You mean legalization of drugs is seen as an invite to dopers and tweakers across the country? Who would have thought!

Wouldn’t it be rational to call then “jobless” or”unemployed” instead of homeless?

So the conversations goes:

“So when was the last time you applied for a job?”

“Long time - “

“And why should I give you anything?”

.

Socialism in action. See San Francisco!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
I simply call them bums. Government doesn't give a rats ass about the problems and stresses in my life, why should they about bums? There are 3 places they should go, as appropriate: 1) a mental institution 2) a drug rehab program or 3) a work camp to teach them job skills/life skills. Those refusing should be incarcerated, 30 days at a time.

The libertarian streak in me says not one penny more of public funds goes to dealing with them, and instead let the community organizations and churches deal with the problem...all while administering some "zero tolerance- tough love" policies such as giving each street person a choice; voluntarily "self-evicting" themselves outside whatever jurisdiction they currently camp in (city or county) or an arrest and jail time... to start with let's do as you suggest and start with 30 days...but the pragmatic Conservative in me realizes that Progressive Leftists with their well-meaning best intentions but bat-shit crazy current policies do in fact live and work in these same communities, manage these same programs, and fill some of these elected leadership seats that deal with this public policy issue, so like it or not...we gotta deal with their influence and input on this issue.

Keep in mind that various courts around the U.S. have ruled that it is a violation of street people's constitutional rights to evict them from public property unless they are provided with a place to sleep and live...

...we have a Conservative local radio talk show host who recently suggested this proposal:

- Call it what you like, Community Homeless Center(s) CHC, Community Jobless Centers CJC, Community Resource Center CRC...whatever...basically publicly funded centralized dormitory style housing that was heated/ air conditioned...men in one building, women in a different one. (or located at a separate facility) The campus grounds would be completely fenced in and gated, as well as having some guards. There would be bathrooms, showers, a laundry, and a dining room style kitchen serving one meal a day. The facilities would be clean, safe, but not luxurious.

- in addition to living facilities the centers would include a medical facility, a drug/ alcohol counseling staff, a mental health staff, a life skills staff, and a job counseling/ placement staff. These positions could be filled through some sort of volunteer program or public/ private partnership.

- every single person permitted to live at the center would be required to first be screened for what their specific needs would be (mental health, medical needs, addiction, job skills, etc.. and a plan put together by the various counselors (along with input from the street person), and the plan would be implemented and monitored for progress. The idea being that they live and work there for several months, perhaps even a few years, with an eye towards moving them to self-sufficiency.

-those who lived at the centers could come and go as they please during certain hours, however there would be curfews. Those that were able to find jobs would be allowed to work them while still going through their program plan.

- however, there would be expectations and rules...lots of them. Those who lived at the center would be required to maintain the facility in a clean organized fashion. Schedules would be made and monitored. The residents would be paid a small amount to work there, however a portion of their paycheck would be withheld to help to defray their living costs. Absolutely no alcohol or recreational drugs would be allowed on campus and residents would not be permitted on campus if they were under the influence.

- those street people camping on public property would be visited by teams of police and counselors and given the option of being transported to a center for admittance or arrested and jailed. After serving their jail sentence they would be given the choice of entering the program and living at the center campus, or given a ride to the jurisdiction boundary.

Obviously the plan details could be modified to suit certain local conditions and obviously there will be a number of street people that either won't or can't comply with the program requirements and there will need to be provisions made to deal with those cases...but this plan deals with the public policy issue of street people, caring for their specific needs and well-being while at the same time mitigating their negative impacts to local residents and businesses.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I agree- we have our share in town and when you talk to them you find that a majority of them are fairly rational and can carry their side of a conversation. Many even sound educated. It is the rare one anymore that seems bag-of-cats-crazy.

And this is my experience with dealing with "homeless" folks for over three decades in L.A. and the Bay Area. Sure, there are mentally ill folks on the streets, but a lot of them are people who simply do not want to live like "the man", and call it an "alternative lifestyle". To have a straight job, to pay taxes, rent, insurance, groceries, etc., is simply a life they do not want nor can handle.

https://komonews.com/news/loca...ial-seattle-is-dying[/QUOTE]

I watched all of this... my take-away is the Rhode Island solution. If it works in RI, there is no excuse for not doing the same thing everywhere.

WTF...it seems the political elite lack the courage to spend the Billions on something proven to work.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I agree- we have our share in town and when you talk to them you find that a majority of them are fairly rational and can carry their side of a conversation. Many even sound educated. It is the rare one anymore that seems bag-of-cats-crazy.

And this is my experience with dealing with "homeless" folks for over three decades in L.A. and the Bay Area. Sure, there are mentally ill folks on the streets, but a lot of them are people who simply do not want to live like "the man", and call it an "alternative lifestyle". To have a straight job, to pay taxes, rent, insurance, groceries, etc., is simply a life they do not want nor can handle.

I tend to agree. I saw a homeless guy wearing very expensive sunglasses. I drove with cheap ones for years, until I finally broke down and spent $100 on a pair. So me, the guy working to pay all the bills for my home and wife and family, should be giving cash to a guy with NO responsibilities wearing $600 sunglasses. Uh, I don't think so. And he was not mentally ill. Mentally ill people don't wear sunglasses like that, with top grade ground optical glass. What a crock. I agree I think it's a lifestyle choice for them, probably for more than half of them depending on location. What a crock.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé: It's time to reopen the sanitariums and abolish leftist policies.

At the time the sanitariums were being closed, the rational was that the new drugs would allow people to live on their own. What was forgotten was
1. These drugs have side effects and people don’t like them.
2. Inpatients were institutionalized. The were trained to being told to take pills and to do certain things.
3. Most had no job training or were able to function in society.
4. The local governments were happy to close the sanitariums as the cost a lot of money to operate. As they weren’t ordered to set up expensive outpatient programs, they didn’t.
5. All the do gooders that sued and fought for closing these hospitals got what they wanted. They didn't bother to follow through and went on to new causes.

People effectively got dumped in the streets with some medications.