Homelessness [split from Leadville and Salida Ranger Districts]

[WanderingRose]

the majority of the homeless would rather stay on the street before using them and abiding by their policies

This is the crux of the issue, in a nutshell, and is going to be difficult if not impossible to resolve.

It would seem reasonable, tho, that people not have an inalienable right to live wherever they want to live, in whatever manner they choose.

 

[dhuff]

<snip>

It would seem reasonable, tho, that people not have an inalienable right to live wherever they want to live, in whatever manner they choose.

I'm pretty "liberal" (in the classic sense), but I think a lot of the problem with good programs not working as well as they could definitely revolves around the thought that some people feel like they have a "right" to live wherever they want to live.

Heck, I want to have a nice condo next door to Pike Place Market in Seattle (OK, for Summertime...I'll Winter in Tucson - LOL). But since I can't afford that, I don't get to live there. Same for other places with high costs of living like San Francisco, Austin, Manhattan...

 

[RonDean]

I am also a classical liberal - mostly. But not so much that I can't see the other side. I once owned a small business and if I had someone camping just outside my front door, obstructing and discouraging my possible customers, I would want them removed immediately. If there were a tent city being set up on the other side of my back fence or alongside the local schools, I would likewise want something done about it. And if the authorities would not help, I just MIGHT take direct action. The only other alternative would be for ME to move.

But, I am not ignorant or uncaring of the problems facing the homeless. And I think society is morally charged to help them. Telling them to move along when they have no acceptable place to go is just wrong. Many working people are a single paycheck away from being homeless in today's economy. What is the proper balance between individual freedom of choice and the good of society and our fellow citizens? I think this is something we need to figure out real soon - before homelessness becomes a lot worse.

 

[user 22017]

The housing shortage in the U.S. is at a crisis point. We're talking about a deficit of 5.5 million homes. And when it comes to affordable housing for low-income renters, it's even worse. The country is short 6.8 million units, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. ~ NPR

 

[WanderingRose]

The Supreme Court is going to review restrictions on homeless encampments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/12/supreme-court-homeless-encampments-restrictions/
“The Supreme Court said Friday it will consider whether state and local officials can punish homeless individuals for camping and sleeping in public spaces when shelter beds are unavailable. The justices will review a lower court decision that declared it unconstitutional to enforce anti-camping laws against homeless individuals when they have nowhere else to sleep.”

 

[islanderxx]

You are right that the homeless encampment is not a liberal or conservative issue. The reason why I pointed out the liberals is because they, too, are trying to remove homeless encampments in their cities. I'm sure that you will accept how conservative cities are accused of being heartless for not tolerating homeless encampments.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^It will in my opinion will be a test of the courts integrity seeing as how the 8th amendment was clear in its wording and has been previously upheld by the court. It seems organized political religon has become a major determining factor in the Supreme Court. The lack of separation of church and state in the court has caused the court to loose favor with much of the population in this country in my opinion not to mention the amount of individual corruption that has been allowed to occur by poorly chosen members. Conservative cities that do not offer shelter to those that need it then criminalize it are in violation of the constitution as well as not doing their jobs which is to better everyone’s living conditions with in the system of governing laws. Instead of dealing with the problem they just try to isolate themselves from the problem. This is not an easy or inexpensive problem to solve but it is one that needs attention. How government deals with it will be a test of their abilities and integrity.

 

[WanderingRose]

Conservative cities that do not offer shelter to those that need it then criminalize it are in violation of the constitution as well as not doing their jobs which is to better everyone’s living conditions with in the system of governing laws.

Just playing devils advocate here, theoretically any community that did not have a homeless shelter, and many do not, could be forced to tolerate encampments.

On edit: the appealed ruling is about criminally PUNISHING the homeless, not about whether encampments can be prohibited or dismantled.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^All communities will have the problem eventually if is isn’t dealt with now. Allowing communities to force other communities to deal with it is part of the logic behind the amendment in my opinion. Again one of those areas where governments need to do a better job of doing things that need to be done to improve everyone's living conditions. Punishing people is seldom a good cost effective way to solve problems. In fact our current system tends to make it worse.

 

[dhuff]

<snip>

But, I am not ignorant or uncaring of the problems facing the homeless. And I think society is morally charged to help them. Telling them to move along when they have no acceptable place to go is just wrong...

Absolutely agree, esp. with the stmt "I think society is morally charged to help them."

I should have explained further that my stance is more along the lines of "maybe it's not a 'right' to camp on the street across from Pike Place Market, obstructing the sidewalk and blocking access to businesses. But that housing should be available in the greater Seattle/Tacoma area with reasonable access to public transportation so folks can get to the necessities of life (food, medical care, etc...)."

 

[RonDean]

I think the time for assigning blame and going to court over this issue is past. It's time to actually address the problem without the politics. No court ruling is going to house a single person when there are no available houses. If we don't want people camping on the streets, we need to give them an acceptable place to camp for free without all the preconditions shelters usually demand. Set up encampment sites with toilets and trash service and security. Then start the processes that would be required to provide more and cheaper housing. Maybe it's as simple as changing building codes or as complex as finding entirely new ways to build shelters. Yes, this will cost some money, but more than we already spend? Maybe not.

 

[WanderingRose]

We have this endless, circular argument here, which I admit to being a part of.

Many, if not most, of the chronically homeless are that way because that is what they want and how they want to live.

Subtract from the numbers those who are nomads/houseless, also subtract those who have fallen into homelessness and want to find affordable, stable, traditional housing.

What are left are the fringe society, the addicted, disenfranchised and mentally ill at whatever degree, for whom living in a tent or other non traditional shelter means no rent and utilities to pay, no standards which must be upheld, no rules and regulations.

Many of those criticizing these encampments, from what I have read, have legitimate concern about open drug use as well as human waste, trash garbage, etc.

It’s a mess.

 

[LargeMarge]

... [Frisco's] biggest problem is.. lack of... housing... surrounded on 3 sides by water and the 4th by... infrastructure... governments to deal with homelessness. It's a real mess and unfortunately is not likely to change.

.
a)
If something cannot continue, it must either a) evolve, or b) stop.
.
b)
Frisco's only problem is people.
During and after the '06 earthquake, those people were convinced they could ignore the foundation of their 'infrastructure' -- a wobbly slush -- and re-built A! New! Frisco!, better than that old Frisco.
Over a century later, the improvements remain elusive.
.
c)
Instead of the government agents Doing! Something!, how about the adults living in cardboard and evacuating their deposits on sidewalks, how about those individuals perform ethical adult activities, such as gainful employment, opening a business, fixing the problems they create.
.
.
Building on my 'a)' theme [above]:
I think Frisco is an excellent example of the greater picture of the concept of 'civilization'.
That amount -- or any amount -- of concentrated population is non-sustainable:
* their every scrap of food must be imported... usually by petroleum-based vehicles (aka 'brute force').
* every drop of Frisco drinking water is piped from nearly two hundred miles away, from the Hetch Hetchy valley (next to Yosemite) in the Sahara Nevada mountains.
* electric cabled in from the Pacific NorthWest... a thousand miles distant.
* natural gas, brute-force transported in on ships from... (Arabia?, Venezuela?, Alaska?).
For anybody to survive in such a fish-bowl, each input must always function perfectly, every time, in perpetuity.
Nope, their lack of resilience is geometrically astronomical.
.
And their exports?
What do they produce in that stack of sardine-cans?
* sewage, trash.
And every ounce of that must be dealt with, again by brute force:
* petroleum-based vehicles
* 'treatment' plants, deconstructing the results of bad programming.
.
.
Is any village further than a two-minute walk from:
* gardens
* farms
* ranches
* fresh clean drinking water
* with adequate space for a leach-field to purify sewage...
...is any village bigger than that, would it be sustainable?
I am unconvinced.
.
* Do I agree with the RulingParasites and their "Eat ze bogs, be hoppy"?
* Do I think the technocrats (gates, zuck, et al) have any clue about Real-World problems?
* Do the de-population mob understand the consequences of reducing/constricting the gene pool?
I see no easy answers.
But hiring the government agents to repair problems caused by the government agents?
I have my doubts.
.
I welcome your rebuttal.

 

[LargeMarge]

...if I had someone camping just outside my front door...a tent city...on the other side of my back fence or alongside the local schools,...The only other alternative would be for ME to move.

...I think society is morally charged to help them...before homelessness becomes a lot worse.

.
a)
Coasting along in neutral usually leads to a gradual slowing, then the stop.
Unless outside force is added, the stop is permanent.
.
Building a business or building a community requires intimate involvement, constantly adjusting intricacies as the environment -- people plus place plus resources -- evolves.
Anything less dooms both the builders and the destroyers.
.
I use the term 'destroyers' to describe 'non-productive non-contributing' individuals.
Another in the 'classic liberal' crowd, the vocally disgusted Engels called them 'those useless eaters'.
.
To your point:
Abandoning your home because a bunch of temporary transients is using your fence to hang their sewage-soaked bedding and clothes?
That sounds like a First Worlder solution.
.
The only reason your fence is limiting their camping to outside your backyard:
* the delusions of 'laws'.
As we are seeing, 'laws' need ethical individuals to participate.
Without ethical individuals, the concept of 'laws' is a no-start, did not finish ('DNF' as they say in racing).
.
Make no mistake, we are in a race.
Each individual is competing for the usual basics:
* food
* water
* shelter, security
* compatible companions.
If those consumables are abundant in one area, any transient population will be drawn to those resources... until either:
a) the resources are depleted (Frisco housing), or
b) the population realizes their fragility.
.
In the event of 'b)', the first individuals to realize their fragility are always the first to high-tail it for easier pickings.
Those remaining are, generally, significantly less capable of maintaining their dreary existence without outside help... charity, welfare, the dole.
.
At some time during their realization, those less capable use their brute strength -- usually in a form of an ad hoc group, because fear -- to temporarily improve their non-sustainable short-term situation:
* mobs rob the local grocery-store
* mobs rob local residents.
Eventually, inevitably, business owners and property owners conclude their participation is voluntary, and they skedaddle.
.
The problems remain, the equivalent of roaches and rats eating the wallpaper to survive just one more day.
.
b)
Morally charged?
Based on my experience with the goofballs, they choose to refuse to change.
Nothing I do would accomplish anything.
.
In my definition of 'society', I think this includes -- and I can expand this to 'requires' -- productive contributing individuals.
As Engels so eloquently describes them, 'the non-productive non-contributing are willingly outside of society... and are necessarily expendable for the greater good'.
.
.
An aside:
Do I think Engels, Marx, and their ilk were/are whack-jobs?
To a certain extent...

 

[RonDean]

.
a)
Coasting along in neutral usually leads to a gradual slowing, then the stop.
Unless outside force is added, the stop is permanent.
.
Building a business or building a community requires intimate involvement, constantly adjusting intricacies as the environment -- people plus place plus resources -- evolves.
Anything less dooms both the builders and the destroyers.
.
I use the term 'destroyers' to describe 'non-productive non-contributing' individuals.
Another in the 'classic liberal' crowd, the vocally disgusted Engels called them 'those useless eaters'.
.
To your point:
Abandoning your home because a bunch of temporary transients is using your fence to hang their sewage-soaked bedding and clothes?
That sounds like a First Worlder solution.
.
The only reason your fence is limiting their camping to outside your backyard:
* the delusions of 'laws'.
As we are seeing, 'laws' need ethical individuals to participate.
Without ethical individuals, the concept of 'laws' is a no-start, did not finish ('DNF' as they say in racing).
.
Make no mistake, we are in a race.
Each individual is competing for the usual basics:
* food
* water
* shelter, security
* compatible companions.
If those consumables are abundant in one area, any transient population will be drawn to those resources... until either:
a) the resources are depleted (Frisco housing), or
b) the population realizes their fragility.
.
In the event of 'b)', the first individuals to realize their fragility are always the first to high-tail it for easier pickings.
Those remaining are, generally, significantly less capable of maintaining their dreary existence without outside help... charity, welfare, the dole.
.
At some time during their realization, those less capable use their brute strength -- usually in a form of an ad hoc group, because fear -- to temporarily improve their non-sustainable short-term situation:
* mobs rob the local grocery-store
* mobs rob local residents.
Eventually, inevitably, business owners and property owners conclude their participation is voluntary, and they skedaddle.
.
The problems remain, the equivalent of roaches and rats eating the wallpaper to survive just one more day.
.
b)
Morally charged?
Based on my experience with the goofballs, they choose to refuse to change.
Nothing I do would accomplish anything.
.
In my definition of 'society', I think this includes -- and I can expand this to 'requires' -- productive contributing individuals.
As Engels so eloquently describes them, 'the non-productive non-contributing are willingly outside of society... and are necessarily expendable for the greater good'.
.
.
An aside:
Do I think Engels, Marx, and their ilk were/are whack-jobs?
To a certain extent...

I hope this does not sound too critical. And maybe the problem is just me. But I have difficulty following your bullet point writing style and often just skim by. So, you'll get no rebuttal from me.

 

[LargeMarge]

I hope this does not sound too critical. And maybe the problem is just me. But I have difficulty following your bullet point writing style and often just skim by. So, you'll get no rebuttal from me.

.
I hear you.
I will:
* try to do better.

 

[camperdan]

That article is infuriating. It's happening all over. Now can we tax the rich and corporations?

People are scared so they scapegoat. Rather than band together to address the causes of issues, they blame others. Usually the easiest targets. Cowards.

Educating the masses would help. We should do what FinIand did and scrap our current education system. Replace it with what works.

I guess this is another sign of end stage capitalism.

Why isn't the State involved? The local police and those employed to help the homeless should have contacted the state police and governor. If they fail to help, then the Feds.

Guessing that is all in the works.

Edit: Rep. Cori Bush, St. Louis, reintroduced her bill that addresses homelessness...

https://nlihc.org/resource/congresswoman-cori-bush-reintroduces-unhoused-bill-rights

Hey Carla, and others out there, There are almost no happy stories about the state/local gov'ts creating real solutions
to the homeless problem. It is easy to send one's brain into "over-temperature" when thinking about this....so I seek out
happy stuff, and I do give money to organizations that are doing really good work. So there. I DO have a happy homeless
story to share. I could be a model for brave leaders everywhere. Here it is: In 2009, a London charity took a new approach to clean up a homeless tent encampment. They selected 13 homeless men and gave each $4500...no
strings attached. The men had no long list of needs other than a Phone, Dictionary , and a passport.

After one year, 11 men had a roof over their heads, some had jobs, furthered their education, reconnected with
family, etc. AND, on average they had only spent $800 !! So, how much did this whole experiment cost?
Including the gift of money, aid workers salaries, about $70k. But, how much was SAVED in law enforcement, social
services, court time, medical care? Several multiples of that. It is not that the poor make bad decisions about
money....they don't HAVE money. Think about the UBI experiments in the US, Canada, and Europe if you
want your brain to smile. Get the whole London story by just Googling it.

 

[camperdan]

.
a)
Coasting along in neutral usually leads to a gradual slowing, then the stop.
Unless outside force is added, the stop is permanent.
.
Building a business or building a community requires intimate involvement, constantly adjusting intricacies as the environment -- people plus place plus resources -- evolves.
Anything less dooms both the builders and the destroyers.
.
I use the term 'destroyers' to describe 'non-productive non-contributing' individuals.
Another in the 'classic liberal' crowd, the vocally disgusted Engels called them 'those useless eaters'.
.
To your point:
Abandoning your home because a bunch of temporary transients is using your fence to hang their sewage-soaked bedding and clothes?
That sounds like a First Worlder solution.
.
The only reason your fence is limiting their camping to outside your backyard:
* the delusions of 'laws'.
As we are seeing, 'laws' need ethical individuals to participate.
Without ethical individuals, the concept of 'laws' is a no-start, did not finish ('DNF' as they say in racing).
.
Make no mistake, we are in a race.
Each individual is competing for the usual basics:
* food
* water
* shelter, security
* compatible companions.
If those consumables are abundant in one area, any transient population will be drawn to those resources... until either:
a) the resources are depleted (Frisco housing), or
b) the population realizes their fragility.
.
In the event of 'b)', the first individuals to realize their fragility are always the first to high-tail it for easier pickings.
Those remaining are, generally, significantly less capable of maintaining their dreary existence without outside help... charity, welfare, the dole.
.
At some time during their realization, those less capable use their brute strength -- usually in a form of an ad hoc group, because fear -- to temporarily improve their non-sustainable short-term situation:
* mobs rob the local grocery-store
* mobs rob local residents.
Eventually, inevitably, business owners and property owners conclude their participation is voluntary, and they skedaddle.
.
The problems remain, the equivalent of roaches and rats eating the wallpaper to survive just one more day.
.
b)
Morally charged?
Based on my experience with the goofballs, they choose to refuse to change.
Nothing I do would accomplish anything.
.
In my definition of 'society', I think this includes -- and I can expand this to 'requires' -- productive contributing individuals.
As Engels so eloquently describes them, 'the non-productive non-contributing are willingly outside of society... and are necessarily expendable for the greater good'.
.
.
An aside:
Do I think Engels, Marx, and their ilk were/are whack-jobs?
To a certain extent...

Marge, I have read some of your stuff and my thought was "there's a really good mind at work here".
But, I have to agree with Ron Dean that your"bullet point" style is far from readable. Lose it. When was the last time
you read a great piece of non fiction that was written this way?

 

[user 22017]

Marge, I have read some of your stuff and my thought was "there's a really good mind at work here".
But, I have to agree with Ron Dean that your"bullet point" style is far from readable. Lose it. When was the last time
you read a great piece of non fiction that was written this way?

He's right Marge. I skip over much of what you post because you lose me.

Same is true for Bullfrog. I can't read posts that do not have paragraph breaks. No matter how important or interesting the content.

 

[travelaround]

1. Frisco - a term never used by residents of the San Francisco area. I was born in Oakland and spent a large part of my life living in the SF East Bay Area and a small part of my life living in San Francisco itself. My oldest son still lives nearby and works in the city. For future reference - natives call the city "San Francisco" or "The City." Never "Frisco"... please, it just grates on my nerves.

2. Classical Liberal - what? Will someone please explain what a classical liberal refers to? If this explanation gets too political please send a private message to let me know your definitions. Thank you!