Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm being facetious, as I know it's impossible to fully crack down on these issues. At least, not without becoming a dystopian totalitarian state and causing a whole lotta damage.
So, if this doesn't work and you come to discover that homelessness is a result of extreme wealth concentration, a natural and indelible feature of capitalism (though not exclusively), what then? Cull 'em?
I don't disagree that drugs are a major problem, homeless or not, both a cause and result of homelessness. But the problem isn't that simple. Taking all drugs away to reduce homelessness is like taking away all video games and violent media to prevent school shootings. In other words, I bet the house (pun intended) it won't be very effective.
Extreme wealth and its power contributes to homeless. CA is a prime example. CA recently passed a law allowing construction of multi-family housing on a lot of lots previously single family zoned. (Not Beverly Hills, obviously.)
So what did the rich do next, some of them?
A rich town near San Francisco is declaring itself a mountain lion refuge. Problem solved!
Generally, zoning and land use restrictions have crippled housing construction and the restriction works to keep out the "wrong element." California and New York probably lead the nation in finding ways to prevent housing construction for people of modest means. Washington and Oregon, too.
Round em up ….
Bring them to state run farms that will feed them
No alcohol no weed no cigarettes
House them … and have a health clinic that the dr’s in school can volunteer to for credit
They will sell their veggies at farmers markets
They will also give farm tours of the animals to or for kids for donations
The drug addicts will be dried out as well as alcoholics
And the states dept of labor will send the place job applications .. for applicable jobs
And the money they’ve earned can be for housing when they get out
Counselors/psychologists .. etc will also volunteer their time here as college credits
Extreme wealth and its power contributes to homeless. CA is a prime example. CA recently passed a law allowing construction of multi-family housing on a lot of lots previously single family zoned. (Not Beverly Hills, obviously.)
So what did the rich do next, some of them?
A rich town near San Francisco is declaring itself a mountain lion refuge. Problem solved!
Generally, zoning and land use restrictions have crippled housing construction and the restriction works to keep out the "wrong element." California and New York probably lead the nation in finding ways to prevent housing construction for people of modest means. Washington and Oregon, too.
All agreed. I can sympathize with conservation and even NIMBYism to an extent, but at what point does it become selfish? USA has always been extremely individualistic, but the reality of it is a bit of a "Schroedinger" situation, where we are all both individuals and part of a greater interconnected collective. Not an easy task resolving competing interests. All I really want is a reasonable society where important workers (teachers, construction workers, and yeah, even minimum wagies etc) don't have to commute 3+ hours into the "citadel" 5x a week.
I post this as a kind of thought experiment in order to avoid going down the political party rabbit holes.
If you had suddenly become in charge of this fictional U.S. with its very real homeless problem, what steps would you take to solve it? You have unilateral control, but similar budget constraints.
Finland solved their homeless problem, and the developing country we retired in, has no visible homeless.
What can be done in this most powerful, richest country in the world?
I would start by building a bunch of psych hospitals as they existed in the '50s and '60s before the Boy Wonders thought it would be a good idea to release the vast majority of seriously persistently mentally ill people out onto the streets, to beg or steal.
Old psych hospitals were farms, the patients helped raise animals, crops, run the place. They were given responsibilities commensurate with their abilities, they were likely largely self-sufficient, the patients' days were not filled with make-work BS groups they gained nothing from.
THAT is caring for patients.
The Central Planners geniuses said the patients needed to make minimum wage. That right there kills the farm idea. Central Planners are some of society's worst leeches, parasites, and disaster-designers.
I would start by building a bunch of psych hospitals as they existed in the '50s and '60s before the Boy Wonders thought it would be a good idea to release the vast majority of seriously persistently mentally ill people out onto the streets, to beg or steal.
Old psych hospitals were farms, the patients helped raise animals, crops, run the place. They were given responsibilities commensurate with their abilities, they were likely largely self-sufficient, the patients' days were not filled with make-work BS groups they gained nothing from.
THAT is caring for patients.
The Central Planners geniuses said the patients needed to make minimum wage. That right there kills the farm idea. Central Planners are some of society's worst leeches, parasites, and disaster-designers.
That's a good solution, but to a different problem. The vast majority of the homeless are homeless because they are drug addicts.
Until the supply of drugs from Mexico is stopped by an airtight border, homelessness will keep growing.
That's a good solution, but to a different problem. The vast majority of the homeless are homeless because they are drug addicts.
Until the supply of drugs from Mexico is stopped by an airtight border, homelessness will keep growing.
There are homeless people who are drug addicts. It is not the vast majority of homeless. Therefore, your solution fails. Best estimates are that 10-15% of the homeless are drug addicts. A far greater proportion are alcoholics. A large chunk of the homeless population does not fit into either of those categories.
I think you want to stop illegal immigration far more than you want to stop homelessness and that accounts for your "solution".
The Tenderloin District inhabitants are almost all drug addicts. So are those of Malibu Beach and Venice. Alcoholics are drug addicts, although addicted to a legal drug.
The SF DA says about half the drug pushers are illegal immigrants from Honduras, which means the real figure is over 90% since he's such a liar.
The Tenderloin District inhabitants are almost all drug addicts. So are those of Malibu Beach and Venice. Alcoholics are drug addicts, although addicted to a legal drug.
The SF DA says about half the drug pushers are illegal immigrants from Honduras, which means the real figure is over 90% since he's such a liar.
Probably the worst reply I've seen to facts since I've been on CDF. Give it up guy. You are saying something that is provably false. Most homeless people are not drug addicts and you have the evidence right in front of you.
Since there doesn't appear to be anything new to be added to this debate (or, rather, "thought experiment" as described in the OP), then it appears to be time to put this debate to rest.
Thank you to all who participated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
