Portland's homeless camp issue getting national attention (pay, liberal)

[jlud]

It’s typically over 100k per homeless person spent directly, with millions to billions more spent on special projects by the Feds…like hotel rooms and prostitute and drug delivery while there.

How long will businesses put up with the uncertainty and losses? How long before all revenue producers close and pack up…leaving behind vacant buildings and costs in place of revenue. The tax burden on those that work continues to rise, while thise that done continue to freeload…with no consequences.

I moved out here 3 years ago. In my 40 plus years of life I had seen a handful of homeless people but only in Chicago. My kids had never seen one. Out here it’s accepted as normal. It’s not…there are tons of cities where there are none. A child could figure out they go where they can get the most benefits.

[Nell Plotts]

I don't think Portland residents see this as normal. We want these folks off the streets. IMHO they should start with the campers most amenable to supportive housing as they are the most likely to be able to 'graduate'. One major issue is that rentals are expensive even for middle-income residents. Not only do we need housing for the destitute we need more market-rate apartments.

I still think closing the state mental hospitals was stupid. They promised community services for that population which never materialized.

[SusVelo]

Originally Posted by jlud

It’s typically over 100k per homeless person spent directly, with millions to billions more spent on special projects by the Feds…like hotel rooms and prostitute and drug delivery while there.

How long will businesses put up with the uncertainty and losses? How long before all revenue producers close and pack up…leaving behind vacant buildings and costs in place of revenue. The tax burden on those that work continues to rise, while thise that done continue to freeload…with no consequences.

I moved out here 3 years ago. In my 40 plus years of life I had seen a handful of homeless people but only in Chicago. My kids had never seen one. Out here it’s accepted as normal. It’s not…there are tons of cities where there are none. A child could figure out they go where they can get the most benefits.

Which cities have no homeless people? Fairer weather cities will always draw people who have to live outside. It's a national problem to solve, cities can't solve homelessness alone.

[Hoonose]

Will be interesting the next few heat days...

[jlud]

There are literally thousands of city’s across the country with no homeless people living out in the streets. If you lived in the west coast your entire life you probably wouldn’t know that. It is not normal at all to see in the Midwest outside of Detroit and Chicago for the most part, although Recently in Minneapolis as well.

Fair weather is part of it, but the overall “benefit” package is what they are looking at. Places that give them lots of stuff, or where they won’t be bothered or arrested etc. it’s not just the weather, but literally every policy choice that is made by a city/county/state.

I proposed a plan to have homeless people in California move inland where you can get them cheap housing instead of the taxpayers spending 700k plus per unit to house one and people responded angrily saying you can’t make them work and it’s too hot there. Sorry, but making excuses and enabling at multiple levels has got us to where we are at.

[redguard57]

About half the homeless are people that can be rehabilitated and are typical stories of falling through the cracks that could happen to any of us. Once you're on the street, even perfectly healthy people get into a battle for their mental health. Being on the street takes its toll, it's a constant unrelenting stress.

About half are there because they're mentally sick, or they WANT to be there (probably also sick, but they also don't want help).

[redguard57]

Originally Posted by jlud

It’s typically over 100k per homeless person spent directly, with millions to billions more spent on special projects by the Feds…like hotel rooms and prostitute and drug delivery while there.

How long will businesses put up with the uncertainty and losses? How long before all revenue producers close and pack up…leaving behind vacant buildings and costs in place of revenue. The tax burden on those that work continues to rise, while thise that done continue to freeload…with no consequences.

I moved out here 3 years ago. In my 40 plus years of life I had seen a handful of homeless people but only in Chicago. My kids had never seen one. Out here it’s accepted as normal. It’s not…there are tons of cities where there are none. A child could figure out they go where they can get the most benefits.

I'm from Texas and there are plenty of homeless there. The difference, "enabling" as you put it, is more a lack of abuse from what I've seen. I once saw a police officer in a smallish Texas town threaten a homeless man if he did not leave town. He left, I never saw that homeless man again. So that tactic had its desired effect. I suspect that officer was not alone in treating them that way, and knowing the regional culture, it was similarly intolerant of homelessness and all that goes with it. That town had very few homeless.

Yeah, in liberal places they talk about how it's immoral to criminalize poverty and abuse the most vulnerable. Homeless can thus camp without getting harassed.

[SusVelo]

Originally Posted by jlud

There are literally thousands of city’s across the country with no homeless people living out in the streets. If you lived in the west coast your entire life you probably wouldn’t know that. It is not normal at all to see in the Midwest outside of Detroit and Chicago for the most part, although Recently in Minneapolis as well.

Fair weather is part of it, but the overall “benefit” package is what they are looking at. Places that give them lots of stuff, or where they won’t be bothered or arrested etc. it’s not just the weather, but literally every policy choice that is made by a city/county/state.

I proposed a plan to have homeless people in California move inland where you can get them cheap housing instead of the taxpayers spending 700k plus per unit to house one and people responded angrily saying you can’t make them work and it’s too hot there. Sorry, but making excuses and enabling at multiple levels has got us to where we are at.

Do you not know how to quote?

Anyways, I've seen homeless in Omaha, Des Moines, K.C. St. Louis, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc etc etc. I have to question which midwest cities you've even been to. Even Sioux Falls has been combating homelessness and losing.
https://www.argusleader.com/story/ne...ss/4298038002/


As for your plan, I can't see how Portland shipping homeless people to a midwest city could backfire. lol.

[SusVelo]

Originally Posted by redguard57

About half the homeless are people that can be rehabilitated and are typical stories of falling through the cracks that could happen to any of us. Once you're on the street, even perfectly healthy people get into a battle for their mental health. Being on the street takes its toll, it's a constant unrelenting stress.

About half are there because they're mentally sick, or they WANT to be there (probably also sick, but they also don't want help).

That's the crux of the matter. You have to identify the people that want help and want out. The people who are mentally ill and decide if you can legally have them institutionalized, or determine some kind of way to handle the issue. The drug users and determine if they can be helped, or maybe look at treating them with hospitalized dosing schedules like can be seen in Europe. And finally the people who just want to be there, it's hard to tolerate that.

The thing is it's a national problem, states and cities haven't been able to solve it and if one state has a good program, the burden keeps falling on that state and overwhelms it.

[jlud]

Yes, when I hit quote it brings up 2 pop up ads so I don’t, and if you can read the thread and comprehend quotes are not necessary.

Inland does not mean Midwest, do you not know that? Simply inland from the coasts or ports to lower cost areas where they can get out of the cities and perhaps work and get off addictions, even the same state.

You have successfully named a few cities that have homeless, congrats I guess you are right that means they are everywhere. Or you could try the thousands of small town parts of the world or populations under 100,000 where many live and grow up but never see a homeless person until they go to a big city.

Obviously your smugness limits your critical thinking capacity, my apologies for your situation and hopefully you can get the care you need