|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 17 2017 02:20 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 02:01 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 01:56 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 17 2017 01:04 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:40 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:21 Sermokala wrote:
The issue is that no one wants to live near poverty so poverty has no.where.to go and.they end.up pooling in ghettos of crime and misery instead.of. Being spaced.out in a proper distribution so those people have a chance like everyone else.
good society dictates having communities.of low income spacced in with.higher.income. Nothing else.is.good or smart. Yeah. I come from a childhood of evictions, parental substance abuse and the whole kitchen sink of "shitty things about poverty". Despite that, I would never even consider living somewhere that puts me "near poverty". It is a deeply bad thing and it is not just single moms working night shift to support her 2 kids. There are some big issues. I don't want any of that near me or my eventual kids. The second I worked my way out of that, I said "and never again will this ever be even slightly a part of my life. Good day." Mixed income housing statistically shows better results that the “ghetto system” employed by some states and communities. Shoving all the poor people into one area just leads to problems, poorly funded schools and further marginalization. I don't doubt that. But in my area, at this time, I see some pretty black/white boundaries. I suppose I would vote in favor of putting the occasional poor building in a wealthier neighborhood. But I am way past the point of the whole "But we need to live amongst meth addicts so we can help them" mantra. It is not effective. Portland is basically a rotting corpse under the enormous spike of these weird not-actually-homeless late teens or early 20s kids who basically become max mad street people. Portland tried to crank up compassion to hyper liberal levels and all it did is make us have to clean needles from our playgrounds before kids go to recess. There are schools in Portland that now regularly have to clean up human shit and needles in the morning because of these people. It's this weird mix of people who are old and homeless, kids who just want to live as some sort of alternative society begging and stealing, and meth addicts. Far and away, the hands down worst group are these mad max types. I am sure if I dug into it, I would find that the surrounding towns and other areas don’t have any services to assist these folks. When you see communities trying to aid the homeless or addicted population, the attract more people seeking assistance from communities that are indifferent. If everyone just took care of their own homeless, you wouldn’t have that problem. And I am speaking from personal experience. I am from a very poor section of my state. I worked my church’s soup kitchen and pantry. I dealt with the community complaining that handing out medical supplies was causing “gangs from Springfield” to seek them from the church, which was totally true. But what are we going to do, not hand out first aid kits because old white people are scared Hispanic kids who just want medical suppies? I have also have worked on eviction cases for landlords. It is the area of law I am most familiar with. I’ve evicted more than a couple drug addicts. I can tell you that the constable and movers evicting the people are way more supportive than the landlords. The constable has driven people to shelters. These folks need help and the ability to exist someplace. Putting a poor building in a wealthier neighborhood still carries the same stigma as a shitty neighborhood. It is an easily identifiable other that people can get pissed off at. the goal should be to distribute the poor even further so that they cant even be identified from an outside perspective. each building should be mandated to have a few low income and a few middle income rental units in proportion to the area's needs. That has been the plan for a couple decades. Mixed occupancy buildings have specific units that are devoted to low income housing, with section 8/state vouchers built in. Building a low income housing unit in wealth area is rarely teh plan. Also, the majority of section 8 and state rental vouchers are used by the elderly or completely disabled. It isn't going to be a housing complex filled with drug addicts. We have one in my current town and its just filled with old people. I think it's pretty obvious that there is discrimination going on if you're only selecting the good poor people, and the system is in fact, not working.
What is this in reference to?
|
Iraqi forces took over a military base, airport and energy installations near the city of Kirkuk on Monday, pushing out Kurdish fighters as risks mount of a bigger conflict between two of the U.S.’s closest allies in the war against Islamic State.
“Elite military units advanced toward Kirkuk overnight as they seek to restore federal government authority over territory and resources seized by Kurdish forces during the course of the push against Islamic State, including Kirkuk and its oil wells.
“Clashes broke out between Kurdish Peshmerga forces and elite Iraqi units before dawn, but Iraqi forces said they faced only light resistance in retaking the K1 military base, an airport, the Kirkuk refinery and the Baba Gurgur oil field.
“There were several casualties on both sides, according to Kurdish and Iraqi military commanders. Thousands of residents were fleeing Kirkuk into the neighboring semiautonomous Kurdish-led region, leading to huge traffic jams on the way out of the city.
“Until recently, Iraqi forces and Kurdish fighters had cooperated against Islamic State, but as the threat posed by the terror group recedes, the disparate forces that came together to fight it are turning on each other. That poses a dilemma for Washington, which has poured several billion dollars-worth of American weapons and training into both sides.”
WSJ
|
On October 17 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 01:04 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:40 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:21 Sermokala wrote:
The issue is that no one wants to live near poverty so poverty has no.where.to go and.they end.up pooling in ghettos of crime and misery instead.of. Being spaced.out in a proper distribution so those people have a chance like everyone else.
good society dictates having communities.of low income spacced in with.higher.income. Nothing else.is.good or smart. Yeah. I come from a childhood of evictions, parental substance abuse and the whole kitchen sink of "shitty things about poverty". Despite that, I would never even consider living somewhere that puts me "near poverty". It is a deeply bad thing and it is not just single moms working night shift to support her 2 kids. There are some big issues. I don't want any of that near me or my eventual kids. The second I worked my way out of that, I said "and never again will this ever be even slightly a part of my life. Good day." Mixed income housing statistically shows better results that the “ghetto system” employed by some states and communities. Shoving all the poor people into one area just leads to problems, poorly funded schools and further marginalization. I don't doubt that. But in my area, at this time, I see some pretty black/white boundaries. I suppose I would vote in favor of putting the occasional poor building in a wealthier neighborhood. But I am way past the point of the whole "But we need to live amongst meth addicts so we can help them" mantra. It is not effective. Portland is basically a rotting corpse under the enormous spike of these weird not-actually-homeless late teens or early 20s kids who basically become max mad street people. Portland tried to crank up compassion to hyper liberal levels and all it did is make us have to clean needles from our playgrounds before kids go to recess. There are schools in Portland that now regularly have to clean up human shit and needles in the morning because of these people. It's this weird mix of people who are old and homeless, kids who just want to live as some sort of alternative society begging and stealing, and meth addicts. Far and away, the hands down worst group are these mad max types. I am sure if I dug into it, I would find that the surrounding towns and other areas don’t have any services to assist these folks. When you see communities trying to aid the homeless or addicted population, the attract more people seeking assistance from communities that are indifferent. If everyone just took care of their own homeless, you wouldn’t have that problem. And I am speaking from personal experience. I am from a very poor section of my state. I worked my church’s soup kitchen and pantry. I dealt with the community complaining that handing out medical supplies was causing “gangs from Springfield” to seek them from the church, which was totally true. But what are we going to do, not hand out first aid kits because old white people are scared Hispanic kids who just want medical suppies? I have also have worked on eviction cases for landlords. It is the area of law I am most familiar with. I’ve evicted more than a couple drug addicts. I can tell you that the constable and movers evicting the people are way more supportive than the landlords. The constable has driven people to shelters. These folks need help and the ability to exist someplace. Yeah, I understand and appreciate the mechanisms leading to all this. I'll always vote yes on tax increases or whatever to create these systems to help the disadvantaged. But I'm not moving to these areas. I'm not willing to be one of the ones to dilute the messiness of these communities. I will always pay a premium to not be in the midst of all this kinda stuff as it develops/improves etc. That is fine right up until the point where you bought a house and are now attempting to keep them out of your community. That is where this argument falls apart. Well, for whatever it's worth, I haven't bought a house and I'm not trying to keep anyone out. But as I look for houses, I am making sure the one I choose to buy is well enough insulated against this kinda degradation that I am seeing in certain areas. Let's say someone buys a house in a nice neighborhood and they paid money to be farther away from that kinda thing. Are they justified in voting against camping rules and whatnot? You are totally justified in voting for it. And I’m totally justified in thinking that person is an uncaring, self-centered piece of shit if they are fully aware of the difficulties homeless people face. I know plenty of liberal, well meaning people that get really into property rights once something is going to end up in their back yard. You can’t say you support something and then vote that thing out of your community. Well you can, but don’t expect to be applauded for it.
I suppose this is where the question of "but does this actually help anything" comes into play. Portland has been a really bad example of the kind of good liberal perspectives can do for homelessness. We let them put up tents everywhere, but it's not really making them any less homeless. It's just that they have a tent in a park now. They still get raped, assaulted, struggle with mental illness, do a bunch of drugs and shit on the sidewalk. But now they are doing these things in public school playgrounds. From Portland's perspective, they didn't really do any good for anyone by being so welcoming to homeless people. Portland's residents have suffered tremendously, but this wasn't some kinda selfless sacrifice for the homeless people. Nothing is improving for the homeless people.
I'd gladly vote to fund some sort of homeless rehabilitation or whatever kinda thing. If it makes a positive difference, sign me up. The other thing is perhaps the fact that many people seem to agree Portland has a totally different breed of homeless compared to (the example I always see used) San Francisco. So many people have visited Portland from SF and commented on how our homeless people are way more aggressive and legitimately scary compared to SF. I do not claim to understand the mechanism behind this, but it might be a part of why even the core of Portland's liberals are turning against homeless compassion. Public opinion regarding the homeless has shifted dramatically in the past 10 years in Portland. We are seeing zero benefit for anyone while suffering a lot.
|
San Francisco is the shining example of what you do not do with a homeless population. It is rich people trying to export a problem to other towns. I could dig into Portland, but it likely is a similar problem that one town covering for most of the surrounding area.
|
I'm short on time, so I'll just give a quick example. In the middle of downtown San Diego, before I left, they were beginning/in full swing of gentrification. What I noticed happening however, that for every high priced condo tower that went up, they built section 8 housing close to it. This is a 5-6 story condo with commercial at the bottom. They know they are going to displace some people. So they implement actual affordable housing options for people in other buildings that go up. This is all close to major transit and anything they need for life.
This isn't aimed solely at the homeless (they are everywhere down there, there's no getting around it.) The only thing they can do about the homeless is ship them south closer to the border or to the desert. But then you get class segregation. They need more support facilities and people taking chances on some of them. They need mental health care facilities. They need job rehab centers. They need incentives to do that though, and there really aren't any.
So you'll always get homeless people around centers of clustered people because they have a better chance to make change from recycling/begging than if they were kicked someplace closed off.
Also, look up Slab City in California. Might be interesting to some.
|
On October 17 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote:
San Francisco is the shining example of what you do not do with a homeless population. It is rich people trying to export a problem to other towns. I could dig into Portland, but it likely is a similar problem that one town covering for most of the surrounding area.
Sadly, this area gets bigger every year. At this point, Portland has such a (well deserved) reputation of letting homeless people do as they please that we are quite the hot spot. It is interesting though because you can tell the actual city management never expected it to get this bad. Homelessness is tied for first with housing costs when it comes to our mayor election. People loved excess compassion for the homeless, but it has gotten so out of hand that even a city as frantically liberal as Portland is starting to filter out candidates by what they will do about homeless people.
It's honestly sad because people are less compassionate than they would have been if things were handled responsibly. Tons of areas that were once safe to walk at night are totally off limits 5 years later. It is transforming quickly and intensely. Lots of people are like "Yeah! Universal income and low income housing! But HOLY SHIT THE GUY WHO SHITS IN MY YARD AND CHASES MY KID TO HIS BUS STOP NEEDS TO DIE"
|
sounds like hte problem is poorly administered compassion. so many problems ultimately come from stupid 
|
On October 17 2017 03:03 zlefin wrote:sounds like hte problem is poorly administered compassion. so many problems ultimately come from stupid
Similar to the GOP's take on Obamacare. They pandered to an uninformed base for so long that their hands were tied. Only now that things are REALLY bad are people willing to compromise.
|
On October 17 2017 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote:
San Francisco is the shining example of what you do not do with a homeless population. It is rich people trying to export a problem to other towns. I could dig into Portland, but it likely is a similar problem that one town covering for most of the surrounding area. Sadly, this area gets bigger every year. At this point, Portland has such a (well deserved) reputation of letting homeless people do as they please that we are quite the hot spot. It is interesting though because you can tell the actual city management never expected it to get this bad. Homelessness is tied for first with housing costs when it comes to our mayor election. People loved excess compassion for the homeless, but it has gotten so out of hand that even a city as frantically liberal as Portland is starting to filter out candidates by what they will do about homeless people. It's honestly sad because people are less compassionate than they would have been if things were handled responsibly. Tons of areas that were once safe to walk at night are totally off limits 5 years later. It is transforming quickly and intensely. Lots of people are like "Yeah! Universal income and low income housing! But HOLY SHIT THE GUY WHO SHITS IN MY YARD AND CHASES MY KID TO HIS BUS STOP NEEDS TO DIE"
I honestly believe that most homeless people in the first word have either mental or drug issues. Any mildly sane person can get a job somewhere, and there are tons of private charity and government programs available.
As a libertarian/conservative I believe the government should actually take care of people who can't take care of themselves, i.e, mentally ill people. (Instead of giving free stuff to people that actually can and collect welfare just because it's available)
|
On October 17 2017 03:06 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote:
San Francisco is the shining example of what you do not do with a homeless population. It is rich people trying to export a problem to other towns. I could dig into Portland, but it likely is a similar problem that one town covering for most of the surrounding area. Sadly, this area gets bigger every year. At this point, Portland has such a (well deserved) reputation of letting homeless people do as they please that we are quite the hot spot. It is interesting though because you can tell the actual city management never expected it to get this bad. Homelessness is tied for first with housing costs when it comes to our mayor election. People loved excess compassion for the homeless, but it has gotten so out of hand that even a city as frantically liberal as Portland is starting to filter out candidates by what they will do about homeless people. It's honestly sad because people are less compassionate than they would have been if things were handled responsibly. Tons of areas that were once safe to walk at night are totally off limits 5 years later. It is transforming quickly and intensely. Lots of people are like "Yeah! Universal income and low income housing! But HOLY SHIT THE GUY WHO SHITS IN MY YARD AND CHASES MY KID TO HIS BUS STOP NEEDS TO DIE" I honestly believe that most homeless people in the first word have either mental or drug issues. Any mildly sane person can get a job somewhere, and there are tons of private charity and government programs available. As a libertarian/conservative I believe the government should actually take care of people who can't take care of themselves, i.e, mentally ill people. (Instead of giving free stuff to people that actually can and collect welfare just because it's available)
I've always believed if people saw a psychologist at least once a year, we'd basically eliminate our homeless problem.
|
On October 17 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 03:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 17 2017 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote:
San Francisco is the shining example of what you do not do with a homeless population. It is rich people trying to export a problem to other towns. I could dig into Portland, but it likely is a similar problem that one town covering for most of the surrounding area. Sadly, this area gets bigger every year. At this point, Portland has such a (well deserved) reputation of letting homeless people do as they please that we are quite the hot spot. It is interesting though because you can tell the actual city management never expected it to get this bad. Homelessness is tied for first with housing costs when it comes to our mayor election. People loved excess compassion for the homeless, but it has gotten so out of hand that even a city as frantically liberal as Portland is starting to filter out candidates by what they will do about homeless people. It's honestly sad because people are less compassionate than they would have been if things were handled responsibly. Tons of areas that were once safe to walk at night are totally off limits 5 years later. It is transforming quickly and intensely. Lots of people are like "Yeah! Universal income and low income housing! But HOLY SHIT THE GUY WHO SHITS IN MY YARD AND CHASES MY KID TO HIS BUS STOP NEEDS TO DIE" I honestly believe that most homeless people in the first word have either mental or drug issues. Any mildly sane person can get a job somewhere, and there are tons of private charity and government programs available. As a libertarian/conservative I believe the government should actually take care of people who can't take care of themselves, i.e, mentally ill people. (Instead of giving free stuff to people that actually can and collect welfare just because it's available) I've always believed if people saw a psychologist at least once a year, we'd basically eliminate our homeless problem.
This is completely incorrect and you should divest yourself of this opinion as quickly as possible. It shows a completely lack of understanding of mental illness and what it takes to treat it. You seem like a nice guy Mohdoo, my god this stuff if this stuff was easy to fix people would fix it.
|
United States43907 Posts
On October 17 2017 03:06 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote:
San Francisco is the shining example of what you do not do with a homeless population. It is rich people trying to export a problem to other towns. I could dig into Portland, but it likely is a similar problem that one town covering for most of the surrounding area. Sadly, this area gets bigger every year. At this point, Portland has such a (well deserved) reputation of letting homeless people do as they please that we are quite the hot spot. It is interesting though because you can tell the actual city management never expected it to get this bad. Homelessness is tied for first with housing costs when it comes to our mayor election. People loved excess compassion for the homeless, but it has gotten so out of hand that even a city as frantically liberal as Portland is starting to filter out candidates by what they will do about homeless people. It's honestly sad because people are less compassionate than they would have been if things were handled responsibly. Tons of areas that were once safe to walk at night are totally off limits 5 years later. It is transforming quickly and intensely. Lots of people are like "Yeah! Universal income and low income housing! But HOLY SHIT THE GUY WHO SHITS IN MY YARD AND CHASES MY KID TO HIS BUS STOP NEEDS TO DIE" I honestly believe that most homeless people in the first word have either mental or drug issues. Any mildly sane person can get a job somewhere, and there are tons of private charity and government programs available. As a libertarian/conservative I believe the government should actually take care of people who can't take care of themselves, i.e, mentally ill people. (Instead of giving free stuff to people that actually can and collect welfare just because it's available)
Reagan had a different idea. He thought if he threw everyone out from the asylums and into the community and just gave them all some money then the government would save money and the invisible hand would do the rest.
|
On October 17 2017 03:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 03:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 17 2017 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote:
San Francisco is the shining example of what you do not do with a homeless population. It is rich people trying to export a problem to other towns. I could dig into Portland, but it likely is a similar problem that one town covering for most of the surrounding area. Sadly, this area gets bigger every year. At this point, Portland has such a (well deserved) reputation of letting homeless people do as they please that we are quite the hot spot. It is interesting though because you can tell the actual city management never expected it to get this bad. Homelessness is tied for first with housing costs when it comes to our mayor election. People loved excess compassion for the homeless, but it has gotten so out of hand that even a city as frantically liberal as Portland is starting to filter out candidates by what they will do about homeless people. It's honestly sad because people are less compassionate than they would have been if things were handled responsibly. Tons of areas that were once safe to walk at night are totally off limits 5 years later. It is transforming quickly and intensely. Lots of people are like "Yeah! Universal income and low income housing! But HOLY SHIT THE GUY WHO SHITS IN MY YARD AND CHASES MY KID TO HIS BUS STOP NEEDS TO DIE" I honestly believe that most homeless people in the first word have either mental or drug issues. Any mildly sane person can get a job somewhere, and there are tons of private charity and government programs available. As a libertarian/conservative I believe the government should actually take care of people who can't take care of themselves, i.e, mentally ill people. (Instead of giving free stuff to people that actually can and collect welfare just because it's available) I've always believed if people saw a psychologist at least once a year, we'd basically eliminate our homeless problem. This is completely incorrect and you should divest yourself of this opinion as quickly as possible. It shows a completely lack of understanding of mental illness and what it takes to treat it. You seem like a nice guy Mohdoo, my god this stuff if this stuff was easy to fix people would fix it.
People seeing a psychologist would get them pointed in the right direction. That's my point. People fly under the radar of needing actual big help. A lot of people who end up homeless develop stuff over the course of their life rather than being born with schizophrenia etc. People with a debilitating addiction would get noticed sooner and get the help they need too. I'm not saying seeing a psychologist once a year will polish everyone's psyche. I am saying that it would keep people from deteriorating into nothing. It's the same reason people having regular access to examinations decreases total medical costs by allowing for cancer and whatnot to be treated earlier. If you catch it sooner, you're able to respond accordingly.
|
On October 17 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 01:04 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:40 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:21 Sermokala wrote:
The issue is that no one wants to live near poverty so poverty has no.where.to go and.they end.up pooling in ghettos of crime and misery instead.of. Being spaced.out in a proper distribution so those people have a chance like everyone else.
good society dictates having communities.of low income spacced in with.higher.income. Nothing else.is.good or smart. Yeah. I come from a childhood of evictions, parental substance abuse and the whole kitchen sink of "shitty things about poverty". Despite that, I would never even consider living somewhere that puts me "near poverty". It is a deeply bad thing and it is not just single moms working night shift to support her 2 kids. There are some big issues. I don't want any of that near me or my eventual kids. The second I worked my way out of that, I said "and never again will this ever be even slightly a part of my life. Good day." Mixed income housing statistically shows better results that the “ghetto system” employed by some states and communities. Shoving all the poor people into one area just leads to problems, poorly funded schools and further marginalization. I don't doubt that. But in my area, at this time, I see some pretty black/white boundaries. I suppose I would vote in favor of putting the occasional poor building in a wealthier neighborhood. But I am way past the point of the whole "But we need to live amongst meth addicts so we can help them" mantra. It is not effective. Portland is basically a rotting corpse under the enormous spike of these weird not-actually-homeless late teens or early 20s kids who basically become max mad street people. Portland tried to crank up compassion to hyper liberal levels and all it did is make us have to clean needles from our playgrounds before kids go to recess. There are schools in Portland that now regularly have to clean up human shit and needles in the morning because of these people. It's this weird mix of people who are old and homeless, kids who just want to live as some sort of alternative society begging and stealing, and meth addicts. Far and away, the hands down worst group are these mad max types. I am sure if I dug into it, I would find that the surrounding towns and other areas don’t have any services to assist these folks. When you see communities trying to aid the homeless or addicted population, the attract more people seeking assistance from communities that are indifferent. If everyone just took care of their own homeless, you wouldn’t have that problem. And I am speaking from personal experience. I am from a very poor section of my state. I worked my church’s soup kitchen and pantry. I dealt with the community complaining that handing out medical supplies was causing “gangs from Springfield” to seek them from the church, which was totally true. But what are we going to do, not hand out first aid kits because old white people are scared Hispanic kids who just want medical suppies? I have also have worked on eviction cases for landlords. It is the area of law I am most familiar with. I’ve evicted more than a couple drug addicts. I can tell you that the constable and movers evicting the people are way more supportive than the landlords. The constable has driven people to shelters. These folks need help and the ability to exist someplace. Yeah, I understand and appreciate the mechanisms leading to all this. I'll always vote yes on tax increases or whatever to create these systems to help the disadvantaged. But I'm not moving to these areas. I'm not willing to be one of the ones to dilute the messiness of these communities. I will always pay a premium to not be in the midst of all this kinda stuff as it develops/improves etc. That is fine right up until the point where you bought a house and are now attempting to keep them out of your community. That is where this argument falls apart. Well, for whatever it's worth, I haven't bought a house and I'm not trying to keep anyone out. But as I look for houses, I am making sure the one I choose to buy is well enough insulated against this kinda degradation that I am seeing in certain areas. Let's say someone buys a house in a nice neighborhood and they paid money to be farther away from that kinda thing. Are they justified in voting against camping rules and whatnot? You are totally justified in voting for it. And I’m totally justified in thinking that person is an uncaring, self-centered piece of shit if they are fully aware of the difficulties homeless people face. I know plenty of liberal, well meaning people that get really into property rights once something is going to end up in their back yard. You can’t say you support something and then vote that thing out of your community. Well you can, but don’t expect to be applauded for it.
I'm going to jump in the boat with Mohdoo. My line of thinking:
Feel free to tax me extra because I can afford a 10-50% premium on housing, I can afford the extra taxes etc to get a house in a better neighbourhood. Put that money towards helping the poor, disadvantaged people. But help them in the neighbourhoods they currently inhabit.
The city put some social/low income housing in my neighbourhood about a decade ago. There was some resistance against it but it still went through and then within half a year, every car on my block got broken into two or more times, just for the pennies in the ashtray. It's gotten better since, but I know I personally stigmatize/stereotype some of the people living in that area because "they" as a group are "responsible" for the breakins.
In the grand scheme of things though, housing dozens of low income people/families is better in exchange for some breakins/deductible costs, and getting them off the streets is definitely a good thing but I really wish it didn't happen to me/my family.
|
On October 17 2017 03:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 03:22 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 03:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 17 2017 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote:
San Francisco is the shining example of what you do not do with a homeless population. It is rich people trying to export a problem to other towns. I could dig into Portland, but it likely is a similar problem that one town covering for most of the surrounding area. Sadly, this area gets bigger every year. At this point, Portland has such a (well deserved) reputation of letting homeless people do as they please that we are quite the hot spot. It is interesting though because you can tell the actual city management never expected it to get this bad. Homelessness is tied for first with housing costs when it comes to our mayor election. People loved excess compassion for the homeless, but it has gotten so out of hand that even a city as frantically liberal as Portland is starting to filter out candidates by what they will do about homeless people. It's honestly sad because people are less compassionate than they would have been if things were handled responsibly. Tons of areas that were once safe to walk at night are totally off limits 5 years later. It is transforming quickly and intensely. Lots of people are like "Yeah! Universal income and low income housing! But HOLY SHIT THE GUY WHO SHITS IN MY YARD AND CHASES MY KID TO HIS BUS STOP NEEDS TO DIE" I honestly believe that most homeless people in the first word have either mental or drug issues. Any mildly sane person can get a job somewhere, and there are tons of private charity and government programs available. As a libertarian/conservative I believe the government should actually take care of people who can't take care of themselves, i.e, mentally ill people. (Instead of giving free stuff to people that actually can and collect welfare just because it's available) I've always believed if people saw a psychologist at least once a year, we'd basically eliminate our homeless problem. This is completely incorrect and you should divest yourself of this opinion as quickly as possible. It shows a completely lack of understanding of mental illness and what it takes to treat it. You seem like a nice guy Mohdoo, my god this stuff if this stuff was easy to fix people would fix it. People seeing a psychologist would get them pointed in the right direction. That's my point. People fly under the radar of needing actual big help. A lot of people who end up homeless develop stuff over the course of their life rather than being born with schizophrenia etc. People with a debilitating addiction would get noticed sooner and get the help they need too. I'm not saying seeing a psychologist once a year will polish everyone's psyche. I am saying that it would keep people from deteriorating into nothing. It's the same reason people having regular access to examinations decreases total medical costs by allowing for cancer and whatnot to be treated earlier. If you catch it sooner, you're able to respond accordingly.
Again, your heart is in the right place, but it isn’t that easy. It takes effort to deal with mental illness. It isn’t a cold. Its more like cancer, where people fight hard and still lose. And I’ve watched people willingly die to cancer than fight it again.
|
On October 17 2017 03:06 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote:
San Francisco is the shining example of what you do not do with a homeless population. It is rich people trying to export a problem to other towns. I could dig into Portland, but it likely is a similar problem that one town covering for most of the surrounding area. Sadly, this area gets bigger every year. At this point, Portland has such a (well deserved) reputation of letting homeless people do as they please that we are quite the hot spot. It is interesting though because you can tell the actual city management never expected it to get this bad. Homelessness is tied for first with housing costs when it comes to our mayor election. People loved excess compassion for the homeless, but it has gotten so out of hand that even a city as frantically liberal as Portland is starting to filter out candidates by what they will do about homeless people. It's honestly sad because people are less compassionate than they would have been if things were handled responsibly. Tons of areas that were once safe to walk at night are totally off limits 5 years later. It is transforming quickly and intensely. Lots of people are like "Yeah! Universal income and low income housing! But HOLY SHIT THE GUY WHO SHITS IN MY YARD AND CHASES MY KID TO HIS BUS STOP NEEDS TO DIE" I honestly believe that most homeless people in the first word have either mental or drug issues. Any mildly sane person can get a job somewhere, and there are tons of private charity and government programs available. As a libertarian/conservative I believe the government should actually take care of people who can't take care of themselves, i.e, mentally ill people. (Instead of giving free stuff to people that actually can and collect welfare just because it's available)
whether you honestly believe something has little bearing on whether it's actually true or not. and whether it's actually true or not matters a great deal to fixing the problem. many issues are caused by people honestly believing things that simply aren't true; so then politicians pander to those false beliefs.
|
On October 17 2017 03:28 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 01:04 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:40 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:21 Sermokala wrote:
The issue is that no one wants to live near poverty so poverty has no.where.to go and.they end.up pooling in ghettos of crime and misery instead.of. Being spaced.out in a proper distribution so those people have a chance like everyone else.
good society dictates having communities.of low income spacced in with.higher.income. Nothing else.is.good or smart. Yeah. I come from a childhood of evictions, parental substance abuse and the whole kitchen sink of "shitty things about poverty". Despite that, I would never even consider living somewhere that puts me "near poverty". It is a deeply bad thing and it is not just single moms working night shift to support her 2 kids. There are some big issues. I don't want any of that near me or my eventual kids. The second I worked my way out of that, I said "and never again will this ever be even slightly a part of my life. Good day." Mixed income housing statistically shows better results that the “ghetto system” employed by some states and communities. Shoving all the poor people into one area just leads to problems, poorly funded schools and further marginalization. I don't doubt that. But in my area, at this time, I see some pretty black/white boundaries. I suppose I would vote in favor of putting the occasional poor building in a wealthier neighborhood. But I am way past the point of the whole "But we need to live amongst meth addicts so we can help them" mantra. It is not effective. Portland is basically a rotting corpse under the enormous spike of these weird not-actually-homeless late teens or early 20s kids who basically become max mad street people. Portland tried to crank up compassion to hyper liberal levels and all it did is make us have to clean needles from our playgrounds before kids go to recess. There are schools in Portland that now regularly have to clean up human shit and needles in the morning because of these people. It's this weird mix of people who are old and homeless, kids who just want to live as some sort of alternative society begging and stealing, and meth addicts. Far and away, the hands down worst group are these mad max types. I am sure if I dug into it, I would find that the surrounding towns and other areas don’t have any services to assist these folks. When you see communities trying to aid the homeless or addicted population, the attract more people seeking assistance from communities that are indifferent. If everyone just took care of their own homeless, you wouldn’t have that problem. And I am speaking from personal experience. I am from a very poor section of my state. I worked my church’s soup kitchen and pantry. I dealt with the community complaining that handing out medical supplies was causing “gangs from Springfield” to seek them from the church, which was totally true. But what are we going to do, not hand out first aid kits because old white people are scared Hispanic kids who just want medical suppies? I have also have worked on eviction cases for landlords. It is the area of law I am most familiar with. I’ve evicted more than a couple drug addicts. I can tell you that the constable and movers evicting the people are way more supportive than the landlords. The constable has driven people to shelters. These folks need help and the ability to exist someplace. Yeah, I understand and appreciate the mechanisms leading to all this. I'll always vote yes on tax increases or whatever to create these systems to help the disadvantaged. But I'm not moving to these areas. I'm not willing to be one of the ones to dilute the messiness of these communities. I will always pay a premium to not be in the midst of all this kinda stuff as it develops/improves etc. That is fine right up until the point where you bought a house and are now attempting to keep them out of your community. That is where this argument falls apart. Well, for whatever it's worth, I haven't bought a house and I'm not trying to keep anyone out. But as I look for houses, I am making sure the one I choose to buy is well enough insulated against this kinda degradation that I am seeing in certain areas. Let's say someone buys a house in a nice neighborhood and they paid money to be farther away from that kinda thing. Are they justified in voting against camping rules and whatnot? You are totally justified in voting for it. And I’m totally justified in thinking that person is an uncaring, self-centered piece of shit if they are fully aware of the difficulties homeless people face. I know plenty of liberal, well meaning people that get really into property rights once something is going to end up in their back yard. You can’t say you support something and then vote that thing out of your community. Well you can, but don’t expect to be applauded for it. I'm going to jump in the boat with Mohdoo. My line of thinking: Feel free to tax me extra because I can afford a 10-50% premium on housing, I can afford the extra taxes etc to get a house in a better neighbourhood. Put that money towards helping the poor, disadvantaged people. But help them in the neighbourhoods they currently inhabit. The city put some social/low income housing in my neighbourhood about a decade ago. There was some resistance against it but it still went through and then within half a year, every car on my block got broken into two or more times, just for the pennies in the ashtray. It's gotten better since, but I know I personally stigmatize/stereotype some of the people living in that area because "they" as a group are "responsible" for the breakins. In the grand scheme of things though, housing dozens of low income people/families is better in exchange for some breakins/deductible costs, and getting them off the streets is definitely a good thing but I really wish it didn't happen to me/my family.
I actually had my car broken into last week while I was at dinner (hope the dude enjoys my completely bricked work laptop). While waiting for the police, I talked to a few of the people who lived in the neighborhood. Apparently a few years ago an adjacent area was kinda rundown and had a crime problem. However, that area gentrified real hard recently because location, location, location, and the crime was essentially pushed out into the surrounding neighborhoods.
|
People who are homeless are already outside of "the system". How would they see a psychologist? How would they know they have free access to a psychologist? Who would want to subsidise psychologists anyways? They are already driven away from the "normal" support system of family and community, simply adding more available community probably would not have helped. If it was simply a case of pointing in the right direction, other government institutions can surely pick up that role. It's a bit strange though that there is such a large homeless problem in those cities. London is supposed to have a massive homeless problem, but yours seem to have a vastly larger scale and problem somehow.
|
On October 17 2017 04:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
People who are homeless are already outside of "the system". How would they see a psychologist? How would they know they have free access to a psychologist? Who would want to subsidise psychologists anyways? They are already driven away from the "normal" support system of family and community, simply adding more available community probably would not have helped. If it was simply a case of pointing in the right direction, other government institutions can surely pick up that role. It's a bit strange though that there is such a large homeless problem in those cities. London is supposed to have a massive homeless problem, but yours seem to have a vastly larger scale and problem somehow.
I more so mean this from a "starting fresh" perspective. People from puberty and beyond should absolutely be checking in with psychologists every now and then. Psychologists aren't just for "crazy" people. Anxiety, depression, self image, family issues, self confidence are all things that a huge majority of people suffer from yet don't get help for.
|
On October 17 2017 04:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 04:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
People who are homeless are already outside of "the system". How would they see a psychologist? How would they know they have free access to a psychologist? Who would want to subsidise psychologists anyways? They are already driven away from the "normal" support system of family and community, simply adding more available community probably would not have helped. If it was simply a case of pointing in the right direction, other government institutions can surely pick up that role. It's a bit strange though that there is such a large homeless problem in those cities. London is supposed to have a massive homeless problem, but yours seem to have a vastly larger scale and problem somehow. I more so mean this from a "starting fresh" perspective. People from puberty and beyond should absolutely be checking in with psychologists every now and then. Psychologists aren't just for "crazy" people. Anxiety, depression, self image, family issues, self confidence are all things that a huge majority of people suffer from yet don't get help for.
How do you know that the psychologists know what they are doing? Are the psychologists there to treat the symptoms or the root cause?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
