What's new
By:
Filters
  • Forums will go offline Wednesday Dec 4th at 10AM CST for updates. It's a big update, so the site may be offline for a few hours.

What to do with the homeless

The courts aren't the problem. There simply aren't the beds/facilities for the quantity of people that need them.

A small part of that is funding. A big part of that is the dumb-ass public being ok with every piece of bureaucracy building and cost-driving bullshit that the AMA and insurance industries try and peddle.

Even if we reverted the laws to the 1970s we can't get the 1970s back because we'd have to unwind all the voting and legislating the boomers did between then and now because we can't afford to run those mental hospitals at that scale in accordance with modern rules.
 
Tryloff said:
We stayed in touch with these families for a while. Some for years. The success rate is huge when you actually solve the issues that are making these people homeless.
Click to expand...
That's a big part of the difference (IMO) between enabling an addict and helping someone get back on their feet and moving under their own power.
One helps them until the money runs out, the other helps them become a productive member of society.

Tryloff said:
The main issue is that the person has to actually want help and want to be a good person. If they're homeless because they're a drug addict or scum bag and refuse to solve those issues then there is no place for them in any society.
Click to expand...
Exactly, if they are "playing along" to get a handout vs trying to get off of the street you can't help them.

arse_sidewards said:
The courts aren't the problem. There simply aren't the beds/facilities for the quantity of people that need them.

A small part of that is funding. A big part of that is the dumb-ass public being ok with every piece of bureaucracy building and cost-driving bullshit that the AMA and insurance industries try and peddle.

Even if we reverted the laws to the 1970s we can't get the 1970s back because we'd have to unwind all the voting and legislating the boomers did between then and now because we can't afford to run those mental hospitals at that scale in accordance with modern rules.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I would be curious how many homeless need a program like the one Tryloff talked about vs needing long term inpatient mental health treatment.
No way our current mental health system could handle that many more people, but IMO it would be cheaper in the long run for society as a whole than the current homeless mess that we have.

Aaron Z
 
aczlan said:
I agree, but I would be curious how many homeless need a program like the one(redacted TP) talked about vs needing long term inpatient mental health treatment.
Click to expand...
the opportunity is out there

it is just that drugs and booze are a much brighter alternative to a prospective future as slave labor for unseen washingtonian overlords
 
Last edited:
Tryloff said:
In my youth, i volunteered a lot with a homeless shelter that was long term. It's pretty hard to get in and takes a referral from churches or job and family services department. Basically we only took those who wanted better but were chronically poor.

Once they were in they goot great food and a nice safe place to stay. They were with us for 3-6 months. In that time we would do the following:
  • teach budgeting through a watered down dave ramsey plan.
  • teach nutrition, cooking, and good grocery shopping habits.
  • teach hygiene and health skills.
  • would find them employment in a job with growth potential. Factories, sales, labor type jobs.

When they got out we made sure they had:
  • a solid cash based budget based off of their current employment.
  • a house they could afford. Always a studio or small apartment.
  • furniture. It was all donated furniture that we would pick up and deliver for free. If some wealthy family bought new beds or couches we would pick up the old ones and store them until needed.

We stayed in touch with these families for a while. Some for years. The success rate is huge when you actually solve the issues that are making these people homeless.

The main issue is that the person has to actually want help and want to be a good person. If they're homeless because they're a drug addict or scum bag and refuse to solve those issues then there is no place for them in any society.

For the latter, my best suggestion would be forced rehab and labor. Once they sober up and learn their skill we can reasses whether they are able to enter a more educational program to rejoin society or if they will be on the highway litter crew forever.
Click to expand...

Forced rehab does not work.....

Look at how many courts have a drug court..recidivism is like 90 percent...

Only rehab that has a chance is when the person decides....and not before..

No court or home intervention works...sorry
 
Let them starve to death? Brake the law, Gaol them and ship them off to another continent, use them as convict labour for as many years necessary(5-7years usually worked).
They learn or get cat and nine tailed until they die.
It work in Oz back in 1788, it’ll work again.
 
www.latimes.com

Supreme Court to rule on clearing homeless encampments in California and the West

The Supreme Court will decide if homeless people have a right to camp on public property if no shelter is available, a 9th Circuit legal standard that has complicated efforts in Western states to combat the crisis.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com

Supreme Court to rule on clearing homeless encampments in California and the West​


WASHINGTON —
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether homeless people have a constitutional right to camp on public property when they have no other place to sleep.

Acting on appeals from city officials in California and the West, the court will review decisions of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held it was cruel and unusual punishment for cities to deny homeless people a place to sleep.

As a result of the 9th Circuit rulings, public officials in California and the eight other Western states under its jurisdiction face greater scrutiny and legal challenges when they move to clear encampments or relocate homeless people.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and city attorneys from Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Phoenix were among two dozen government and business groups that urged the high court to restore their authority over sidewalks and parks, or at least to clarify the law.

City attorneys said it remains unclear whether encampments may be removed from sidewalks or parks if the people living on the street refuse an offer to move into temporary shelter.
 
Splib said:
www.latimes.com

Supreme Court to rule on clearing homeless encampments in California and the West

The Supreme Court will decide if homeless people have a right to camp on public property if no shelter is available, a 9th Circuit legal standard that has complicated efforts in Western states to combat the crisis.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com

Supreme Court to rule on clearing homeless encampments in California and the West​


WASHINGTON —
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether homeless people have a constitutional right to camp on public property when they have no other place to sleep.

Acting on appeals from city officials in California and the West, the court will review decisions of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held it was cruel and unusual punishment for cities to deny homeless people a place to sleep.

As a result of the 9th Circuit rulings, public officials in California and the eight other Western states under its jurisdiction face greater scrutiny and legal challenges when they move to clear encampments or relocate homeless people.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and city attorneys from Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Phoenix were among two dozen government and business groups that urged the high court to restore their authority over sidewalks and parks, or at least to clarify the law.

City attorneys said it remains unclear whether encampments may be removed from sidewalks or parks if the people living on the street refuse an offer to move into temporary shelter.
Click to expand...
Again, what will be done with those that refuse temporary shelter? They can't simply be asked to leave...they'll just go to a different sidewalk or park, or private property
 
Lbhsbz said:
Again, what will be done with those that refuse temporary shelter? They can't simply be asked to leave...they'll just go to a different sidewalk or park, or private property
Click to expand...
200.gif
 
That has been a major issue since "inception" in the west under the 9th Circuit ruling. I kinda get that you cant simply rule or adjudicate and enforce a law that a person cant exist. But you cant have them breaking laws against public camping, vagrancy and worse yet public drug use and alcohol abuse. What does "drunk in public mean " ?

When I was poor, I was not. In college we all had min wage jobs and three of us pooled together to rent a 3br house or apt. Not great news but perfectly viable. Got us all through. These fucking POS, well, certainly the majority have no intention, zero, of ever helping themselves. Pastor at my former place of worship used to go on about Jesus and how evil people were to shame the weak and homeless. I dont go to church anymore.

Sacramento has tried extremely hard to establish homeless homes, places where they can legally go and throw up a tent, and have a shitter and hot water out in the gravel lot. Even those have met with complete legal failure, roadblocked by lawsuit after lawsuit. Cover provided by mercy advocates go unused. I can't drive by these shit hole camps without thinking of coming back at night with a backback sprayer full of diesel and a road flare.

The court, the SCOTUS has to rule on this, the law of the land. They have to rule that a fucked up tiny minority of law breakers has more rights than the population that is their leaching blood source. The court has to rule there has to be a resolution. That resolution is that local laws can be upheld, at the very least upheld given there is alternate locations where they can shoot up, eat fentanyl, use syringes, drink day after day after day, shit, piss, vomit, stab each other, locations with these benefits are provided.
 
It's unfortunate what our once fine country,

Is what it is now... not just this front on every front. Fails failures and flat out failing period... it's all depends on who actually gives a shit any longer as to how bad it actually is in any given situation...

Can't even get 911 to show up in a timely manner (45) mn later... and they get a pay raise through our cell bill here in Colorado.. yeah fuck them pieces of shit...

You need them they are no where to be found!

Plain and simple. Just how it is now

The pussification is all but complete at this point

Isn't calling them next go around..
 
Splib said:
That has been a major issue since "inception" in the west under the 9th Circuit ruling. I kinda get that you cant simply rule or adjudicate and enforce a law that a person cant exist. But you cant have them breaking laws against public camping, vagrancy and worse yet public drug use and alcohol abuse. What does "drunk in public mean " ?

When I was poor, I was not. In college we all had min wage jobs and three of us pooled together to rent a 3br house or apt. Not great news but perfectly viable. Got us all through. These fucking POS, well, certainly the majority have no intention, zero, of ever helping themselves. Pastor at my former place of worship used to go on about Jesus and how evil people were to shame the weak and homeless. I dont go to church anymore.

Sacramento has tried extremely hard to establish homeless homes, places where they can legally go and throw up a tent, and have a shitter and hot water out in the gravel lot. Even those have met with complete legal failure, roadblocked by lawsuit after lawsuit. Cover provided by mercy advocates go unused. I can't drive by these shit hole camps without thinking of coming back at night with a backback sprayer full of diesel and a road flare.

The court, the SCOTUS has to rule on this, the law of the land. They have to rule that a fucked up tiny minority of law breakers has more rights than the population that is their leaching blood source. The court has to rule there has to be a resolution. That resolution is that local laws can be upheld, at the very least upheld given there is alternate locations where they can shoot up, eat fentanyl, use syringes, drink day after day after day, shit, piss, vomit, stab each other, locations with these benefits are provided.
Click to expand...
The more important aspect will be the ramifications for department of interior: how do you justify massive monument closures and access restriction in forest lands as well.
 
Splib said:
That has been a major issue since "inception" in the west under the 9th Circuit ruling. I kinda get that you cant simply rule or adjudicate and enforce a law that a person cant exist. But you cant have them breaking laws against public camping, vagrancy and worse yet public drug use and alcohol abuse. What does "drunk in public mean " ?

When I was poor, I was not. In college we all had min wage jobs and three of us pooled together to rent a 3br house or apt. Not great news but perfectly viable. Got us all through. These fucking POS, well, certainly the majority have no intention, zero, of ever helping themselves. Pastor at my former place of worship used to go on about Jesus and how evil people were to shame the weak and homeless. I dont go to church anymore.

Sacramento has tried extremely hard to establish homeless homes, places where they can legally go and throw up a tent, and have a shitter and hot water out in the gravel lot. Even those have met with complete legal failure, roadblocked by lawsuit after lawsuit. Cover provided by mercy advocates go unused. I can't drive by these shit hole camps without thinking of coming back at night with a backback sprayer full of diesel and a road flare.

The court, the SCOTUS has to rule on this, the law of the land. They have to rule that a fucked up tiny minority of law breakers has more rights than the population that is their leaching blood source. The court has to rule there has to be a resolution. That resolution is that local laws can be upheld, at the very least upheld given there is alternate locations where they can shoot up, eat fentanyl, use syringes, drink day after day after day, shit, piss, vomit, stab each other, locations with these benefits are provided.
Click to expand...


Take it a step further...

if SCOTUS says public property can be used by homeless, could it set a precedent that BLM land would have to be accessible? I know it's a stretch of an argument, but maybe?
 
rockota said:
Take it a step further...

if SCOTUS says public property can be used by homeless, could it set a precedent that BLM land would have to be accessible? I know it's a stretch of an argument, but maybe?
Click to expand...

Law enforcement behaves very different with people who will pay the fines and has property that can be confiscated.
 
RusM said:
200.gif
Click to expand...
not enough cells/beds for the dipshits locked up right now....try again.

My answer: If you've been locked up for more than 2 years...Mulitple offender?...get dead. Violent offender that wasn't in self defence? get dead. Child molestor....get tortured until dead. Drug offences...get a job and file tax returns in 1 year or get dead.

My answer is not popular though....curious as to what yours is.


Basically...contribute to society of GTFO of society and hide in the hills where nobody will ever have to deal with you again...and if they do, you get dead.
 
Just saw this thread, interesting replies for sure lol and as someone who is currently homeless, I’m sure glad some of yall aren’t in charge :flipoff2: but I’m definitely in the minority as far as homeless homies go.

Staying at the local rescue mission has been an interesting experience, I’m very thankful that the option is there to not have to sleep in my 4Runner right now cause its damn cold.

Definitely agree homelessness needs much less government intervention, with an exception that companies like Blackrock shouldn’t be able to fuck the real estate market by buying up inventory…

Flame away, I could use the heat :flipoff2:
 
rockota said:
Take it a step further...

if SCOTUS says public property can be used by homeless, could it set a precedent that BLM land would have to be accessible? I know it's a stretch of an argument, but maybe?
Click to expand...
it would at least end the 14 day stay limit. SCOTUS would have more oversight over BLM/DoI land than City owned land, regardless
 
JK13 said:
Just saw this thread, interesting replies for sure lol and as someone who is currently homeless, I’m sure glad some of yall aren’t in charge :flipoff2: but I’m definitely in the minority as far as homeless homies go.

Staying at the local rescue mission has been an interesting experience, I’m very thankful that the option is there to not have to sleep in my 4Runner right now cause its damn cold.

Definitely agree homelessness needs much less government intervention, with an exception that companies like Blackrock shouldn’t be able to fuck the real estate market by buying up inventory…

Flame away, I could use the heat :flipoff2:
Click to expand...
why are you in Boise and not in Portland right now? weather'd be way better and there's more resources :smokin:

have a sign that says "need fuel to relocate to portland" and somebody should buy you enough fuel to get out of ID and head there :flipoff2:
 
JK13 said:
Just saw this thread, interesting replies for sure lol and as someone who is currently homeless, I’m sure glad some of yall aren’t in charge :flipoff2: but I’m definitely in the minority as far as homeless homies go.

Staying at the local rescue mission has been an interesting experience, I’m very thankful that the option is there to not have to sleep in my 4Runner right now cause its damn cold.

Definitely agree homelessness needs much less government intervention, with an exception that companies like Blackrock shouldn’t be able to fuck the real estate market by buying up inventory…

Flame away, I could use the heat :flipoff2:
Click to expand...
Colter? :flipoff2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh