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.
The problem is complicated and so many people want it to be a simple one so they can say "just do this" and "just do that" and voila! it's solved.
Making the homeless into a simple problem to solve goes like this: "If I think all the homeless are drug addicts and alcoholics who refuse treatment, then I don't have to care about them because they're responsible for their own problems. Them being homeless is their own fault. All I have to worry about is getting them out of my sight."
Folks, when the people who work for tech companies in the Bay Area are having problems finding affordable housing, you have to know there's a lot more to being homeless than being addicted to something.
The homeless are made up of many drug and alcohol addicted, that's true. But there are more than just the skid row people out there. There are families living in vehicles, older people who can't afford rent any longer, women who have run away from an abusive relationship, kids that age out of the foster care system when they turn 18, people who are working full time and living in their car because they can't afford to buy or rent a place to live.
These aren't people who are going to benefit from programs like AA. And a one size fits all program isn't going to help everyone.
If you are a homeowner, you have a certain view of yourself. Would that view change if you suddenly lost your home (for whatever reason) and had to live in a shelter? Probably not, but I can assure you, the view of you the public holds will definitely change. You will become a lesser person. You can protest all you want, but you are now a "them", you have dropped in status according to all the other "thems", and you will be treated accordingly.
I don't know what the answer is, but I know what it isn't. And what isn't going to work is treating all homeless people like they're garbage and spitting people into "us" and "them". There but for grace...
The problem is complicated and so many people want it to be a simple one so they can say "just do this" and "just do that" and voila! it's solved.
Making the homeless into a simple problem to solve goes like this: "If I think all the homeless are drug addicts and alcoholics who refuse treatment, then I don't have to care about them because they're responsible for their own problems. Them being homeless is their own fault. All I have to worry about is getting them out of my sight."
Folks, when the people who work for tech companies in the Bay Area are having problems finding affordable housing, you have to know there's a lot more to being homeless than being addicted to something.
The homeless are made up of many drug and alcohol addicted, that's true. But there are more than just the skid row people out there. There are families living in vehicles, older people who can't afford rent any longer, women who have run away from an abusive relationship, kids that age out of the foster care system when they turn 18, people who are working full time and living in their car because they can't afford to buy or rent a place to live.
These aren't people who are going to benefit from programs like AA. And a one size fits all program isn't going to help everyone.
If you are a homeowner, you have a certain view of yourself. Would that view change if you suddenly lost your home (for whatever reason) and had to live in a shelter? Probably not, but I can assure you, the view of you the public holds will definitely change. You will become a lesser person. You can protest all you want, but you are now a "them", you have dropped in status according to all the other "thems", and you will be treated accordingly.
I don't know what the answer is, but I know what it isn't. And what isn't going to work is treating all homeless people like they're garbage and spitting people into "us" and "them". There but for grace...
No on has an answer because no one in power wants an answer. If they did, they would fix it for those who wanted help and for those who don't they would medically treat them until they had a mental change. Why vote for anyone that does not present a solid plan, not just say we gotta fix it.
Literally no one is advocating for treating homeless people like garbage. No one.
In this thread alone, I routinely see people saying the homeless should be put in concentration camps in the desert, away from everything that could possibly get people back into a normal life.
No on has an answer because no one in power wants an answer. If they did, they would fix it for those who wanted help and for those who don't they would medically treat them until they had a mental change. Why vote for anyone that does not present a solid plan, not just say we gotta fix it.
Probably the only way this will ever get fixed, is through a cataclysm, such as a nuclear war. Then, the slate is wiped clean, and the survivors will have an opportunity to get a piece of the pie as just about all of those that are hoarding land, wealth, and everything else are dead.
Yes, it will be hell at first, since the world as we know it would be wiped out. There would be no more TV, or internet, or fancy buildings to go to. They would have to start from the ground up, literally. This would mean staking out a habitable piece of land, building a shack or tee-pee type dwelling on it, foraging for food, wherever it may be. They would also have to learn and know how to defend themselves from animals, both the four and two legged kind. But on the upside, they won't have to deal with land barons, or the police, or a government that would kick them out, or a corrupt economy, because those things no longer exist.
Well, if everyone remembers many of our country's institutions were shut down by a certain president. This was in the 80's. I had a cousin in one back East and remember when his mother, my aunt, was told she had to take him home, she could not care for him, ended up many of these people were put up in motels....it's escalated and escalated and now it's SO MANY vets coming home from the wars and no jobs etc etc...
Actually, politicians on both the Republican and Democratic sides pushed for it, and it was Reagan who put the stamp of approval on this.
"The community will take care of them". Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight..... ......
The problem is complicated and so many people want it to be a simple one so they can say "just do this" and "just do that" and voila! it's solved.
Making the homeless into a simple problem to solve goes like this: "If I think all the homeless are drug addicts and alcoholics who refuse treatment, then I don't have to care about them because they're responsible for their own problems. Them being homeless is their own fault. All I have to worry about is getting them out of my sight."
Folks, when the people who work for tech companies in the Bay Area are having problems finding affordable housing, you have to know there's a lot more to being homeless than being addicted to something.
The homeless are made up of many drug and alcohol addicted, that's true. But there are more than just the skid row people out there. There are families living in vehicles, older people who can't afford rent any longer, women who have run away from an abusive relationship, kids that age out of the foster care system when they turn 18, people who are working full time and living in their car because they can't afford to buy or rent a place to live.
These aren't people who are going to benefit from programs like AA. And a one size fits all program isn't going to help everyone.
If you are a homeowner, you have a certain view of yourself. Would that view change if you suddenly lost your home (for whatever reason) and had to live in a shelter? Probably not, but I can assure you, the view of you the public holds will definitely change. You will become a lesser person. You can protest all you want, but you are now a "them", you have dropped in status according to all the other "thems", and you will be treated accordingly.
I don't know what the answer is, but I know what it isn't. And what isn't going to work is treating all homeless people like they're garbage and spitting people into "us" and "them". There but for grace...
You're right, if you categorize them all as being mentally ill, criminals, addicts or alcoholics then you can claim their homelessness is due to their own poor choices, shrug your shoulders and you can walk away and whimper about how they offend your sensibilities. I just wish some of these people would just spend one day a week volunteering to work with the poor and the homelss before they started offering solutions that range from implausible to unconstitutional.
No on has an answer because no one in power wants an answer. If they did, they would fix it for those who wanted help and for those who don't they would medically treat them until they had a mental change. Why vote for anyone that does not present a solid plan, not just say we gotta fix it.
Fix it how? Where are they supposed to sleep if not on the streets? Part of the problem LAPD has had in trying to remove people from sleeping on the sidewalks is that there is nowhere for them to go:
How many shelter beds are there? The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority puts the number at 16,600 in 2017. If you add Long Beach, Pasadena and Glendale, which report their data separately, the total is about 17,800 — a little more than one for every three of the county’s 58,000 estimated homeless people. But not all of those beds are available year-round to people who would otherwise be living on the street. The combined count includes 1,700 shelter beds that are open only during winter and 4,000 that are not actually beds, but cash payments reserved for welfare and general relief recipients to rent rooms for up to a month. An additional 7,100 are in transitional programs that generally serve families and youth for up to two years and are not often open for drop-ins..
How do you medically treat people who don't want help, lock them up? The only legal solution to that unless they are so disabled that you can 5150 them for a 72 hour observation is to use Laura's law which only allows for outpatient treatment.
Vote for whoever you want, but unless the public gets behind spending a lot of money on this issue no Mayor is going to fix it for you. Right now, managing the homeless in any big city usually ends up being an exercise as futile as herding cats. They've got to have some place to live, whether it's a tent in a managed encampment, or a hotel room in a shabby old SRO hotel, it just needs to be a safe place to sleep. If there's no will to provide that then there's really no will to fix the problem.
Fix it how? Where are they supposed to sleep if not on the streets? Part of the problem LAPD has had in trying to remove people from sleeping on the sidewalks is that there is nowhere for them to go:
How many shelter beds are there? The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority puts the number at 16,600 in 2017. If you add Long Beach, Pasadena and Glendale, which report their data separately, the total is about 17,800 — a little more than one for every three of the county’s 58,000 estimated homeless people. But not all of those beds are available year-round to people who would otherwise be living on the street. The combined count includes 1,700 shelter beds that are open only during winter and 4,000 that are not actually beds, but cash payments reserved for welfare and general relief recipients to rent rooms for up to a month. An additional 7,100 are in transitional programs that generally serve families and youth for up to two years and are not often open for drop-ins..
How do you medically treat people who don't want help, lock them up? The only legal solution to that unless they are so disabled that you can 5150 them for a 72 hour observation is to use Laura's law which only allows for outpatient treatment.
Vote for whoever you want, but unless the public gets behind spending a lot of money on this issue no Mayor is going to fix it for you. Right now, managing the homeless in any big city usually ends up being an exercise as futile as herding cats. They've got to have some place to live, whether it's a tent in a managed encampment, or a hotel room in a shabby old SRO hotel, it just needs to be a safe place to sleep. If there's no will to provide that then there's really no will to fix the problem.
We have been behind spending money. We've had 2 tax increases going "supposedly" directly to the homeless. There's supposedly millions in accounts, if they haven't spent it on something else, but nobody will agree on how to spend the money. This is def not the publics fault and we shouldn't have to pony up any more money.
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.
