Habits...

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
adjl 08/02/21 1:07:19 PM #151:	CarefreeDude posted... I don't have an answer to the homeless problem but I feel a proper program that is able to tend to the individual needs of homeless and get them back in track would be a good start. Although even that solutions comes with lots of questionable human rights actions. That is basically what Medicine Hat has done. They start by getting permanent shelter for people, since not having that is a huge barrier to solving whatever other problems they've got (it's awfully difficult to treat anxiety, for example, in a person whose primary stressor is not knowing if they'll be arrested or assaulted for where they choose to sleep that night), but from there they provide other resources to help with their individual needs, whether that's addictions therapy, mental health care, or even just help with financial management, and continue to follow up with them even after they graduate from the program. It's a very involved process, but it's managed to completely eliminate chronic homelessness. Bonus points where - and I really can't stress this enough - they've saved money by doing it. Policing homeless people is really very expensive, while housing them is much cheaper than people seem to realize. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:956702741] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>CarefreeDude posted... </cite> <quote>I don't have an answer to the homeless problem but I feel a proper program that is able to tend to the individual needs of homeless and get them back in track would be a good start. Although even that solutions comes with lots of questionable human rights actions.</quote> That is basically what Medicine Hat has done. They start by getting permanent shelter for people, since not having that is a huge barrier to solving whatever other problems they've got (it's awfully difficult to treat anxiety, for example, in a person whose primary stressor is not knowing if they'll be arrested or assaulted for where they choose to sleep that night), but from there they provide other resources to help with their individual needs, whether that's addictions therapy, mental health care, or even just help with financial management, and continue to follow up with them even after they graduate from the program. It's a very involved process, but it's managed to completely eliminate chronic homelessness. Bonus points where - and I really can't stress this enough - they've saved money by doing it. Policing homeless people is really very expensive, while housing them is much cheaper than people seem to realize. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pionear 08/02/21 1:56:02 PM #152:	adjl posted... If most other anti-homeless legislation is anything to go on, they'll be fined, obviously never pay that fine, spend a night or two in jail for missing their court date for not paying said fine, then pick up where they left off when they get out and repeat the cycle again. Periodically, if too many homeless people are gathering in one spot, you'll see large police raids to disperse them, at which point they'll go somewhere else. The end result of this, of course, is a whole lot of money spent on police and legal resources with absolutely nothing to show for it and a homeless population that will never never have the credit rating they need to rent a place of their own (since those missed fines destroy it). But hey, at least some voters might not have to look at quite as many homeless people. That's gotta count for something, right? And just like the 'War on Drugs' that's how the Cycle stays active... <cite>pionear posted [p:956704288] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>If most other anti-homeless legislation is anything to go on, they'll be fined, obviously never pay that fine, spend a night or two in jail for missing their court date for not paying said fine, then pick up where they left off when they get out and repeat the cycle again. Periodically, if too many homeless people are gathering in one spot, you'll see large police raids to disperse them, at which point they'll go somewhere else. The end result of this, of course, is a whole lot of money spent on police and legal resources with absolutely nothing to show for it and a homeless population that will never never have the credit rating they need to rent a place of their own (since those missed fines destroy it). But hey, at least some voters might not have to look at quite as many homeless people. That's gotta count for something, right?</quote> And just like the 'War on Drugs' that's how the Cycle stays active... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/02/21 2:35:21 PM #153:	adjl posted... And in the process, harms a bunch of people who had no intention ever leaving their poop everywhere. Taken to its logical extreme, that approach would support exterminating all of humanity to ensure that nobody ever committed a murder, which is obviously stupid. Good thing it's not taken to any extreme, it's taken one step away from the fatal action, in line with making death threats illegal. adjl posted... Nothing about that disputes me saying that they aren't interested in pushing for systemic solutions. Never was refuting that, I was refuting being against it. Being disconnected is different from the image of malice you created. adjl posted... obody's being asked to sacrifice anything, though. Asking people to have shit on their streets and their homes devalued by free housing. That is a sacrifice necessary to refusing to deal with the homeless setting up shop outside their homes. adjl posted... Again, giving barebones apartments away for free (to the tenant, that is, since the government would still be paying rent on them and therefore the landlord is going to be getting roughly the same amount of income for their property) does not affect the value of properties that are better than barebones apartments. All houses are housing, when people have a very cheap basic option, it drags down the value of all general housing outside luxury properties like summer homes and mansions. The vast majority of people live in normal housing. adjl posted... Absolutely nobody will ever say "you know, I was going to buy this $500,000 house, but if I just become homeless I'll get a bachelor apartment for free, so I don't think I'll bother." Perhaps, but a large part of the market would say "I was going to buy this 2 bedroom house but this 1 bedroom is literally free, an extra room isn't worth $300k." When the difference between a small home and an average one is vast, the disparity will discourage going up a step and so drive down the value of these normal homes. The people who spent $300k when it was a good deal suddenly end up in $50k negative equity in their mortgage. adjl posted... If people are taking on great debt to afford a crappy bachelor apartment, that's part of the problem that would be fixed with a housing-first approach to fixing homelessness. People that paid for those crappy apartments on their own before being able to move on to something better may feel slighted for that, but really, that's just progress. Nobody's voting for progress that personally harms them. Every adult who's taken on a mortgage, so a large portion of the voting population, would stand to lose large amounts of personal wealth to benefit vagrant meth heads and beggars they've personally witnessed who can't keep their lives straight. You may be fine with that, most aren't. adjl posted... Which brings us back to the point about people not wanting to recognize that the "lower classes" exist and a large suite of policies and practices that enables and encourages such attitudes. The mere presence of people that are paying a more affordable rent (note that these are affordable units, not housing that's being given out for free, so these are tenants that are paying the asking price themselves) should not induce any sort of perception that would affect the value of the property. That it does is because of a bunch of rich snobs that really don't need to exist. It's not a matter of recognition, but willingness to make sacrifices for the "lower classes". There's no return for them on such a decision, they just lose out. As is people aren't paying the asking price, and making things cheaper doesn't substantially effect the value of property, so doesn't effect the house price massively. So it's going to have to be subsidised to cover the value the landlord paid that they're not recouping due to forcibly affordable rent, and due to the price being affordable at the buyer's end, everybody else's property value is reduced in line with the subsidy. All owners of normal homes lose value in their homes since the government is forcibly creating availability. So home owners have less property value and everybody has increased tax to cover the subsidy that made their houses worth less. It's a policy that helps some at the cost of many, it's not a very viable strategy. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:956705492] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>And in the process, harms a bunch of people who had no intention ever leaving their poop everywhere. Taken to its logical extreme, that approach would support exterminating all of humanity to ensure that nobody ever committed a murder, which is obviously stupid.</quote> Good thing it's not taken to any extreme, it's taken one step away from the fatal action, in line with making death threats illegal. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Nothing about that disputes me saying that they aren't interested in pushing for systemic solutions.</quote> Never was refuting that, I was refuting being against it. Being disconnected is different from the image of malice you created. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>obody's being asked to sacrifice anything, though.</quote> Asking people to have shit on their streets and their homes devalued by free housing. That is a sacrifice necessary to refusing to deal with the homeless setting up shop outside their homes. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Again, giving barebones apartments away for free (to the tenant, that is, since the government would still be paying rent on them and therefore the landlord is going to be getting roughly the same amount of income for their property) does not affect the value of properties that are better than barebones apartments. </quote> All houses are housing, when people have a very cheap basic option, it drags down the value of all general housing outside luxury properties like summer homes and mansions. The vast majority of people live in normal housing. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Absolutely nobody will ever say "you know, I was going to buy this $500,000 house, but if I just become homeless I'll get a bachelor apartment for free, so I don't think I'll bother."</quote> Perhaps, but a large part of the market would say "I was going to buy this 2 bedroom house but this 1 bedroom is literally free, an extra room isn't worth $300k." When the difference between a small home and an average one is vast, the disparity will discourage going up a step and so drive down the value of these normal homes. The people who spent $300k when it was a good deal suddenly end up in $50k negative equity in their mortgage. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>If people are taking on great debt to afford a crappy bachelor apartment, that's part of the problem that would be fixed with a housing-first approach to fixing homelessness. People that paid for those crappy apartments on their own before being able to move on to something better may feel slighted for that, but really, that's just progress.</quote> Nobody's voting for progress that personally harms them. Every adult who's taken on a mortgage, so a large portion of the voting population, would stand to lose large amounts of personal wealth to benefit vagrant meth heads and beggars they've personally witnessed who can't keep their lives straight. You may be fine with that, most aren't. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Which brings us back to the point about people not wanting to recognize that the "lower classes" exist and a large suite of policies and practices that enables and encourages such attitudes. The mere presence of people that are paying a more affordable rent (note that these are affordable units, not housing that's being given out for free, so these are tenants that are paying the asking price themselves) should not induce any sort of perception that would affect the value of the property. That it does is because of a bunch of rich snobs that really don't need to exist.</quote> It's not a matter of recognition, but willingness to make sacrifices for the "lower classes". There's no return for them on such a decision, they just lose out. As is people aren't paying the asking price, and making things cheaper doesn't substantially effect the value of property, so doesn't effect the house price massively. So it's going to have to be subsidised to cover the value the landlord paid that they're not recouping due to forcibly affordable rent, and due to the price being affordable at the buyer's end, everybody else's property value is reduced in line with the subsidy. All owners of normal homes lose value in their homes since the government is forcibly creating availability. So home owners have less property value and everybody has increased tax to cover the subsidy that made their houses worth less. It's a policy that helps some at the cost of many, it's not a very viable strategy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/02/21 2:40:36 PM #154:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Asking people to have shit on their streets and their homes devalued by free housing. Ive literally never seen any shit on any streets in this state. Why are you all so obsessed with the idea of poop being everywhere that you dont like? Anyone that lives on CA can refute that nonsense. Its a bunch of regular ass people just going about their business and working their jobs mostly. Same as anywhere, just more crowded. --- my resting temp can easily be in the 90's -Krazy_Kirby <cite>Mead posted [p:956705639] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>Asking people to have shit on their streets and their homes devalued by free housing.</quote> Ive literally never seen any shit on any streets in this state. Why are you all so obsessed with the idea of poop being everywhere that you dont like? Anyone that lives on CA can refute that nonsense. Its a bunch of regular ass people just going about their business and working their jobs mostly. Same as anywhere, just more crowded. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 08/02/21 2:59:42 PM #155:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Good thing it's not taken to any extreme, it's taken one step away from the fatal action, in line with making death threats illegal. Arresting people because they "might" commit a crime (or at least creating laws to make it criminal to be in a position where one might commit an actual crime, which is basically the same thing) is very much an extreme, regardless of how that actually manifests. "Pre-crime" is a thing, and introducing measures that help prevent it from becoming actual crime can be a good idea (depending on the measures), but outright making it illegal is actually pretty dystopian. Kyuubi4269 posted... Asking people to have s*** on their streets and their homes devalued by free housing. That is a sacrifice necessary to refusing to deal with the homeless setting up shop outside their homes. Why are you treating this as though there's no middle ground between "let the homeless poop wherever they want" and "arrest people for being homeless within city limits"? These "sacrifices" you're talking about are very much the worst case scenario, not something that is inevitable unless the homeless "menace" is completely flushed out. Kyuubi4269 posted... All houses are housing, when people have a very cheap basic option, it drags down the value of all general housing outside luxury properties like summer homes and mansions. The vast majority of people live in normal housing. Nice theory. Shall we look at how it holds up? https://blog.remax.ca/strong-gains-reported-in-medicine-hat-real-estate-market/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7914660/medicine-hat-alberta-homelessness/ Medicine Hat is a city that has a housing-first program in place, one which was started about a decade ago and has proven robust enough to completely eliminate chronic homelessness. Looks like their property values are doing just fine, including some very robust growth in apartments (which is the sector that can be expected to be most affected by apartments being given away). How interesting. Are they growing as explosively as some other Canadian cities? I doubt it (I can't actually be bothered to check), but given that such explosive growth is fuelling crisis levels of homelessness elsewhere and really only stands to benefit a relatively small number of people that already have the capital to take advantage of it (read: people that really can't claim that they need significant amounts of additional money), I'm not too broken up about that. The bottom line, however, is that property values are generally going up, not down, so the whole negative equity problem you've pinned your entire position on kinda falls apart. Kyuubi4269 posted... everybody has increased tax to cover the subsidy Actually, Medicine Hat saved money with this program. It was costing them 2-3 times more per homeless person to police and otherwise manage them while homeless than it is costing to house and support them. There was no need to increase taxes at all, as crazy as that seems. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:956706173] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>Good thing it's not taken to any extreme, it's taken one step away from the fatal action, in line with making death threats illegal.</quote> Arresting people because they "might" commit a crime (or at least creating laws to make it criminal to be in a position where one might commit an actual crime, which is basically the same thing) is very much an extreme, regardless of how that actually manifests. "Pre-crime" is a thing, and introducing measures that help prevent it from becoming actual crime can be a good idea (depending on the measures), but outright making it illegal is actually pretty dystopian. Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>Asking people to have s*** on their streets and their homes devalued by free housing. That is a sacrifice necessary to refusing to deal with the homeless setting up shop outside their homes.</quote> Why are you treating this as though there's no middle ground between "let the homeless poop wherever they want" and "arrest people for being homeless within city limits"? These "sacrifices" you're talking about are very much the worst case scenario, not something that is inevitable unless the homeless "menace" is completely flushed out. Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>All houses are housing, when people have a very cheap basic option, it drags down the value of all general housing outside luxury properties like summer homes and mansions. The vast majority of people live in normal housing.</quote> Nice theory. Shall we look at how it holds up? https://blog.remax.ca/strong-gains-reported-in-medicine-hat-real-estate-market/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7914660/medicine-hat-alberta-homelessness/ Medicine Hat is a city that has a housing-first program in place, one which was started about a decade ago and has proven robust enough to completely eliminate chronic homelessness. Looks like their property values are doing just fine, including some very robust growth in apartments (which is the sector that can be expected to be most affected by apartments being given away). How interesting. Are they growing as explosively as some other Canadian cities? I doubt it (I can't actually be bothered to check), but given that such explosive growth is fuelling crisis levels of homelessness elsewhere and really only stands to benefit a relatively small number of people that already have the capital to take advantage of it (read: people that really can't claim that they need significant amounts of additional money), I'm not too broken up about that. The bottom line, however, is that property values are generally going up, not down, so the whole negative equity problem you've pinned your entire position on kinda falls apart. Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>everybody has increased tax to cover the subsidy</quote> Actually, Medicine Hat saved money with this program. It was costing them 2-3 times more per homeless person to police and otherwise manage them while homeless than it is costing to house and support them. There was no need to increase taxes at all, as crazy as that seems. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 08/02/21 3:02:37 PM #156:	Mead posted... Ive literally never seen any shit on any streets in this state. Why are you all so obsessed with the idea of poop being everywhere that you dont like? Anyone that lives on CA can refute that nonsense. Its a bunch of regular ass people just going about their business and working their jobs mostly. Same as anywhere, just more crowded. Indeed. The fearmongering around street-poop is really rather ridiculous. It happens, certainly, and it's very unpleasant when it does, but I can all but guarantee you see orders of magnitude more neglected dog poop than human poop in any of these areas. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:956706249] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>Ive literally never seen any shit on any streets in this state. Why are you all so obsessed with the idea of poop being everywhere that you dont like? Anyone that lives on CA can refute that nonsense. Its a bunch of regular ass people just going about their business and working their jobs mostly. Same as anywhere, just more crowded.</quote> Indeed. The fearmongering around street-poop is really rather ridiculous. It happens, certainly, and it's very unpleasant when it does, but I can all but guarantee you see orders of magnitude more neglected dog poop than human poop in any of these areas. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CarefreeDude 08/02/21 4:15:26 PM #157:	Mead posted... Ive literally never seen any shit on any streets in this state. Why are you all so obsessed with the idea of poop being everywhere that you dont like? Anyone that lives on CA can refute that nonsense. Its a bunch of regular ass people just going about their business and working their jobs mostly. Same as anywhere, just more crowded. In Portland and Seattle it's all over the place --- Switch Code: SW-5421-8761-9807 IGN: Chris Pokemon Home Friend Code: XSNF-XRED-EWDK 3DS:5112-3770-6561 <cite>CarefreeDude posted [p:956708551] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>Ive literally never seen any shit on any streets in this state. Why are you all so obsessed with the idea of poop being everywhere that you dont like? Anyone that lives on CA can refute that nonsense. Its a bunch of regular ass people just going about their business and working their jobs mostly. Same as anywhere, just more crowded.</quote> In Portland and Seattle it's all over the place </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pionear 08/02/21 5:27:38 PM #158:	Zareth posted... Didn't you hear? The BLM riots last year literally set the entire country on fire. We're still cleaning up all the ashes. Didn't you hear? The Capitol Riot almost destroyed or Government...And we're still trying to find all the 'Fine Citizens' who done it... <cite>pionear posted [p:956710631] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Zareth posted... </cite> <quote>Didn't you hear? The BLM riots last year literally set the entire country on fire. We're still cleaning up all the ashes.</quote> Didn't you hear? The Capitol Riot almost destroyed or Government...And we're still trying to find all the 'Fine Citizens' who done it... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan 08/02/21 9:06:21 PM #159:	Kyuubi4269 posted... It's not a matter of recognition, but willingness to make sacrifices for the "lower classes". There's no return for them on such a decision, they just lose out. Even if we all assumed you are correct about property values for the sake of argument (you're not)... You've already admitted yourself that leaving people out on the streets had a negative impact on the non-homeless population in a given area. If property values are going to be affected both by the existence of homelessness AND by eradicating homelessness, the logical choice is to eradicate homelessness, because EVERYONE benefits from that in a variety of ways, not just the short-term value of property. Bitching about property values dropping if we help the homeless while simultaneously bitching about drug paraphernalia and hygiene problems also dropping property values AND making a place less safe when homelessness exists is absolutely absurd. You either care about solving these problems or you don't... unless... You want homelessness to exist because property owners profit off of it, but you don't want to deal with any of the other consequences of homelessness (such as the presence of homeless people affecting those same property values). The logical conclusion to draw from your position is that you want poor people to become homeless so that people can profit off of that, and then you want homeless people to die so that you don't have to worry about their existence cutting into that profit. You know, people talk a lot about wealth redistribution and how horrible it is when the "Left" does it, but what the fuck is this exactly except a demand that we consolidate wealth for the already wealthy to the point where it KILLS people? How is that not an obscene sort of wealth redistribution? Funnily enough, this attitude of yours ends up destroying locales far more effectively than reduced property values from ending homelessness ever would. It's the attitude that is ravaging the town I grew up in, where non-tribal property owners blocked construction of a rehabilitation center and disposal resources on tribal land for a year and a half. Because they did this, efforts to clean up the drug paraphernalia in the region were severely delayed and now you cannot go into any of the parks or wilderness outside the town for the needles all over the place. Gee, I wonder what that did to their property values? Krazy_Kirby posted... I guess you are fine with junkies shooting up in your neighborhood and leaving their paraphernalia around then. Safe disposal of drug paraphernalia would be a non-issue of drug use was not criminalized and we invested more in disposal and rehabilitation infrastructure. I would like to point out that the same people fixated on "MUH PROPERTY VALUE!" also oppose efforts to invest in removing drug paraphernalia off the streets and create more rehab centers, also because of "MUH PROPERTY VALUE!" See my response above. This is all irrelevant, however, because: adjl posted... Actually, Medicine Hat saved money with this program. It was costing them 2-3 times more per homeless person to police and otherwise manage them while homeless than it is costing to house and support them. There was no need to increase taxes at all, as crazy as that seems. Decriminalizing and ending homelessness SAVES MONEY. Study after study after study have proven this to be the case. Programs designed to end homelessness, dispose of drug paraphernalia, and rehabilitate users instead of jailing them SAVE MONEY. You're all working off of the false premise that getting people off the streets will cost more, but it doesn't. --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:956717609] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>It's not a matter of recognition, but willingness to make sacrifices for the "lower classes". There's no return for them on such a decision, they just lose out.</quote>Even if we all assumed you are correct about property values for the sake of argument (you're not)... You've already admitted yourself that leaving people out on the streets had a negative impact on the non-homeless population in a given area. If property values are going to be affected both by the existence of homelessness AND by eradicating homelessness, the logical choice is to eradicate homelessness, because EVERYONE benefits from that in a variety of ways, not just the short-term value of property. Bitching about property values dropping if we help the homeless while simultaneously bitching about drug paraphernalia and hygiene problems also dropping property values AND making a place less safe when homelessness exists is absolutely absurd. You either care about solving these problems or you don't... unless... You want homelessness to exist because property owners profit off of it, but you don't want to deal with any of the other consequences of homelessness (such as the presence of homeless people affecting those same property values). The logical conclusion to draw from your position is that you want poor people to become homeless so that people can profit off of that, and then you want homeless people to die so that you don't have to worry about their existence cutting into that profit. You know, people talk a lot about wealth redistribution and how horrible it is when the "Left" does it, but what the fuck is this exactly except a demand that we consolidate wealth for the already wealthy to the point where it KILLS people? How is that not an obscene sort of wealth redistribution? Funnily enough, this attitude of yours ends up destroying locales far more effectively than reduced property values from ending homelessness ever would. It's the attitude that is ravaging the town I grew up in, where non-tribal property owners blocked construction of a rehabilitation center and disposal resources on tribal land for a year and a half. Because they did this, efforts to clean up the drug paraphernalia in the region were severely delayed and now you cannot go into any of the parks or wilderness outside the town for the needles all over the place. Gee, I wonder what that did to their property values? Krazy_Kirby posted... </cite> <quote>I guess you are fine with junkies shooting up in your neighborhood and leaving their paraphernalia around then.</quote>Safe disposal of drug paraphernalia would be a non-issue of drug use was not criminalized and we invested more in disposal and rehabilitation infrastructure. I would like to point out that the same people fixated on "MUH PROPERTY VALUE!" also oppose efforts to invest in removing drug paraphernalia off the streets and create more rehab centers, also because of "MUH PROPERTY VALUE!" See my response above. This is all irrelevant, however, because: adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Actually, Medicine Hat saved money with this program. It was costing them 2-3 times more per homeless person to police and otherwise manage them while homeless than it is costing to house and support them. There was no need to increase taxes at all, as crazy as that seems.</quote>Decriminalizing and ending homelessness SAVES MONEY. Study after study after study have proven this to be the case. Programs designed to end homelessness, dispose of drug paraphernalia, and rehabilitate users instead of jailing them SAVE MONEY. You're all working off of the false premise that getting people off the streets will cost more, but it doesn't. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krazy_Kirby 08/02/21 10:01:57 PM #160:	why should taxes go to rehab centers? they didn't force people to become junkies --- Kill From The Shadows. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot <cite>Krazy_Kirby posted [p:956719316] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>why should taxes go to rehab centers? they didn't force people to become junkies</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King 08/02/21 10:22:54 PM #161:	CarefreeDude posted... In Portland and Seattle it's all over the place Oh God dude, when I went through Seattle a few weeks ago the parts of town where they had those "tent cities" were absolutely disgusting. I obviously kept my distance but even from the outside looking at them you could see the piles of filth inside. It's a damn shame too because some parts of the city actually looked pretty nice but then you'd suddenly come across one of those things. Then there was the time I went to the Center to see the Space Needle and they have that wonderful park/social area but you'll randomly have dirty old guys sleeping on cardboard right next to the walking paths in the middle of the day, probably high or drunk on something and it's just seen as ok. When I left Seattle and went to the town I'm in now I passed through several smaller cities and towns and they all had way more homeless people than they really should have given their population. Like the midwestern city I'm from has a pop. of about 250,000 and it's extremely rare to see homeless people, while I was in towns on the west coast with a tenth of that and there would be shopping carts full of trash and people laying around or begging for money (despite nearly every business having 'help wanted' signs up) all over the place. It's wild that people think making homelessness more attractive and easier to deal with, to the point of not just giving out free food and stuff but free houses will somehow decrease the number of the homeless instead of the opposite. <cite>Reigning_King posted [p:956719942] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>CarefreeDude posted... </cite> <quote>In Portland and Seattle it's all over the place</quote>Oh God dude, when I went through Seattle a few weeks ago the parts of town where they had those "tent cities" were absolutely disgusting. I obviously kept my distance but even from the outside looking at them you could see the piles of filth inside. It's a damn shame too because some parts of the city actually looked pretty nice but then you'd suddenly come across one of those things. Then there was the time I went to the Center to see the Space Needle and they have that wonderful park/social area but you'll randomly have dirty old guys sleeping on cardboard right next to the walking paths in the middle of the day, probably high or drunk on something and it's just seen as ok. When I left Seattle and went to the town I'm in now I passed through several smaller cities and towns and they all had way more homeless people than they really should have given their population. Like the midwestern city I'm from has a pop. of about 250,000 and it's extremely rare to see homeless people, while I was in towns on the west coast with a tenth of that and there would be shopping carts full of trash and people laying around or begging for money (despite nearly every business having 'help wanted' signs up) all over the place. It's wild that people think making homelessness more attractive and easier to deal with, to the point of not just giving out free food and stuff but free houses will somehow decrease the number of the homeless instead of the opposite. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/02/21 10:58:34 PM #162:	Reigning_King posted... It's wild that people think making homelessness more attractive and easier to deal with, to the point of not just giving out free food and stuff but free houses will somehow decrease the number of the homeless instead of the opposite. yeah giving homeless people homes would obviously make them even more homeless --- my resting temp can easily be in the 90's -Krazy_Kirby <cite>Mead posted [p:956720867] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>It's wild that people think making homelessness more attractive and easier to deal with, to the point of not just giving out free food and stuff but free houses will somehow decrease the number of the homeless instead of the opposite.</quote> yeah giving homeless people homes would obviously make them even more homeless </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 08/02/21 11:28:46 PM #163:	Krazy_Kirby posted... why should taxes go to rehab centers? they didn't force people to become junkies Because rehabbing a given junkie is cheaper in the long run than cleaning up after/prosecuting them indefinitely. You really need to spend less time thinking about whether or not people "deserve" to have government money spent on them and more time considering what actually helps society. Thinking in terms of what people "deserve" rarely accomplishes anything of value. Reigning_King posted... It's wild that people think making homelessness more attractive and easier to deal with, to the point of not just giving out free food and stuff but free houses will somehow decrease the number of the homeless instead of the opposite. Giving homes to homeless people axiomatically decreases the number of homeless people. Even if you want to ignore everything about whatever costs or benefits such a program might offer, that is inescapably what the words mean. More broadly, having reliable, permanent housing makes it significantly easier for homeless people to get their lives in order and become productive members of society. Simply having reliable access to a shower, laundry, and the ability to store more than one outfit makes it possible to actually find work (as much as every business has "Help Wanted" signs up, I can pretty much guarantee they wouldn't just hire any random homeless person that walked in off the street). Having a fridge means it's possible to store perishable food instead of having to buy every meal individually. It becomes possible to actually store possessions, so there's some incentive to make enough money to have some disposable income (and, in turn, to make enough to upgrade to a less-barebones place), giving motivation to work beyond staving off starvation. It's far from being a perfect fix, which is why cities that have implemented such programs include further supports once the person is housed (notably, mental health and rehab services) to solve whatever underlying problems led to their homelessness in the first place, but those programs are a whole lot more effective when you have the QoL baseline of being housed to support them (again, it's awfully hard to treat an anxiety disorder in a person that has to stress about where to sleep every night). --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:956721677] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Krazy_Kirby posted... </cite> <quote>why should taxes go to rehab centers? they didn't force people to become junkies</quote> Because rehabbing a given junkie is cheaper in the long run than cleaning up after/prosecuting them indefinitely. You really need to spend less time thinking about whether or not people "deserve" to have government money spent on them and more time considering what actually helps society. Thinking in terms of what people "deserve" rarely accomplishes anything of value. Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>It's wild that people think making homelessness more attractive and easier to deal with, to the point of not just giving out free food and stuff but free houses will somehow decrease the number of the homeless instead of the opposite.</quote> Giving homes to homeless people axiomatically decreases the number of homeless people. Even if you want to ignore everything about whatever costs or benefits such a program might offer, that is inescapably what the words mean. More broadly, having reliable, permanent housing makes it significantly easier for homeless people to get their lives in order and become productive members of society. Simply having reliable access to a shower, laundry, and the ability to store more than one outfit makes it possible to actually find work (as much as every business has "Help Wanted" signs up, I can pretty much guarantee they wouldn't just hire any random homeless person that walked in off the street). Having a fridge means it's possible to store perishable food instead of having to buy every meal individually. It becomes possible to actually store possessions, so there's some incentive to make enough money to have some disposable income (and, in turn, to make enough to upgrade to a less-barebones place), giving motivation to work beyond staving off starvation. It's far from being a perfect fix, which is why cities that have implemented such programs include further supports once the person is housed (notably, mental health and rehab services) to solve whatever underlying problems led to their homelessness in the first place, but those programs are a whole lot more effective when you have the QoL baseline of being housed to support them (again, it's awfully hard to treat an anxiety disorder in a person that has to stress about where to sleep every night). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King 08/02/21 11:51:43 PM #164:	Mead posted... yeah giving homeless people homes would obviously make them even more homeless adjl posted... Giving homes to homeless people axiomatically decreases the number of homeless people. Even if you want to ignore everything about whatever costs or benefits such a program might offer, that is inescapably what the words mean. I literally bolded the word houses, how did you guys miss that? Giving a homeless person a house doesn't make them suddenly no longer homeless, it just makes them a homeless person with a house. <cite>Reigning_King posted [p:956722243] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>yeah giving homeless people homes would obviously make them even more homeless</quote> adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Giving homes to homeless people axiomatically decreases the number of homeless people. Even if you want to ignore everything about whatever costs or benefits such a program might offer, that is inescapably what the words mean.</quote> I literally bolded the word houses, how did you guys miss that? Giving a homeless person a house doesn't make them suddenly no longer homeless, it just makes them a homeless person with a house. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 08/02/21 11:52:21 PM #165:	Reigning_King posted... I literally bolded the word houses, how did you guys miss that? Giving a homeless person a house doesn't make them suddenly no longer homeless, it just makes them a homeless person with a house. can you be a homed person who doesn't have a house/apartment? --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:956722262] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>I literally bolded the word houses, how did you guys miss that? Giving a homeless person a house doesn't make them suddenly no longer homeless, it just makes them a homeless person with a house.</quote> can you be a homed person who doesn't have a house/apartment? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King 08/02/21 11:53:29 PM #166:	Lokarin posted... can you be a homed person who doesn't have a house/apartment? Absolutely. I am right now even. <cite>Reigning_King posted [p:956722288] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Lokarin posted... </cite> <quote>can you be a homed person who doesn't have a house/apartment?</quote>Absolutely. I am right now even. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 08/02/21 11:54:10 PM #167:	Reigning_King posted... Absolutely. I am right now even. where do you sleep, in a tent in the woods? --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:956722303] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>Absolutely. I am right now even.</quote> where do you sleep, in a tent in the woods? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King 08/03/21 12:18:08 AM #168:	Lokarin posted... where do you sleep, in a tent in the woods? Sometimes. It's actually really easy to find ditches and little groves to set up shop in. Even if it's off to the side of the road no one bothers you as long as you aren't just plainly visible, or clearly on someone's yard/frontage. I'll admit I didn't really like camping out at first but it's actually pretty nice and free too. The thing is I only ever camp when I'm out between towns where I won't bother anyone. If I'm staying in a place for awhile I'll get a motel room like the one I'm in now. <cite>Reigning_King posted [p:956722904] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Lokarin posted... </cite> <quote>where do you sleep, in a tent in the woods?</quote>Sometimes. It's actually really easy to find ditches and little groves to set up shop in. Even if it's off to the side of the road no one bothers you as long as you aren't just plainly visible, or clearly on someone's yard/frontage. I'll admit I didn't really like camping out at first but it's actually pretty nice and free too. The thing is I only ever camp when I'm out between towns where I won't bother anyone. If I'm staying in a place for awhile I'll get a motel room like the one I'm in now. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 08/03/21 9:09:38 AM #169:	Reigning_King posted... I literally bolded the word houses, how did you guys miss that? Giving a homeless person a house doesn't make them suddenly no longer homeless, it just makes them a homeless person with a house. If somebody has a permanent (until they decide to leave) place to live, that is a home. They're still going to be poor, if that's what you're trying to say, but by definition they stop being homeless when they have a place to call home. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:956730089] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>I literally bolded the word houses, how did you guys miss that? Giving a homeless person a house doesn't make them suddenly no longer homeless, it just makes them a homeless person with a house.</quote> If somebody has a permanent (until they decide to leave) place to live, that is a home. They're still going to be poor, if that's what you're trying to say, but by definition they stop being homeless when they have a place to call home. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krazy_Kirby 08/03/21 9:16:33 AM #170:	adjl posted... If somebody has a permanent (until they decide to leave) place to live, that is a home. They're still going to be poor, if that's what you're trying to say, but by definition they stop being homeless when they have a place to call home. by that definition a homeless person could claim some spot on the street as their "home" and would therefore no longer be homeless. --- Kill From The Shadows. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot <cite>Krazy_Kirby posted [p:956730254] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> If somebody has a permanent (until they decide to leave) place to live, that is a home. They're still going to be poor, if that's what you're trying to say, but by definition they stop being homeless when they have a place to call home. </quote> by that definition a homeless person could claim some spot on the street as their "home" and would therefore no longer be homeless.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 08/03/21 9:26:23 AM #171:	Krazy_Kirby posted... by that definition a homeless person could claim some spot on the street as their "home" and would therefore no longer be homeless. I mean, that is actually what RK is trying to do (by saying he's not homeless while having no fixed address and living in a tent/motel rooms), but no, that's not how it works. A homeless person can't actually "claim" a spot on the street. They can set up there and stay there, but they have no recognized claim to that spot until somebody with the authority to do so actually says "this is yours" (generally with conditions, such as a lease). That's what's meant by "permanent": Having an explicitly defined right to be there. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:956730437] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Krazy_Kirby posted... </cite> <quote>by that definition a homeless person could claim some spot on the street as their "home" and would therefore no longer be homeless.</quote> I mean, that is actually what RK is trying to do (by saying he's not homeless while having no fixed address and living in a tent/motel rooms), but no, that's not how it works. A homeless person can't actually "claim" a spot on the street. They can set up there and stay there, but they have no recognized claim to that spot until somebody with the authority to do so actually says "this is yours" (generally with conditions, such as a lease). That's what's meant by "permanent": Having an explicitly defined right to be there. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
captpackrat 08/04/21 9:28:19 AM #172:	--- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, Minutus carborata descendum pantorum. <cite>captpackrat posted [p:956764504] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sega9599 08/04/21 10:18:15 AM #173:	FrndNhbrHdCEman posted... Its the same magical reasoning that assumes climate change will be fixed by the return of our lord and savior Jesus Christ on judgement day. But it's not the sane rational thinking of climate change being karma for our evil ways? --- Needed: New Pokemon Puzzle League, Shining Force and Left 4 Dead.... <cite>Sega9599 posted [p:956765520] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>FrndNhbrHdCEman posted... </cite> <quote>Its the same magical reasoning that assumes climate change will be fixed by the return of our lord and savior Jesus Christ on judgement day.</quote> But it's not the sane rational thinking of climate change being karma for our evil ways? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sega9599 08/04/21 10:22:24 AM #174:	Mead posted... but things like guaranteed basic housing Not every homeless person wants the responsibility that comes with their own property. Plus a lot get thrown out of bnbs. Homelessness won't be solved just by giving everyone their own 'standard' house or apartment, it is a much bigger problem than that sadly. wolfy42 posted... Maybe if you just made a small amount, but go JAPAN on the problem and build TONS of VERY SMALL but VERY CHEAP affordable housing. Flats that are simply 1 room, no kitchen, no bathroom, simple room. Shared bathrooms on each floor, perhaps one for every 10 rooms (with 2-3 actual toilets, and 1 shower (probably have a sign up sheet for shower times). Japan has a different culture. It wouldn't work. People just would take advantage of it, start renting them out to others, cause problems by trashing the bathroom, get kicked out, then back on the streets. adjl posted... There's a very widespread attitude that anyone that is homeless is homeless entirely because of their own failures, and therefore they deserve whatever suffering they're experiencing. There's also a widespread attitude that they should experience that suffering somewhere where people who aren't homeless don't have to see, because being reminded that people are on the streets is upsetting to people that would prefer to ignore society's problems. Punishing them for being homeless is just a part of that attitude. People would rather see homeless people suffer for daring to tarnish their view of the world around them than actually solve the problems. But you can't fix a lot of the problems. How do you fix the angry guy who just trashes every place he's put into and doesn't want to work? I know! We can give him his own furnished house, ask him what his dream job is and provide free training for a qualification for that, and make him presentable so he can attract a potential mate! Maybe provide free support for any problems he might have even if the only support he accepts is the ever loving bottle? Most homeless people *need* help, I know, I was homeless myself. But when I saw the vast complexity of the problem that some people had, I realised that not everyone could be or wants to be helped. Sure, help those who want it and show determination to acquire it, but..... it's really not as easy as 'just give everyone a house and that's half the problem solved. --- Needed: New Pokemon Puzzle League, Shining Force and Left 4 Dead.... <cite>Sega9599 posted [p:956765600] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>but things like guaranteed basic housing</quote> Not every homeless person wants the responsibility that comes with their own property. Plus a lot get thrown out of bnbs. Homelessness won't be solved just by giving everyone their own 'standard' house or apartment, it is a much bigger problem than that sadly. wolfy42 posted... </cite> <quote>Maybe if you just made a small amount, but go JAPAN on the problem and build TONS of VERY SMALL but VERY CHEAP affordable housing. Flats that are simply 1 room, no kitchen, no bathroom, simple room. Shared bathrooms on each floor, perhaps one for every 10 rooms (with 2-3 actual toilets, and 1 shower (probably have a sign up sheet for shower times).</quote> Japan has a different culture. It wouldn't work. People just would take advantage of it, start renting them out to others, cause problems by trashing the bathroom, get kicked out, then back on the streets. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>There's a very widespread attitude that anyone that is homeless is homeless entirely because of their own failures, and therefore they deserve whatever suffering they're experiencing. There's also a widespread attitude that they should experience that suffering somewhere where people who aren't homeless don't have to see, because being reminded that people are on the streets is upsetting to people that would prefer to ignore society's problems. Punishing them for being homeless is just a part of that attitude. People would rather see homeless people suffer for daring to tarnish their view of the world around them than actually solve the problems.</quote> But you can't fix a lot of the problems. How do you fix the angry guy who just trashes every place he's put into and doesn't want to work? I know! We can give him his own furnished house, ask him what his dream job is and provide free training for a qualification for that, and make him presentable so he can attract a potential mate! Maybe provide free support for any problems he might have even if the only support he accepts is the ever loving bottle? Most homeless people need help, I know, I was homeless myself. But when I saw the vast complexity of the problem that some people had, I realised that not everyone could be or wants to be helped. Sure, help those who want it and show determination to acquire it, but..... it's really not as easy as 'just give everyone a house and that's half the problem solved. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 08/04/21 10:27:37 AM #175:	Sega9599 posted... Not every homeless person wants the responsibility that comes with their own property. What about motels for everyone? --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:956765712] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Sega9599 posted... </cite> <quote>Not every homeless person wants the responsibility that comes with their own property.</quote> What about motels for everyone? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 08/04/21 11:20:15 AM #176:	Sega9599 posted... But you can't fix a lot of the problems. How do you fix the angry guy who just trashes every place he's put into and doesn't want to work? Depending on the roots of the issue, therapy/rehab, mostly. Obviously, you can't force that on people and there will inevitably be people that would rather refuse the help. Unfortunately, those are the ones that probably should just end up in jail for their belligerence, since there really isn't much more you can do with them except forcibly isolate them from society so they don't hurt anyone. That shouldn't, however, discourage efforts to help everyone else, any more than the ~5% of people that blatantly abuse welfare should be used to justify taking it away from everyone else. Of course, saying that, Medicine Hat has pulled it off despite that apparent reality (I hate to keep bringing them up, but as one of the few areas that's actually tried this approach, their success is extremely relevant here). I don't know off-hand how they handle people that refuse help, but I guess they've found something that works, because they have succeeded. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:956767071] in LA Mayor t... [t:79590745]...</cite> <quote>Sega9599 posted... </cite> <quote>But you can't fix a lot of the problems. How do you fix the angry guy who just trashes every place he's put into and doesn't want to work?</quote> Depending on the roots of the issue, therapy/rehab, mostly. Obviously, you can't force that on people and there will inevitably be people that would rather refuse the help. Unfortunately, those are the ones that probably should just end up in jail for their belligerence, since there really isn't much more you can do with them except forcibly isolate them from society so they don't hurt anyone. That shouldn't, however, discourage efforts to help everyone else, any more than the ~5% of people that blatantly abuse welfare should be used to justify taking it away from everyone else. Of course, saying that, Medicine Hat has pulled it off despite that apparent reality (I hate to keep bringing them up, but as one of the few areas that's actually tried this approach, their success is extremely relevant here). I don't know off-hand how they handle people that refuse help, but I guess they've found something that works, because they have succeeded. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Poll of the Day > LA Mayor to 'Criminalize' Homeless Behavior/Habits... (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > LA Mayor to 'Criminalize' Homeless Behavior/Habits...