republican-run city where I live keeps the homeless mostly in check, which keeps them from being a problem.

"Cesspit" because that's what you call a place where fecal waste is deposited. ie- the streets of San Francisco and Portland.

 

If homeless people CHOOSE not to use the tools of escape from poverty, then they have clearly chosen not to rejoin regular society. It's not a matter of 'denying' help - these people are not accepting help. They don't want it. How much clearer can it be, when they reject the tools for self improvement?

 

We agree on that.

 

1) Family (or friendships) is what you make it. If you care about avoiding homelessness in a crisis, you'll make damned sure your relationships are solid and reciprocal long before anything goes wrong. Only those determined to avoid 'help' burn bridges. That's a freely made choice, and therefore none of our business. Choices.

2) I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that that $5 was really for grog or dope. I could be wrong, but it's not likely. As for people being cold, see 1), above re: choices. And if you were genuinely concerned about sleeping out in the cold, you'd stop doing the things that go along with wilfull homelessness. IOW, they do have somewhere to go (the straight and narrow), but literally choose to freeze rather than give up their vices. That's how determined they are to reject 'help'. The help is there, waiting for them, any time they want it. Choices.

3) The couple (with the infant) has TWO families from which to receive assistance. What are they doing that no one will even give them a bed when they have a young child? It must be pretty darned bad, whatever it is. Drugs, is my guess. Probably theft to go along with it. Choices.

4) Mentally ill people should be cared for by their families, or if sufficiently ill then they should be institutionalised.

5) On the contrary, it's much harder to 'judge' than it is to simply say fluffy stuff and throw money. Judging is never easy, but it must be done. And why would anyone who has made choices to protect themselves from homelessness, become homeless? There is actually a point where it becomes impossible because you have sufficient property and money. Add to that well cared for, solid and reciprocal family relationships and friendships, and it's literally impossible. Someone will always have your back. Choices.

6) They have help NOW. There is welfare, drug and alcohol treatment programs, family/friends, shelters, religious groups, the military, volunteering on farms in exchange for room and board. A thousand options, all waiting. All they have to do is choose that help, yet they don't. Choices. PS: I hope you're not cruel enough to imagine that throwing money is going to do anything other than keep them homeless and addicted?

 

How do you define poverty? By bureaucratic statistics? There are plenty of people who live in places where they show very little income in the government statistics and yet live a lifestyle far superior to people in urban areas who statistically make more. If you go by government statistics, the Amish are living in extreme poverty and yet in reality they live quite prosperously. Many people in the Southeast fall into that same category. Education? Really? Government education is nothing but propaganda and indoctrination that leaves most people unable to balance a check book or to find decent employment even with an advanced degree. Not to mention the lifelong debilitation of student loans that will cripple most to struggle financially well into their 40's. Anyone who believes statistics is basically engaging in mental masturbation.

 

They just don't get this. It's not how much you earn, it's how you spend it that determines your 'poverty'.

 

Why does it matter if they're eligible for assistance? If they don't want assistance then they won't accept it.

 

It makes no sense to you because you don't agree with my response but it makes pure sense to me. There is no great benefit to my or anyone's neighborhood, however it's an issue that must be addressed regardless.

You cannot simply sweep these people under the carpet and the problem goes away; while there are organizations that work to help the homeless, clearly there are not enough help groups to completely help with the ongoing problem and until the government decides to seriously address the problem, nothing is going to change. But I guess for some posters in here that'll be just fine since they'll be able to continue to bash the homeless/politicians on a regular basis.

 

They shouldn't be eligible in the first place. If your circumstances are a result of your own choices, you eliminate yourself.

 

You are not grasping the problem at all, with respect. These people DO NOT WANT TO BE HELPED. No amount of Govt money or 'programs' is going to make the slightest bit of difference. It will actually make things worse, because it will be even easier to drop out.

You try offering housing to homeless people on the proviso that they're drug and alcohol free (as all such housing for the homeless is), and see how many take you up. You'll be lucky to get a single willing participant. They don't want the rules and self-discipline of polite society .. that's why they're homeless. Until you grasp that, you're wasting time and effort - and potentially causing more homelessness.

 

Ok for the sake of the discussion lets say you are right; what's your solution or what would you do in this case?

 

Yes, but what is the issue with them being eligible?

 

Human poo on the streets isn't a cesspit?

 

I 100% agree, but how is it being addressed by making it perfectly legal to camp on the street?

 

Reinstitute vagrancy laws for all towns and cities, residential areas, and all publicly owned lands like State Forests and National Parks. And they should be excluded from towns/cities by a 'walking distance' radius. I would also make regular drug testing mandatory for any welfare recipients without a fixed address. For those genuinely experiencing an unavoidable short term financial emergency, and not long-term homelessness due to addiction, this won't be a problem. In fact the money saved by not paying addicts, could be added to the welfare for the genuine - as compensation for the intrusion of drug testing.

I would continue to offer housing, though not a bunk in a dorm. I would offer cheaply built tiny houses in communities on rural town fringes. Each person entitled to 200 square feet of lockable space on a 1/16th of an acre allotment, for as long as they're willing to work for it. By work I mean: no drugs or alcohol, full-time participation in the upkeep and food production of the community, and no unkempt houses or allotments. Anyone engaging in significant conflict or crime is out. No exceptions. All food, water, and power to be produced on site, so there is no pressure on the grid and no ongoing burden on taxpayers.

 

What?