# Seattle is Dying



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Has anyone watched this?
It’s been big news in my state over the past several months. 
I live in Spokane about three hours east of Seattle and we are seeing two kinds of refugees: more homeless filtering over from Seattle and non-homeless. Young families and older people, fed up with the needles in parks, trash everywhere and rampant property crime that goes unpunished. And now it’s starting to skyrocket here too.
My daughter can’t take my grandkids to the library downtown because of the addicts or drunk s passed out in the kids sections, the restrooms are lit with blue lights so the addicts can’t find their veins to shoot up, so they just do it in the stacks now. Businesses are having to close around the shelters because of the crime, violence, needles, human feces, etc right outside their doors. 
It’s a mess.
But I don’t think it’s so much a housing problem. It’s a drug and mental health problem.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I agree but also think housing has a lot to do with it. Anytime real estate shoots up that much in that short of a time it causes people to not be able to afford a house anymore because rent goes up too. 

Then you find something to ease your pain of losing your house. 

Investors I know are leaving there in droves. They want to blame this it that but they were part of the problem. Then they sold on the high side and left. Detroit 2.0.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> I agree but also think housing has a lot to do with it. Anytime real estate shoots up that much in that short of a time it causes people to not be able to afford a house anymore because rent goes up too.
> 
> Then you find something to ease your pain of losing your house.
> 
> Investors I know are leaving there in droves. They want to blame this it that but they were part of the problem. Then they sold on the high side and left. Detroit 2.0.


Did you watch the documentary?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> It’s a drug and mental health problem.


Yes, with alcohol being one of the drugs too.
This is a bigger problem in the cities that condone the behavior by not making them leave.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

Lot of left coast cities are going down the tubes.....San Francisco, LA, etc. Liberal social polices drag the whole place down to the lowest common denominator and for some reason, they can't see it until the tax base has fled and left it looking like Detroit.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

TnAndy said:


> Lot of left coast cities are going down the tubes.....San Francisco, LA, etc. Liberal social polices drag the whole place down to the lowest common denominator and for some reason, they can't see it until the tax base has fled and left it looking like Detroit.


Cities and states that seem to be losing the most residents, ie New Jersey, Illinois, LA, etc really don't seem to be seeing it, or they don't care. Middle class folks running for the hills, literally, leaving socialist leaning governments to tax more from the rich and give more to the bottom of the barrel.
Some playing dumb and a little dash of denial and then of course pointing the finger to whoever used to be in power seems to work pretty well.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, with alcohol being one of the drugs too.
> This is a bigger problem in the cities that condone the behavior by not making them leave.





TnAndy said:


> Lot of left coast cities are going down the tubes.....San Francisco, LA, etc. Liberal social polices drag the whole place down to the lowest common denominator and for some reason, they can't see it until the tax base has fled and left it looking like Detroit.


I really hate to agree with you here, but I do.
This upcoming city council and mayoral election will be my first time voting for the conservative candidates in a long time.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I should have also added that those progressive and enlightened public servants didn't just anoint themselves, they were elected.


----------



## prinellie (Mar 16, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> I really hate to agree with you here, but I do.
> This upcoming city council and mayoral election will be my first time voting for the conservative candidates in a long time.


If only more people had your capacity for critical thinking... good job


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Haven't we had drugs, alcohol, mental illness and such for decades? Why is it this bad now? What changed?


----------



## prinellie (Mar 16, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Haven't we had drugs, alcohol, mental illness and such for decades? Why is it this bad now? What changed?


Now everyone is waiting for someone else to solve their problems and take care of them. Handouts instead of hands up


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


>


Thank you. Your video touched on the fact that the homeless are *people*, with issues, stories, hopes, and dreams. Many are addicted, many are mentally ill, some just want to live outside society. Most need help of some sort.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Lisa the video is definitely worth watching. I've got about 5 minutes into it and have saved it for must see tv tonight.
One quote pulled from the video "The citizens of Seattle can feel compassion yet they do not feel safe or protected."


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Lisa the video is definitely worth watching. I've got about 5 minutes into it and have saved it for must see tv tonight.
> One quote pulled from the video "The citizens of Seattle can feel compassion yet they do not feel safe or protected."


A woman one of my kids friends is related to was raped in a restroom when she took her car to a dealership there. By a homeless man from TX with outstanding warrants. 

https://mynorthwest.com/1355677/ballard-woman-car-dealership-sexual-assault/?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

There are several documentary videos out on the west coast homeless as well as the violence in Chicago, Baltimore, etc.
The reoccurring theme is that the root causes of the problems continue to be deflected and the problems continue.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

I bet you could apply the contents of that video to a thousand different cities just in North America (here in Canada as well). The problem isn't merely Seattle, or Detroit. It's an issue of faith. People in this generation, I believe, have lost the faith their ancestors had, faith in their way of life, in their values, in their work. Everything has become so throw-away these days.

When it continues (not if), you end up with places such as Detroit. It takes a mighty leader to guide to minds and hearts of people so destitute of hope and faith, but with the way modern society is these days it seems folks would just rather follow the "throw away" trends and toss everything good away, stop giving a damn anymore.

I don't like it.


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

You know, perhaps president Duarte of the Philippines has the cure for drug addictions. It's drastic but nothing else we try seems to work.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Lisa in WA said:


> Did you watch the documentary?


Not yet, I was at work. I plan on watching it tonight.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

ydderf said:


> You know, perhaps president Duarte of the Philippines has the cure for drug addictions. It's drastic but nothing else we try seems to work.


Here is an effort I haven't seen the government try yet. Sounds like these geniuses are holding out for a busy Monday!
The link at the bottom is for those who just can't believe it.
*Massachusetts police ask people to hold off on committing crimes until heat wave is over*









https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ting-crimes-until-heat-wave-is-over/23775719/


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Lisa in WA said:


> A woman one of my kids friends is related to was raped in a restroom when she took her car to a dealership there. By a homeless man from TX with outstanding warrants.
> 
> https://mynorthwest.com/1355677/ballard-woman-car-dealership-sexual-assault/?


A significant prison sentence plus making a eunuch out of him out to prevent repetition of this problem.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> ...But I don’t think it’s so much a housing problem. It’s a drug and mental health problem.


I think you nailed it, right there.

As several have pointed out, across multiple threads, homelessness is not always involuntary, and it’s not a dirty word.

Drug abuse and unchecked mental illness, though, make any situation much, much worse.



HDRider said:


> Haven't we had drugs, alcohol, mental illness and such for decades? Why is it this bad now? What changed?


Part of it is that our populations are increasing, so homeless populations increase in kind. What makes it seem “this bad now” is how much of our homelessness is driven by drugs.

Mental illness drives drug abuse, and hard-drug abuse drives homelessness. The result is that the homeless we encounter most are the untreated-crazy and/or drug-addled folks that we _should_ be afraid of.

I was homeless through most of highschool, and can confidently say that those who are either homeless by economic necessity or by desire are not anyone you’d ever have a problem with. They’re not going to scare you children, they wouldn’t be caught dead pooping somewhere that someone else is going to find it, and they would never stay somewhere they weren’t welcome.

That code of conduct goes out the window when mental-illness or addiction are involved.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Lisa in WA said:


> Did you watch the documentary?


I watched this about a month ago. I still stand by what I said.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Why is it this bad now? What changed?


Politicians didn't used to make it easy for them.
Now they no longer arrest people for anything less than 3 grams of their drug of choice.
When they say "it's ok", that encourages users to do it in the open, since they know there will be no consequences.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Politicians didn't used to make it easy for them.
> Now they no longer arrest people for anything less than 3 grams of their drug of choice.
> When they say "it's ok", that encourages users to do it in the open, since they know there will be no consequences.


Spoken like someone who doesn’t recognize that there’s a huge difference between 3 grams of marijuana and 3 grams of heroin- nor the potential effects the contents of that little bag can have on the user(s). 

Three grams of marijuana is a nothing more than a bottle of wine to two people on a date. Three grams of heroin is 20-30 people high beyond their ability to know where they are, or several people put into an unrecoverable fatal overdose. 

All drugs are not equal, and not all homelessness is drug-related. 

Some things Google just can’t help someone understand.


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

Our society is changing from the industrial age to the information age many people are left out, jobs and education are going through major upheavels, just as many people were left out when we went from pastoralism to the industrial age in the mid 1700's England.
It feels to me like it will take at least two generations to reorganize the world as it did with the industrial revolution. My suggestion is to stay away from big cities for a long while let them figure out how to cure their problems then move back if you really want to live in a large urban setting.


----------



## prinellie (Mar 16, 2016)

georger said:


> I bet you could apply the contents of that video to a thousand different cities just in North America (here in Canada as well). The problem isn't merely Seattle, or Detroit. It's an issue of faith. People in this generation, I believe, have lost the faith their ancestors had, faith in their way of life, in their values, in their work. Everything has become so throw-away these days.
> 
> When it continues (not if), you end up with places such as Detroit. It takes a mighty leader to guide to minds and hearts of people so destitute of hope and faith, but with the way modern society is these days it seems folks would just rather follow the "throw away" trends and toss everything good away, stop giving a damn anymore.
> 
> I don't like it.


So well said... I don’t like it either


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

HDRider said:


> Haven't we had drugs, alcohol, mental illness and such for decades? Why is it this bad now? What changed?


Once upon a time those with major issues with the above were kept out of sight as much as possible. Now we have governments letting them live on the sidewalk downtown. So its much more obvious. In the past people with bad habits and in poor health died fairly quickly. In todays times they are able to live much longer.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

That is a good video, watched it awhile ago as I have family in Seattle and one of them mentioned it.

While drugs and alcohol are a huge part of the equation, the other part is the acceptance and even encouragement of people continuing this lifestyle in a lot of west coast cities. The video talks about it quite a bit, especially when interviewing the actual homeless people - at least a couple of them (from memory) and one definitely says he's there, and he lives the homeless druggie lifestyle because Seattle supports him in doing so. They go through his arrest record (lengthy) and he laughs about how he can do anything and he's basically untouchable.

For those that haven't watched the video and are wondering why, if drugs/alcohol/mental illness have always been a problem, the homeless situation is what it is in these cities now. Because we enable the drug/alcohol use and do nothing to address real mental health issues.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

First cleanup. Discussion is in GC and GC rules apply.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Three grams of marijuana is a nothing more than a bottle of wine to two people on a date.


It had nothing to do with pot, which is legal in WA.

A bottle of wine or some mixed drinks can make one pretty stupid too, but that wasn't what they were talking about.

Watch the documentary.
It's all there.


----------



## Farmerjack41 (Jun 6, 2017)

Spokane is more than three hours from Seattle. To make the trip in three hours you would have to average about 93 MPH. 
Given the traffic problem from Seattle to Ellensburg, you will have a difficult time averaging 70 MPH. Think you will find the mileposts in the Spokane area starting at about 280.
It was been well documented Seattle pays for bus tickets to move homeless to Eastern Washinggton.
As long as you have liberal people running these cities the problem will only get worse.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> That is a good video, watched it awhile ago as I have family in Seattle and one of them mentioned it.
> 
> While drugs and alcohol are a huge part of the equation, the other part is the acceptance and even encouragement of people continuing this lifestyle in a lot of west coast cities. The video talks about it quite a bit, especially when interviewing the actual homeless people - at least a couple of them (from memory) and one definitely says he's there, and he lives the homeless druggie lifestyle because Seattle supports him in doing so. They go through his arrest record (lengthy) and he laughs about how he can do anything and he's basically untouchable.
> 
> *For those that haven't watched the video and are wondering why, if drugs/alcohol/mental illness have always been a problem, the homeless situation is what it is in these cities now. Because we enable the drug/alcohol use and do nothing to address real mental health issues.*


Exactly. There is no real mental health treatment in the US. Most are just given medication and sent on their way with no followup care, not even a refill. And the downward spiral begins again.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. There is no real mental health treatment in the US. Most are just given medication and sent on their way with no followup care, not even a refill. And the downward spiral begins again.


How would anyone followup when the insane roam wild?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> How would anyone followup when the insane roam wild?


Most aren't insane as you are using the term, that's just rude and inflammatory.

Many don't want to be unmedicated and homeless, they want stable lives without the issues of mental illness. Proper treatment would include stabilization on medication, talk therapy, and classes. After stabilization, a half way house type of thing where they are in charge of requesting their medication, their room, etc. and finally a move to the community. Overseen weekly, biweekly, monthly after that.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

A new urgent care in Wake county for mental health emergencies. I hope it helps.

https://www.wral.com/in-wake-county-new-urgent-care-center-caters-to-mental-health/18499886/


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Most aren't insane as you are using the term, that's just rude and inflammatory.
> 
> Many don't want to be unmedicated and homeless, they want stable lives without the issues of mental illness. Proper treatment would include stabilization on medication, talk therapy, and classes. After stabilization, a half way house type of thing where they are in charge of requesting their medication, their room, etc. and finally a move to the community. Overseen weekly, biweekly, monthly after that.


If the unfortunate (you can use any term you want, don't get so upset) are craving the cure, I'll ask again, who forces it on them? 

It is obvious they cannot seek care themselves.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> A new urgent care in Wake county for mental health emergencies. I hope it helps.
> 
> https://www.wral.com/in-wake-county-new-urgent-care-center-caters-to-mental-health/18499886/


Centers like this are nearly perfect, specifically for the mentally ill and their conditions. We need more of them.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

HDRider said:


> If the unfortunate (you can use any term you want, don't get so upset) are craving the cure, I'll ask again, who forces it on them?
> 
> It is obvious they cannot seek care themselves.


For a lot of mentally ill people, the treatment is worse than the disease. Especially for the more serious illnesses, or those more likely to affect other people (Schizophrenia, Bipolar, OCD, etc), the medications can cause side effects that range from simply unpleasant to "I can't live like this" levels. It can also take literally years to find medications that actually work properly, even if the person is invested in being medicated and has resources to pay for decent care to find those medications.

Unfortunately, mental illness runs through my family (depression/anxiety, OCD mostly, although my mother has untreated Bipolar Disorder - never found a medication that actually worked for her without horrendous side effects so she gave up and just drives everyone else crazy, she's fairly content), so I've seen this play out over and over. Some people would rather live life as an "insane" person than be tortured by the side effects of the medications. 

I don't know what you do about that, realistically, especially for people that have no one to care about or for them to push to find things that might work. Encouraging them to kill themselves on the streets self-medicating with drugs (while torturing everyone else) isn't the answer, though.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I like Rhode Island’s plan, as portrayed in the documentary.
Allow the police to enforce the laws, prosecute lawbreakers, get them into jail and then force treatment.
I’m all for helping the homeless (and as I said...I do) but the ones who don’t want it and prefer to prey on the general public I have no problem with locking up. 
I was actually attacked and beaten by a homeless person in Bowdoin Station in Boston. So I may worry more about it than most.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerjack41 said:


> Spokane is more than three hours from Seattle. To make the trip in three hours you would have to average about 93 MPH.
> Given the traffic problem from Seattle to Ellensburg, you will have a difficult time averaging 70 MPH. Think you will find the mileposts in the Spokane area starting at about 280.
> It was been well documented Seattle pays for bus tickets to move homeless to Eastern Washinggton.
> As long as you have liberal people running these cities the problem will only get worse.


Very true. I was thinking of Cle Elum because I used to haul horses there frequently and it became an “almost there!” when we drove all the way to Seattle. Finally out of the deserty areas and into the cool pines. Thanks for setting me straight.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

I'll watch the video tonight. A lot of you have mentioned mental illness and I agree it seems to be on the rise. I wonder why? Why is there an increase in mental illness? I'm not sure I know why. So many of the problems we have in society are related to it. Anyone read any research on it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Making homelessness a crime and putting them in jail does not solve the problem. That money would be far better spent on providing temporary homes and professional help.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Lisa in WA said:


> I was actually attacked and beaten by a homeless person in Bowdoin Station in Boston. So I may worry more about it than most.


I'm so sorry you had to go through that. I can't imagine.



hiddensprings said:


> I'll watch the video tonight. A lot of you have mentioned mental illness and I agree it seems to be on the rise. I wonder why? Why is there an increase in mental illness? I'm not sure I know why. So many of the problems we have in society are related to it. Anyone read any research on it?


I don't know that it's on the rise. We just used to institutionalize people when they started melting down, and long-term institutionalization wasn't uncommon. The state institutions were pretty much done away with during Regan's tenure due to terrible conditions, abuse, and the warehousing of human beings that was being done.

I don't think we should go back to that type of institutionalization, but we do need something that your average Joe can afford if someone they love is going off the rails. Right now, unless you have great insurance, even the 72 hour holds (which do very little, btw, other than maybe giving someone who is suicidal a little thinking time) will break the bank for most people. You won't find much out there for anything longer than a 3-day stay, unless you have fabulous insurance or are independently wealthy. No one is cured in 72 hours, so we basically have no plan for the mentally ill, other than the one you come up with yourself.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Making homelessness a crime and putting them in jail does not solve the problem. That money would be far better spent on providing temporary homes and professional help.


You are more than welcome to your opinion but when people are physically attacking, raping, stealing, etc. in my city, I think they should be taken off the streets. The general public deserves some sort of protection. 
How many of them are in your neighborhood there in rural Wyoming?
Perhaps you’d take some in?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Making homelessness a crime and putting them in jail does not solve the problem. That money would be far better spent on providing temporary homes and professional help.


I read her post as putting people in jail who commit crimes, not putting people in jail because they are homeless. 

Referencing the documentary, the worse frequent fliers in the Seattle jail were mainly homeless people. Not all homeless people commit crimes, but a lot of crimes in Seattle are apparently committed by homeless people (it seems the same ones over, and over, and over again - one of them even admitted that he can do anything to anyone and not ever really be punished). 

I think that's what she's talking about, unless I misread.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> You are more than welcome to your opinion but when people are physically attacking, raping, stealing, etc. I think they should be taken off the streets. The general public deserves some sort of protection.
> How many of them are in your neighborhood there in rural Wyoming?
> Perhaps you’d take some in?


LOL. When someone commits a crime then no matter where they are they should face the consequences. Homelessness is not a crime and they should not be jailed because your trauma in the past makes you scared.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Speak to the truth you know. Making assumptions about what I did or did neither proves your point or make you right. You are getting personal and so I will step away. Carry on.


Of course you will.
Bring called on your victim shaming and hypocrisy tends to make one uncomfortable.
Cheer up, I’m sure you’ll have reinforcements here shortly.


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

hiddensprings said:


> I'll watch the video tonight. A lot of you have mentioned mental illness and I agree it seems to be on the rise. I wonder why? Why is there an increase in mental illness? I'm not sure I know why. So many of the problems we have in society are related to it. Anyone read any research on it?


Got a lot of dopers now. Doctors can give them a little dope and they can stay home and take their dope. Drug stores make out, doctors and hospital make out etc. Faster services all the way around . Plus they can get home care. Everyone is happy and making money. I have known a few in Washington state that would stay on dope or stay on beer etc. for 30 days and go to Doctor for mental problems. They would be put in hospital for 30 days and sent home with 6-12 mos. check each month. That was years ago. Guess things have gotten out of hand since then. Washington state was one of the few that would provide that can of care at that time. Some people would do this for years and didn't have to work. They would go to the churches around town and eat and also some would stay at the missions.


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

Glad I am nowhere near the liberal/progressive population centers that this seems to affect. I like being in a "flyover state".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> LOL. When someone commits a crime then no matter where they are they should face the consequences. *Homelessness is not a crime* and they should not be jailed because your trauma in the past makes you scared.


Sleeping on the sidewalks is a crime.
Being intoxicated in public is a crime.
Doing drugs in public is a crime.
Jail is "temporary housing" and it's the only good way to assure they get the help they need.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Speak to the truth you know. *Making assumptions *about what I did or did not, neither proves your point or makes you right. You are getting personal and so I will step away. Carry on.


If you think they were being arrested for "being homeless" it's safe to assume you didn't pay any attention to the documentary, even if you "watched" it.

The whole point was how they are *not* arresting and holding people, which exacerbates the problems.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you think they were being arrested for "being homeless" it's safe to assume you didn't pay any attention to the documentary, even if you "watched" it.
> 
> The whole point was how they are *not* arresting and holding people, which exacerbates the problems.


I did not say they were doing that in Seattle. I was responding to other posts talking about it as something that should be done with regards to the homeless.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sleeping on the sidewalks is a crime.
> Being intoxicated in public is a crime.
> Doing drugs in public is a crime.
> Jail is "temporary housing" and it's the only good way to assure they get the help they need.


Urinating and defecating in public is a crime.
Panhandling is a crime.
Damaging vehicles at stop lights attempting to extort money is a crime.
Assault is a crime.

Littering in my county ranges from $500-$3000 for one offense. Yet the roadside ditches are clean.
The opening scenes in the video show heaping piles of raw garbage and trash strewn across public and private property. 
Is prosecution in these matters going to based on the ability of the defendant to pay or their "label"?
The help a homeless person may or may not need, or even want, should not outweigh the help the general public needs in being able to safely go about their day in public.

Priority 1 is the security of the law abiding citizen.
Priority pick a number can be for the general welfare of the law breaker and general indigent.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

"Grandma, Grandpa is in the living room watching tv and cousin Johnny came up to him and kicked him in the nads."
Is Grandpa ok?"
"I guess. He's making an awful lot of noises though."
"Well, just leave Johnny alone and everything should be ok."

"Grandma! Johnny just kicked Grandpa in the nads again!"
"Here, take this sandwich and soda into Johnny and maybe he'll calm down."

"Grandma! Johnny just broke the soda bottle over Grandpa's head and kicked him in the nads again! This time he fell on the floor and he's saying some bad words."

"Oh Goodness. Poor Johnny. He just doesn't know any better. I wish I knew what to do....
Tell Grandpa to get off the floor and get in here before he causes any more trouble."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> Urinating and defecating in public is a crime.
> Panhandling is a crime.
> Damaging vehicles at stop lights attempting to extort money is a crime.
> Assault is a crime.


Yeah, in the documentary there were 100 people with a total of 3600 criminal charges against them over the past couple of years, and most of them are still roaming the streets.

100% of them had drug or alcohol addiction problems to go along with their assorted "mental" issues. 

They aren't "just homeless".


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

I had a novel thought! I don't know the process in Seattle but up here in Canada there is a method to appeal our property tax assessment. What if all the property owners in the worst affected areas were to appeal their property tax on the basis it is too high because their property values are going down, due to the crime and/or garbage from the street people. Politicians generally only listen when there is money involved. A tax payer revolt of sorts, a charismatic leader would be of benefit.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

ydderf said:


> I had a novel thought! I don't know the process in Seattle but up here in Canada there is a method to appeal our property tax assessment. What if all the property owners in the worst affected areas were to appeal their property tax on the basis it is too high because their property values are going down, due to the crime and/or garbage from the street people. Politicians generally only listen when there is money involved. A tax payer revolt of sorts, a charismatic leader would be of benefit.


That would do it alright.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

How about this:

1. We put people in jail for committing crimes against harmed victims, not for being homeless per se.

2. We revive the state hospitals in a broadly similar format with the past incarnations but with enough oversight that they dont turn into the dungeons of the past and actually help the mentally ill even if they are never fit to be released.

3. Have outpatient services for both "graduates" and those who need help but not institutionalized.

4. Borrow from the Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps. It was designed to keep young hands out in the boondocks and not allowed to be idle and into mischief. How about camps out in remote areas of federal land with minimal amenities but sanitary facilities available so they can live the homeless lifestyle to their hearts content?

This should produce a workable solution for everyone concerned.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

IndyDave said:


> How about this:
> 
> 1. We put people in jail for committing crimes against harmed victims, not for being homeless per se.
> 
> ...


Very interesting! When you declaring for the election? I'd support a reasonable candidate looking for real solutions whether I agree all the time or not.

ETA- scratch that! This is general chat.......... nice idea.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Very interesting! When you declaring for the election? I'd support a reasonable candidate looking for real solutions whether I agree all the time or not.


I wouldn't even consider it. If elections were a contest of ideas it would one thing. I have no desire to have my traffic tickets since I started driving and how many times I've peed behind a tree public knowledge.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

IndyDave said:


> I wouldn't even consider it. If elections were a contest of ideas it would one thing. I have no desire to have my traffic tickets since I started driving and how many times I've peed behind a tree public knowledge.


I live in Texas so I would get 3 life sentences for peeing behind trees.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

ydderf said:


> I had a novel thought! I don't know the process in Seattle but up here in Canada there is a method to appeal our property tax assessment. What if all the property owners in the worst affected areas were to appeal their property tax on the basis it is too high because their property values are going down, due to the crime and/or garbage from the street people. Politicians generally only listen when there is money involved. A tax payer revolt of sorts, a charismatic leader would be of benefit.


I worked for 10 years in an area of Calgary, just south of the actual downtown and it was an interesting place to work. The front yard was fairly seculuded so it was not unusual to see hookers servicing clients in our courtyard, discarded needles, human feces, spent condoms, people sleeping on the front step and blocking the office doors, one would be thief, proudly hustled out of the office with my lunch (which he thought was my purse) and I've left hundreds of dollars worth of coffee and muffins every morning for a couple years for a schizophrenic man who stopped theatening me with a bat and turned his attentions toward hookers, addicts and thieves so he could camp in an area he felt was safe. I've had a homeless man pull a knife on me in broad daylight because I refused to give him cash, but I also fell on the ice early one morning and a homeless man with a very full shopping cart offered to wheel me down to the clinic a couple blocks away but we settled on getting me into the office instead. 

Calgary has plenty of resources for the homeless, well as addicts and the mentally ill but some just prefer living on the streets and the harsh reality is that if they don't want to take their meds, there's no real way to force them. Cost is not an issue, they can literally walk into clinics and get their meds dispensed, a safe place to sleep is not an issue, Calgary has ample room at their shelters, as well as programs to get people off the streets. 

It's not a crime to be homeless but if the homeless are comitting crimes, they need to be held accountable.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

mreynolds said:


> I live in Texas so I would get 3 life sentences for peeing behind trees.


Trees are hard to come by in my area and those back up cameras on vehicles make things complicated.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> I worked for 10 years in an area of Calgary, just south of the actual downtown and it was an interesting place to work. The front yard was fairly seculuded so it was not unusual to see hookers servicing clients in our courtyard, discarded needles, human feces, spent condoms, people sleeping on the front step and blocking the office doors, one would be thief, proudly hustled out of the office with my lunch (which he thought was my purse) and I've left hundreds of dollars worth of coffee and muffins every morning for a couple years for a schizophrenic man who stopped theatening me with a bat and turned his attentions toward hookers, addicts and thieves so he could camp in an area he felt was safe. I've had a homeless man pull a knife on me in broad daylight because I refused to give him cash, but I also fell on the ice early one morning and a homeless man with a very full shopping cart offered to wheel me down to the clinic a couple blocks away but we settled on getting me into the office instead.
> 
> Calgary has plenty of resources for the homeless, well as addicts and the mentally ill but some just prefer living on the streets and the harsh reality is that if they don't want to take their meds, there's no real way to force them. Cost is not an issue, they can literally walk into clinics and get their meds dispensed, a safe place to sleep is not an issue, Calgary has ample room at their shelters, as well as programs to get people off the streets.
> 
> It's not a crime to be homeless but if the homeless are comitting crimes, they need to be held accountable.


Seriously, this is a great comprehensive observation and that final fact that some choose this is the foundation under my suggestion to establish camps in remote locations.

On the lighter side, the part about having your lunch stolen reminds me of an incident in New York City I read about quite a few years back in which a woman needed to take her doctor a stool sample, felt self-conscious about carrying the package, so she wrapped it like a gift. On the subway, a robber decided he needed the package worse than she did. I can only imagine the surprise.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> If the unfortunate (you can use any term you want, don't get so upset) are craving the cure, I'll ask again, who forces it on them?
> 
> It is obvious they cannot seek care themselves.


The answer is a family member, a person in the community, a LEO, etc. notices behavior that is outside the norm, it's investigated and if that person is considered a danger to themselves or others, there will be further questioning. They will be evaluated at a local hospital first, and if indigent (at least in NY) sent to a state psychiatric facility for a 72 hour hold. This hold allows physicians to determine if the person is mentally ill, and if they need to be admitted. If the person is violent or threatening, they're always admitted.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Well around here we don't have any problems like that. There was a drifter who came into town about 10 years ago. The LEO would only hold him until he sobered up. The hospital would only keep him until he woke up.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> The answer is a family member, a person in the community, a LEO, etc. notices behavior that is outside the norm, it's investigated and if that person is considered a danger to themselves or others, there will be further questioning. They will be evaluated at a local hospital first, and if indigent (at least in NY) sent to a state psychiatric facility for a 72 hour hold. This hold allows physicians to determine if the person is mentally ill, and if they need to be admitted. If the person is violent or threatening, they're always admitted.


The problem as I've seen is that it's not much different than my friend's cancer diagnosis. Each if, reduces that 98% chance of success. 

Not all mentally ill are in contact with their family or a person in the community and many have already moved to the streets so there is no community safety net. Maybe things are different in the US but our law enforcement are not trained as mental health experts so if they've broken the law, they'll likely end up in remand long before they end up in a hospital and even if they are, many stop taking meds as soon as they're released. 

A rather heated subject in Canada focuses on a mentally ill man (who'd gone off his meds) and beheaded a young man on a Greyhound bus several years ago. He as found not criminally responsible for his actions, which caused a huge outcry because of the brutality of his crime, but we were assured, he'd live out his days in a mental facility. Within months, he was transferred to a minimum security mental health facility and given the right to wander the unsecured grounds freely. Shortly after that, he was moved to a group home, then allowed to change his name and he now walks freely among us with no support system and assurances from our justice system that he probably won't go off his meds again.

Prior to beheading a decent young man and eating his face, he had gone of his meds several times before and although he'd never eaten someone's face before, he'd committed several crimes. Because he was not convicted of any crime, he doesn't even have to disclose to his employer so he could be the repairman that comes into someone's home to fix a broken appliance, a landscaper at an elementary school, a volunteer with an after school program or driving a school bus. None of which I would find comforting. 

Meds don't fix everything and I'm not convinced that mental illness should be a free pass when they commit crimes.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> LOL. When someone commits a crime then no matter where they are they should face the consequences. Homelessness is not a crime and they should not be jailed because your trauma in the past makes you scared.


My goodness. I’m disappointed at your lack of compassion and it seems you’re shaming me as a crime victim for being fearful of being physically assaulted again. 
Would you also shame a rape victim?
Do you not feel that women should not be assaulted?
Why?
Can you point out where I said anyone should be jailed because of homelessness?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> My goodness. I’m disappointed at your lack of compassion and it seems you’re shaming me as a crime victim for being fearful of being physically assaulted again.
> Would you also shame a rape victim?
> Do you not feel that women should not be assaulted?
> Why?
> Can you point out where I said anyone should be jailed because of homelessness?


Can you point out where I shamed you or said that you said anyone should be jailed because of homelessness?


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

seems Austin is having a problem now.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> The answer is a family member, a person in the community, a LEO, etc. notices behavior that is outside the norm, it's investigated and if that person is considered a danger to themselves or others, there will be further questioning. They will be evaluated at a local hospital first, and if indigent (at least in NY) sent to a state psychiatric facility for a 72 hour hold. This hold allows physicians to determine if the person is mentally ill, and if they need to be admitted. If the person is violent or threatening, they're always admitted.


My problem with the system as it stands is that the 72 hour hold is often nothing more than warehousing. It's a safe place to put someone for 3 days, maybe they'll have a group therapy session, see a psychiatrist for 30 minutes or so and be evaluated for danger to self or others. Most mentally ill people aren't an immediate danger, so end up back where they started before the hold. Other than that, the biggest benefit is that it's a safe place where someone can watch the person at all times. Which I'm not saying isn't a good thing, but it's not something that helps anyone long term. 72 hours isn't long enough to diagnose someone (as you're only doing generally one 30-60 minute "visit" with a psychiatrist), definitely isn't long enough to tell if a new medication is working, and isn't long enough to wean someone off a medication that might have been causing the issue in the first place.

There isn't much help out there after that. Unfortunately I've watched someone I love go through this system over and over again. Someone with resources, people who love/would do anything for them, and nothing productive has ever come out of a 72 hour hold for that person or the family except the family got a couple of days of solid sleep not worrying about the ill person doing something awful. 

The other major problem is finding a bed. We've sat in emergency rooms for anywhere from 10 hours to over a day waiting for the doctors to find an open spot. Sometimes several hours drive away. Says something about the demand for the service. I wonder if doctors work as hard to find beds for people with no one there forcing them to keep calling inpatient facilities.

Our system is as it is is terrible. And I have no idea how you fix it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> The problem as I've seen is that it's not much different than my friend's cancer diagnosis. Each if, reduces that 98% chance of success.
> 
> Not all mentally ill are in contact with their family or a person in the community and many have already moved to the streets so there is no community safety net. Maybe things are different in the US but our law enforcement are not trained as mental health experts so if they've broken the law, they'll likely end up in remand long before they end up in a hospital and even if they are, many stop taking meds as soon as they're released.
> 
> ...


The majority of people referred for mental health evaluation in the US are reported to an agency by family, people in the community and LEOs. 

I never said, nor did anyone else on this thread (that I recall) say that the mentally ill should get a free pass on any crime. And the decision to either incarcerate or to be admitted to a mental health facility is legal. In the US, a person must be able to help with their court case, if they are unable, they are found to be incompetent to stand trial for their crime. 

Medication is the first line of treatment for mental illness in the US. There needs to be more in-depth treatment for the mentally ill. The problem is that is expensive, so it's cheaper to stabilize and release. It's been proven for decades it's basically worthless.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Can you point out where I shamed you or said that you said anyone should be jailed because of homelessness?



Sure.



painterswife said:


> LOL. Homelessness is not a crime and they should not be jailed because your trauma in the past makes you scared.


Key word: BECAUSE
*Definition of because*
1: for the reason that : SINCE

That coordinating conjunction links the two clauses implying causation. Pretty simple really.
I’ll leave whether or not your attitude was shaming up to the readers but it certainly seems heartless and cavalier to me...the victim. 
I won’t even go into the “LOL”.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> My problem with the system as it stands is that the 72 hour hold is often nothing more than warehousing. It's a safe place to put someone for 3 days, maybe they'll have a group therapy session, see a psychiatrist for 30 minutes or so and be evaluated for danger to self or others. Most mentally ill people aren't an immediate danger, so end up back where they started before the hold. Other than that, the biggest benefit is that it's a safe place where someone can watch the person at all times. Which I'm not saying isn't a good thing, but it's not something that helps anyone long term. 72 hours isn't long enough to diagnose someone (as you're only doing generally one 30-60 minute "visit" with a psychiatrist), definitely isn't long enough to tell if a new medication is working, and isn't long enough to wean someone off a medication that might have been causing the issue in the first place.
> 
> There isn't much help out there after that. Unfortunately I've watched someone I love go through this system over and over again. Someone with resources, people who love/would do anything for them, and nothing productive has ever come out of a 72 hour hold for that person or the family except the family got a couple of days of solid sleep not worrying about the ill person doing something awful.
> 
> ...


In NY, the 72 hour old used to determine if a person is a danger to themselves or others. If yes, and they consent, they're admitted voluntarily. If they don't consent, the hold can be continued or a judge can order them committed. 

If the person isn't a danger and isn't indigent there is little other than finding a private psychiatrist or facility for treatment. Mental illness isn't treated as seriously as "medical" illness, and that is just wrong. I'm sorry you and your family member have experienced it first hand. And the system is terrible.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see that you did not quote my post in its' entirety. That may be why you mistook what I said.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Nobody has a way to stop all of it. You can only deal with it or push them off to another spot for someone else to deal with it...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I see that you did not quote my post in its' entirety. That may be why you mistook what I said.





painterswife said:


> Can you point out where I shamed you or said that you said anyone should be jailed because of homelessness?




I quoted the portion that answered the question you demanded of me . That’s generally how that works.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> I quoted the portion that you asked me to post. That’s generally how that works.


You took out words in between. That gives a false idea of what I actual said.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> You took out words in between. That gives a false idea of what I actual said.


Then by all means, illustrate your point with the post in question. And point out how how a missing sentence makes any impact on what I posted.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> Then by all means, illustrate your point with the post in question. And point out how how a missing sentence makes any impact on what I posted.


It speaks for itself. You have yet to prove your statements correct.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> It speaks for itself. You have yet to prove your statements correct.


Yawn.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

whiterock said:


> seems Austin is having a problem now.


Austin has had a very recent spike in housing cost. The last ten years have seen tremendous increase in prices. Rent has gone up exponentially.

The root of the word homelessness is home. Those that don't have a home tend to overmedicate more than those that do. Doing drugs for many years will deter the brain function. They also get hungrier and commit more crimes.

Free needless perpetuate the problem and kick the can down the road. We are running out of road.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Austin changed the rules. Effective July 1. they could camp on the streets, sit and sleep and camp in areas they couldn't before. Austin is keeping Austin weird .


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> The majority of people referred for mental health evaluation in the US are reported to an agency by family, people in the community and LEOs.
> 
> I never said, nor did anyone else on this thread (that I recall) say that the mentally ill should get a free pass on any crime. And the decision to either incarcerate or to be admitted to a mental health facility is legal. In the US, a person must be able to help with their court case, if they are unable, they are found to be incompetent to stand trial for their crime.
> 
> Medication is the first line of treatment for mental illness in the US. There needs to be more in-depth treatment for the mentally ill. The problem is that is expensive, so it's cheaper to stabilize and release. It's been proven for decades it's basically worthless.


It seems you just made my point. There are certainly those that want treatment and work hard to remain well but there is also a certain amount who either self medicate with alcohol/street drugs, don't care for the side effects of their meds or simply don't want to live like society expects and we can force them short term but can't legally or ethically force them long term. 

We have the same problems in Canada, where they can literally walk into clinics and have their meds dispensed if they can't afford it, follow up care is provided at no cost to them, but many don't follow up and not all have families to follow up on their after care, nor can families force after care, if they chose not to follow up. Police can certainly have them admitted but it's not all it's cracked up to be. 

My mother was in hospital for treatment of a fairly minor condition and a very large mentally ill man, escaped his room, complete with bed alarm and wandered into hers. She woke up to him naked, fondling her breasts and preparing himself for intercourse. Eventually, he'll be moved to a ward in Calgary but regional hospitals can't transfer until the full mental health assessment is complete so they can be placed correctly. 

At some level, I have some comfort that he's not wandering the streets but I'm concerned about other friends and neighbours that may have to deal with him until he's placed or after he's released and he decides meds aren't for him, which is a cycle that's repeated itself many times before.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

whiterock said:


> Austin changed the rules. Effective July 1. they could camp on the streets, sit and sleep and camp in areas they couldn't before. Austin is keeping Austin weird .


Yes and all these cities have something in common. 

Raise the wages... Housing goes up. Rent goes up. Homelessness increases. Drug use increases. Mental illness increases. Crime increases. Death increases.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> It seems you just made my point. There are certainly those that want treatment and work hard to remain well but there is also a certain amount who either self medicate with alcohol/street drugs, don't care for the side effects of their meds or simply don't want to live like society expects and we can force them short term but can't legally or ethically force them long term.
> 
> We have the same problems in Canada, where they can literally walk into clinics and have their meds dispensed if they can't afford it, follow up care is provided at no cost to them, but many don't follow up and not all have families to follow up on their after care, nor can families force after care, if they chose not to follow up. Police can certainly have them admitted but it's not all it's cracked up to be.
> 
> ...


I don't know what you want me to say. I didn't think I was arguing, or even trying to make a point. I was giving my opinion of how the mental health system works in the US, specifically in NY.

Your mother's sexual assault is due to negligence, in my opinion. He should have been on a lock down unit, not wandering on a medical unit. That's the way it's done in NY, even in local hospitals. One entire floor, wing, etc. is locked down with multiple safety procedures.

ETA: Perhaps in the Canada system patients can't be held long term, but they certainly can in New York. The violent patients that couldn't stand trial can be, and have been, kept for decades.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> Yes and all these cities have something in common.
> 
> Raise the wages... Housing goes up. Rent goes up. Homelessness increases. Drug use increases. Mental illness increases. Crime increases. Death increases.


I really don't think housing prices are driving any of this. You can move an hour/couple of hours outside of Seattle (or San Francisco, or L.A., or San Diego) and find affordable housing, and jobs, or commute like a lot of people do. Or you could move to another part of the country and have affordable housing, jobs, and little commute time.

From the homeless I see daily, it's people choosing to be homeless and do drugs. What caused them to do drugs in the first place, be it mental illness or just liking to do drugs, I don't know, but you don't go from being a normal person, housing prices rise and suddenly you turn to drugs and homelessness (or become mentally ill, other than depression it really doesn't work like that, and major/clinical depression is different than situational depression). 

99% of the homeless I see daily are either fairly young men, or fairly old men. 1% of the time I'll see an older/elderly woman. If it were the "housing crisis" causing the issue, I'd see a lot more young women and children on the street. I can't remember if I ever have, even once, other than in Tijuana. My son lives in San Francisco so I go there quite a bit, haven't seen that there, either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I was giving my opinion of how the *mental health system* works in the US, *specifically in NY*.


It doesn't appear to be working very well:

https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/basic-facts-about-homelessness-new-york-city/


> The number of homeless New Yorkers sleeping each night in municipal shelters is now 70 percent higher than it was ten years ago. The number of homeless single adults is *146 percent higher than it was ten years ago.*


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't appear to be working very well:
> 
> https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/basic-facts-about-homelessness-new-york-city/


Thank you for agreeing with me on the fact that the mental health treatment system in place now doesn't work.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for agreeing with me on the fact that the mental health treatment system in place now doesn't work.


I didn't "agree with you"

You made a comment about how it "works" in NY, and I posted data that shows it's not really "working" at all.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't "agree with you"
> 
> You made a comment about how it "works" in NY, and I posted data that shows it's not really "working" at all.


Sure you did, and added a link to prove it.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

painterswife said:


> LOL. *When someone commits a crime then no matter where they are they should face the consequences.* Homelessness is not a crime and they should not be jailed because your trauma in the past makes you scared.





Lisa in WA said:


> Then by all means, illustrate your point with the post in question. And point out how how a missing sentence makes any impact on what I posted.


The emphasized omitted text seems critical to the meaning of the post, which aligns with the first point in my previous post:



> How about this:
> 
> 1. We put people in jail for committing crimes against harmed victims, not for being homeless per se.
> 
> ...


So far as I can tell, the point at issue is punishing actual crimes rather than homelessness per se and not downplaying crime or the plight of any crime victim.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure you did, and added a link to prove it.


Repeating your misconception won't make it real.
I won't explain it again even though the odds are good you'll repeat yourself again.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know what you want me to say. I didn't think I was arguing, or even trying to make a point. I was giving my opinion of how the mental health system works in the US, specifically in NY.
> 
> Your mother's sexual assault is due to negligence, in my opinion. He should have been on a lock down unit, not wandering on a medical unit. That's the way it's done in NY, even in local hospitals. One entire floor, wing, etc. is locked down with multiple safety procedures.
> 
> ETA: Perhaps in the Canada system patients can't be held long term, but they certainly can in New York. The violent patients that couldn't stand trial can be, and have been, kept for decades.


Are all New York hospitals as you state or do you have smaller rural hospitals as well? 

As I stated, the man will be moved to a larger facility but the assessment needs to be done where they are admitted and if a patient has no documented history of sexual predation, hospitals aren't always abreast of local lore. 

My opinion remains pretty firm in the sense that there are those who become dangerous that have slipped through the gaping cracks in the system and to suggest that the system is a workable solution, is unrealistic.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

wr said:


> Are all New York hospitals as you state or do you have smaller rural hospitals as well?
> 
> As I stated, the man will be moved to a larger facility but the assessment needs to be done where they are admitted and if a patient has no documented history of sexual predation, hospitals aren't always abreast of local lore.
> 
> My opinion remains pretty firm in the sense that there are those who become dangerous that have slipped through the gaping cracks in the system and to suggest that the system is a workable solution, is unrealistic.


I think maybe it depends on the situation as to why someone is in the hospital. My experience has always been for a mental health emergency, and we'd go to the emergency room. They'd keep my person in an ER bed until a bed was found at a mental health facility.

I guess if someone were brought to the hospital because of a medical emergency, who also had a mental health emergency going on, they might be admitted to the medical hospital. I have no experience with this though, and am not sure how security works in that situation. 

I do know that if someone is acting erratically and seems dangerous, extra "watching" is done in the ER. That means your curtain is kept open at all times, and a nurse or security guard sits in a chair at the entrance, and follows if the person is taken for testing/whatever elsewhere.

Total agreement that the system sucks as it stands, though.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

At creation, God told the man he would have a lifetime of 20 years spent playing.

He then told the cow she would have a lifetime of 60 years working in the field. The cow said "God, that is a long time to work on the field. Can I give back 40 years?" God said yes.

God then told the monkey he would have a life of 20 years spent doing tricks. The monkey said that is a long time to do tricks and asked to give back 10 years. God allowed this.

God then told the dog he would have a life of 20 years spent barking. The dog responded that 20 years is a long time to spend barking and asked to give back 10 years. God allowed it.

The man was thinking. He asked if he could have the 40 years the cow gave back, the 10 years the monkey gave back, and the 10 years the dog gave back. God answered,"If you want them, they are yours."

This is why we have a life consisting of 20 years playing, 40 years working in the field, 10 years doing monkey tricks for grandchildren, and 10 years sitting on the porch barking at people.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> Are all New York hospitals as you state or do you have smaller rural hospitals as well?
> 
> As I stated, the man will be moved to a larger facility but the assessment needs to be done where they are admitted and if a patient has no documented history of sexual predation, hospitals aren't always abreast of local lore.
> 
> My opinion remains pretty firm in the sense that there are those who become dangerous that have slipped through the gaping cracks in the system and to suggest that the system is a workable solution, is unrealistic.


My take on this is that the system as it stands is very deficient but it could be quite effective. Any mental health admitee should be held under secure conditions. It really isn't difficult to do even in a small rural hospital. Problems like the situation you described are totally unnecessary and absolutely preventable.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> So far as I can tell, the point at issue is punishing actual crimes rather than homelessness per se and not downplaying crime or the plight of any crime victim.


Having worked in an area with a lot of homeless people, it adds a whole new dimension to the problem. Homeowners find their garbages dumped in alleys because people are looking for bottles (ten cent recycle fees add up to another fix or another bottle pretty quick), spent condoms and used needles left in yards are health risks, human feces left on front lawns are health risks and offensive and even more offensive when you catch someone leaving their feces in the yard, and I'm sure many homeowners are thrilled to find a group of homeless people sharing a bottle of cheap booze in their front yard. By the time police have responded to non emergency calls of his nature, the problem has departed. 

It's also not that much fun being harrassed for spare change as you try and make your way through these areas local businesses find they start losing customers when customers are being harrassed on the streets for change. Malls thrive and small shops die. 

Homeless might not be a crime but some have turned it into a fairly lucrative business. A friend owns a trendy restaurant and his head chef recently quit because panhandling pays in the right area pays about $4,000.00/month in tax free income. 

I don't want to see anyone living on the streets but then again, many actually prefer it. Every year, when we have our first cold snap, the police and volunteers in Calgary, haul everyone on the streets to shelters and within hours, most of them are back right where they were picked up. 

We have all kinds of resources in place and the problem is not getting any better.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> Having worked in an area with a lot of homeless people, it adds a whole new dimension to the problem. Homeowners find their garbages dumped in alleys because people are looking for bottles (ten cent recycle fees add up to another fix or another bottle pretty quick), spent condoms and used needles left in yards are health risks, human feces left on front lawns are health risks and offensive and even more offensive when you catch someone leaving their feces in the yard, and I'm sure many homeowners are thrilled to find a group of homeless people sharing a bottle of cheap booze in their front yard. By the time police have responded to non emergency calls of his nature, the problem has departed.
> 
> It's also not that much fun being harrassed for spare change as you try and make your way through these areas local businesses find they start losing customers when customers are being harrassed on the streets for change. Malls thrive and small shops die.
> 
> ...


I dont see the disagreement. You just posted a list of activities longer than my arm which are illegal independent of homelessness.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Mish said:


> I really don't think housing prices are driving any of this. You can move an hour/couple of hours outside of Seattle (or San Francisco, or L.A., or San Diego) and find affordable housing, and jobs, or commute like a lot of people do. Or you could move to another part of the country and have affordable housing, jobs, and little commute time.
> 
> From the homeless I see daily, it's people choosing to be homeless and do drugs. What caused them to do drugs in the first place, be it mental illness or just liking to do drugs, I don't know, but you don't go from being a normal person, housing prices rise and suddenly you turn to drugs and homelessness (or become mentally ill, other than depression it really doesn't work like that, and major/clinical depression is different than situational depression).
> 
> 99% of the homeless I see daily are either fairly young men, or fairly old men. 1% of the time I'll see an older/elderly woman. If it were the "housing crisis" causing the issue, I'd see a lot more young women and children on the street. I can't remember if I ever have, even once, other than in Tijuana. My son lives in San Francisco so I go there quite a bit, haven't seen that there, either.


You may be right but it's funny how there are more homeless people capita where the house prices are sky high.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The biggest problem with the mental health care system is that the patient is required to participate on their own. All too many people feel that they can stop taking their medication when they feel better or they don't like the way the medication makes them feel. Finding available mental health care professionals that actually want to help the patient is frustratingly difficult. The good people suffer from early burn-out.

In our area most of the psych doctors are foreigners with their own idea of how Americans are supposed to behave. Then you have a language barrier because when your doctor has a heavy acent you may have difficulties understandng them, so that all important communication goes right out the window. It's very difficult to get medication changes unless the patient goes back in a hospital. 

Then you have the hospital employees. Many view patients as less than human. Some overlook major bad behaviors, for various reasons. Some lie about patient behavior. Patients have too much free time to wander around with nothing to do, no activities, no libraries, no busy work. There is very little actually get-to-know the patient and their feelings interaction. The staff just tends the counter and dispenses medication.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

I think it is fairly obvious that homelessness has many dimensions: housing prices, unemployment, criminality, mental health, addiction, gender inequality to name a few,

It seems equally obvious that debating that any single one of these dimensions is the main cause, is a mug's game. 

The homeless experience, and causation, is going to vary from community to community and person to person. We can look for trends and clusters of common experience, but solutions need to be multi-faceted. Its never just one thing....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> Are all New York hospitals as you state or do you have smaller rural hospitals as well?
> 
> As I stated, the man will be moved to a larger facility but the assessment needs to be done where they are admitted and if a patient has no documented history of sexual predation, hospitals aren't always abreast of local lore.
> 
> My opinion remains pretty firm in the sense that there are those who become dangerous that have slipped through the gaping cracks in the system and to suggest that the system is a workable solution, is unrealistic.


No not all NY hospitals have a lock down unit. Rural areas will share a unit, or there are state facilities in most counties. In my area, one hospital (out of three) is CPEP (Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program). If a the person presenting has insurance, they stay on their lockdown floor. If they don't, they go to the state psychiatric center.

A hospital with no lock down unit wouldn't admit a mentally ill patient, they'd be assessed in the ED, and if treatment was indicated they'd be sent to a facility that had one. There would be at least one to one (one staff to one patient at all times) protocol the entire time they were in the ED, that's standard for safety and suicide prevention.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> I dont see the disagreement. You just posted a list of activities longer than my arm which are illegal independent of homelessness.


Each one is certainly illegal but none are high priority for police so businesses and homeowners just get to clean up the mess. 

I can assure you that no police department is going to run DNA testing on used condoms or spent needles, the homeless guy sleeping on the front lawn will have left well rested before they have time to investigate, the homeless man defecating in someone's yard will have likely done a few more times before police show up to investigate the first. 

I told my boss that the day I found a dead one in the front yard was the day I'd be changing jobs and while it took close to 10 years before I found an OD in my parking space, they chose to sell the building and move instead because nobody felt overly safe. Obviously, drug use is also illegal but it's also very real. 

Another thing to consider is that any area that has willing buyers, also has a healthy amount of drug dealers, also illegal but seemingly tough for police to contain, which adds to the lack of safety for the average person on the streets. Perhaps you've missed my mention in other threads about a gang shooting 3 car lengths from my office, while I was out on the front step having a smoke. 

The area is still considered developing, those that love the inner city living still cope with having their cars vandalized, being threatened with knives, people are still being robbed for their groceries and cigarettes and in one case, a man was killed because he refused to give a homeless man a cigarette, even though he didn't smoke. 

More shelters are built, more safe injection sites and methadone clinics are established and all it seems to do is cause the problem to escalate so in my opinion, the only solution is to start arresting and if history repeats itself, those who don't live with the problems of a developing neighborhood, maintain that those living with the problems are treating the homeless unfairly, right up until someone wants to build a shelter or methadone clinic in their neighborhood and then they scream about their property values.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Too bad we can't ship the problem people to an island or gated community where they can dirty it up to their heart's content. Win-win, imo, but you'd have the aclu and a dozen other bleeding hearts crying about the inhumane treatment. Too bad they don't give a rat's behind about the decent law-abiding citizens that pay taxes and try to keep the city functioning.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> I think maybe it depends on the situation as to why someone is in the hospital. My experience has always been for a mental health emergency, and we'd go to the emergency room. They'd keep my person in an ER bed until a bed was found at a mental health facility.
> 
> I guess if someone were brought to the hospital because of a medical emergency, who also had a mental health emergency going on, they might be admitted to the medical hospital. I have no experience with this though, and am not sure how security works in that situation.
> 
> ...


It must be pretty common protocol, basically the same thing is done in NY. The extra watching is called one on one (or it could be two on one) protocol.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

I watched the entire documentary. Shocking! I do a bible study with county jail inmates, of which, I am yet to encounter one without an addiction problem. Drugs often lead to unemployment, and the addiction and need for drug money leads to crimes committed. And some of these inmates I work with have been homeless at times. On the documentary, those successful in the Rhode Island program credit their arrest to saving their lives. In the fellows I work with, I often hear the same thing. As mentioned in the documentary, housing shortage is not the problem, but rather drug addiction. If more housing were built, how many of these addicts could afford even the cheapest apartment? Get these people off the street! For those that are truly mentally ill, get them in facilities to help them. To those not mentally ill, enforce the laws, and then give them rehab options if drugs are the problem. To the rest, that want no help with their addiction, lock them up. And I am not a "lock em up and throw away the key" type, but sometimes prison is the only option left, at least until there is an authentic change of heart. The documentary did not address faith-based programs like Teen Challenge - these programs work - I know several personally that graduated from MN Teen Challenge and went on to have good jobs and raise families. And I truly believe in the scripture 2 Corinthians 5:17 - _Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new_ - I have seen this many times, first hand, in myself and others.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> You may be right but it's funny how there are more homeless people capita where the house prices are sky high.


There are also other things these cities have in common that I think have more of an influence.

Why do we hear about the "homeless crisis" only in expensive cities on the west coast? Why not Manhattan? Honolulu? Brooklyn? D.C? Fairbanks?

Attitudes/policies toward homelessness are going to be your answer, not housing costs. If you were so inclined and could live somewhere that allowed you to do whatever you wanted (including shooting up/pooping/peeing/sleeping in the streets, aggressively panhandling, robbing people/homes/businesses/vehicles, getting free meals, tents, clothing, needles, drugs in some cases) and no one ever punished you for doing anything wrong or illegal - in fact they defended your right to do so to the victims of your crimes - would you live there? Or would you prefer a place where you're not allowed to do those things, there are no services other than perhaps a meal here or there, and you'd be locked up for doing the any and all of that?

That is the real reason these cities have the self-inflicted "crisis." People move to these cities so that they can live the lifestyle, and other neighboring areas that don't want them give them bus tickets, don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You just posted a list of activities longer than my arm which are illegal independent of homelessness.


No one has suggested arresting anyone *only* for being homeless.
It was a false implication when it was mentioned.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has suggested arresting anyone *only* for being homeless.
> It was a false implication when it was mentioned.


If there were a shred of truth to this, then why has addressing illegal activity been held up as inadequate? The only alternative to that is making homelessness itself illegal. So, how in the universe does the argument that no one supports arresting people solely for being homeless make sense?


----------



## prinellie (Mar 16, 2016)

seems to be the common denominator is that they are allowed to do this - it is allowed by govt of city of wherever.... count up the places it’s happening and see what you find as the root problem. And like someone said... why in the most expensive states and cities....


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

hiddensprings said:


> I'll watch the video tonight. A lot of you have mentioned mental illness and I agree it seems to be on the rise. I wonder why? Why is there an increase in mental illness? I'm not sure I know why. So many of the problems we have in society are related to it. Anyone read any research on it?


I believe break up of the family and lack of belief in God may have something to do with it. Diet may also have something to do with it along with alcohol and drug abuse. A lot of kids grow up in families that have no coping skills and therefore cannot teach coping skills to their young. 

Churches and organizations like 4H use to encourage learning and self-respect and respect for your family and community. With the effect that media has on us, time and time again parents and other authority figures are portrayed as nitwits along with a lot of folks that are senior citizens. 

So what the answer is I'm not sure... Glad we live in the country in a cold climate. That may sound callous but it is a honest statement.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> If there were a shred of truth to this, then *why has addressing illegal activity been held up as inadequate*?


Because it *is*.



IndyDave said:


> So, how in the universe does the argument that no one supports arresting people solely for being homeless make sense?


Because no one has suggested it.

If you feel that's incorrect, copy and paste their quote.
I don't recall seeing one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> Why do we *hear* about the "homeless crisis" only in expensive cities on the west coast? Why not Manhattan? Honolulu? Brooklyn? D.C? Fairbanks?


They simply do a better job of keeping it quiet.
The problem exists in all those places though.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because it *is*.
> 
> 
> Because no one has suggested it.
> ...


When there are only two alternatives and people oppose one of those, they necessarily support the other, unless cognitive dissonance is an issue.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Here we go with the goofball sophistry again.


I'm sorry simple truths upset you so much.
Found that quote yet?

Perhaps you can include the one where I've tried to deceive you also.
I'm betting that won't happen either.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> If there were a shred of truth to this, then why has addressing illegal activity been held up as inadequate? The only alternative to that is making homelessness itself illegal. So, how in the universe does the argument that no one supports arresting people solely for being homeless make sense?


As I mentioned, the illegal issues are very often not issues that will bring quick police response. You were quick to point out that everything I mentioned was covered by the law but how long do you think the big city law takes to wake someone up and tell them move off private property? Laying charges is great, someone takes time off work to appear in court and police have no fixed address to serve a summons to appear and keeping someone in jail for a couple months isn't feasable because the maximum time served is less than time served waiting for a court date. 

It's great to have the law on your side when somebody steals your lunch off your desk but it's a non police emergency and the 'suspect' will be long gone before you someone answers your call. 

Do you truly believe that police have time to investigate used condoms and needles, or DNA feces? The law is on the property owner's side but the law is not going to investigate. 

The law was also on the side of the church that was broken into for a crack party but members of the church had to clean up the mess and pay the insurance deductible, as do those who's vehicles are vandalized. Their premiums also increase. 

About once a year, a mentally ill people pushes someone off a train platform. There are certainly laws against it but one woman is still dead and an elderly woman paralyzed. In both cases, charges were laid but were found not mentally capable of standing trial. 

It's against the law to kill a swan but that didn't prevent a mentally ill man from beating a couple of them to death, not for a meal but because he doesn't like birds. 

The laws are there but where does the manpower come from to enforce petty crimes and how do you prevent the major crimes.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Mish said:


> There are also other things these cities have in common that I think have more of an influence.
> 
> Why do we hear about the "homeless crisis" only in expensive cities on the west coast? Why not Manhattan? Honolulu? Brooklyn? D.C? Fairbanks?


Climate has a lot to do with it. Real estate in warmer climates are coveted, hence higher prices. Vancouver has a much bigger problem than Calgary does, simply because sleeping on the streets is a lot harder at -40C. I've also been told that a large percentage of hookers migrate from Calgary to Vancouver when the temperature starts dropping.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Insulting other members does not benefit discussion and will see the thread closed.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Austin, Texas, has a huge homeless problem. It’s not just a west coast issue.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> As I mentioned, the illegal issues are very often not issues that will bring quick police response. You were quick to point out that everything I mentioned was covered by the law but how long do you think the big city law takes to wake someone up and tell them move off private property? Laying charges is great, someone takes time off work to appear in court and police have no fixed address to serve a summons to appear and keeping someone in jail for a couple months isn't feasable because the maximum time served is less than time served waiting for a court date.
> 
> It's great to have the law on your side when somebody steals your lunch off your desk but it's a non police emergency and the 'suspect' will be long gone before you someone answers your call.
> 
> ...


This brings us right back to my point. Outlawing the presence of homeless people is the only alternative to addressing individual illegal acts. (Insult deleted) there is no third alternative and if you take the position that enforcing the existing law is inadequate, by default you are supporting outlawing the presence of homeless people. This isnt a matter of advocating one solution or the other, simply addressing the fact that there are two and only two possibilities once we establish that the status quo is not an acceptable alternative. I am having a difficult time understanding why this point is so difficult.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I do not recall the exact percentages, but the specific video in the OP noted that the Seattle police have little to no support by the governing bodies. Information was given on the number of infractions, both misdemeanors and felonies, yes felonies, committed by numerous individuals; some approached 60+ arrests over just a few years. Yet there they were, being interviewed on the street.

Enforcing the existing laws isn't inadequate, it is virtually nonexistent.
No Loitering is likely already on the books.
If I said there was a law in downtown Podunk that prohibits vomiting, urinating on the sidewalk, violence and sleeping against the wall you could also say Podunk is outlawing public intoxication.
When police officers cannot do their job, risk their lives apprehending people who are a threat to public safety only to see them released hours later, it kills morale and leads to the large number of Seattle LEOs opting out.

Watch the segments covering the city council meetings; the anger from the general public and seeming defiance and denial by the city leaders and the dismissive attitudes that these citizens do not have justifiable concerns.

"Seattle Is Dying" is pointing out that, to those who oversee the area, the status quo has not yet been disproven as an acceptable alternative.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Remedies are laid out for posters who can't be bothered to watch the video which is the subject of the thread.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Answers and solutions to the Seattle problem, from an informed perspective, can be gleaned from the interviews in the video of numerous law enforcement and emergency personal, as well as advocates for the homeless, local business and shop owners, who see it, experience it and live it every day.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

GTX63 said:


> Remedies are laid out for posters who can't be bothered to watch the video which is the subject of the thread.


Aside from some details and the lack of motivation on the part of local politicians i am not seeing anything outside the standard parameters of problems and potential solutions which apply in general.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> This brings us right back to my point. Outlawing the presence of homeless people is the only alternative to addressing individual illegal acts. (Insult deleted) there is no third alternative and if you take the position that enforcing the existing law is inadequate, by default you are supporting outlawing the presence of homeless people. This isnt a matter of advocating one solution or the other, simply addressing the fact that there are two and only two possibilities once we establish that the status quo is not an acceptable alternative. I am having a difficult time understanding why this point is so difficult.


After much discussion, I didn't realize you supported outlawing homeless people. 

I don't know how it can be done legally or ethically. My position would be to work to control the numbers because I've seen other areas that don't have nearly as many homeless people concentrated in a small area that don't seem to have near the numbers but I'm sure that many would argue my point as well. 

Part of the reason for the concentration is because the area I mention has numerous services dedicated to them. The largest overnight shelter, the largest methadone clinic, a couple of safe injection sites, very large bottle recycle depot, soup kitchens, large street ministry that feeds many people on the street, numerous liqour stores, walk in clinics, clothing facilities handing out free clothes (many of those lovely handknit hats and mittens women donate are discarded in alleys) and they even have doctors and nurses that will see them on the street. 

With all that in place, it's still common to step over a homeless person sleeping in the ATM area at any bank or on couches in apartment buildings, if they can follow someone into the locked building. 

Calgary installed a fancy multi million dollar state of the art self cleaning outhouse in the area, with the belief that it was a solution to homeless people defecating in yards but it's turned into a state of the art, injection site, a more secure area for hookers to do business and since it's heated, another place to sleep. 

Perhaps I'm old and jaded and while I do feel certain things are essential for survival, food and clean clothing would be an example and I can comprehend the methadone clinics but I'm not certain that making living on the streets as comfortable as possible is the best solution to a homeless problem.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> After much discussion, I didn't realize you supported outlawing homeless people.
> 
> I don't know how it can be done legally or ethically. My position would be to work to control the numbers because I've seen other areas that don't have nearly as many homeless people concentrated in a small area that don't seem to have near the numbers but I'm sure that many would argue my point as well.
> 
> ...


I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Let me take this from the top:



IndyDave said:


> How about this:
> 
> 1. We put people in jail for committing crimes against harmed victims, not for being homeless per se.
> 
> ...


As previously stated, I support enforcing existing laws as opposed to outlawing homelessness. Please see point 1 above. Moronic politicians are a problem to be overcome here not agents of impossibility.

The law already allows for involuntary confinement of dangerously unstable persons. Open the hospitals and go.

Have support available in civilization for those who choose to clean up. Don't let it become an enabling mechanism for those who won't, as I visited in point 3 above.

As I addressed in point 4 above build facilities for those who aren't going to change in remote areas where they aren't going to be a problem. Of local powers that be can put homeless on busses to other cities, it defies credulity to suppose they can't be similarly transported to a purpose-built facility with minimal but adequate resources.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> When *there are only two alternatives* and people oppose one of those, they necessarily support the other, unless cognitive dissonance is an issue.


No one other than you has set arbitrary limits on the number of "alternatives"

No one other than you and PW has suggested arresting anyone *just* "for being homeless".
She was the first to say it in the thread.

The "cognitive dissonance" can be solved by going back to the beginning of the thread and getting the facts straight instead of saying others are "supporting" something they never mentioned.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Outlawing the presence of homeless people is the only *alternative to addressing individual illegal acts*.


The police *aren't* addressing the illegal acts.
I'm beginning to think you didn't watch the documentary at all.

Their "presence" is already illegal.
They have no right to sleep on the sidewalks downtown.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Let me take this from the top:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You've never really addressed how to enforce those existing laws. How will a homeless person pay a fine for public urination/defecation and will they still be on site when police show up to ticket them? How would you see the problem of used condoms and needles be investigated and how much realistic police resources can be made available? Certainly, if caught in the act, it's fairly easy but they seem to come out at night when decent people are sleeping and police are dealing with more serious crimes. 

Will the average homeowner be thrilled to learn that their taxes will increase significantly because a specific area needs increased police presence to hand out tickets that will never be paid?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/how-finland-solved-homelessness/

"The Finns have turned the traditional approach to homelessness on its head.

There can be a number of reasons as to why someone ends up homeless, including sudden job loss or family breakdown, severe substance abuse or mental health problems. But most homelessness policies work on the premise that the homeless person has to sort those problems out first before they can get permanent accommodation.

Finland does the opposite - it gives them a home first."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/housing-first-solution-to-homelessness-utah/

"And he does. He and all the other people who work with the homeless here have perhaps the best track record in the country. In the past nine years, Utah has decreased the number of homeless by 72 percent—largely by finding and building apartments where they can live, permanently, with no strings attached. It’s a program, or more accurately a philosophy, called Housing First."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ifferent-cities-are-handing-homelessness.html

"As many as 564,708 people went without shelter on any given night in 2015, according to the latest report by the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

The NAEH reported an overall decrease in homelessness since 2014, which can be attributed to the successes of programs like those used in Salt Lake City. But other cities, like San Francisco, are revisiting their policies after seeing a standstill in the number of people living on the street.

Here are how some cities around the country are — or aren't — helping the homeless."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://blog.sfgate.com/storystudio...ampaign=partnercollection&utm_medium=referral

"The most important strategy for ending chronic homelessness — in Santa Clara County, the Bay Area and America — is as simple as it is effective: provide permanent housing to those most in need.

It is an approach supported by Destination: Home, a San Jose-based public-private partnership to end homelessness in Santa Clara County. Destination: Home supports the “Housing First” model, a nationally recognized, evidence-based approach that focuses on placing chronically homeless individuals into housing as quickly as possible, followed by additional support services to help address other needs, like medical care or job placement.

“We spend way too much time talking about drug use and mental health, but those sorts of problems affect people at all socio-economic levels, not just people experiencing homelessness,” said Jennifer Loving, chief executive officer of Destination: Home. “The lack of permanent housing for individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness remains one of the biggest and most overwhelming failures of our government and society. We know Housing First works. We just need more places for people to live.”


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Finland does the opposite - it gives them a home first."


We already provide housing for millions.


> *Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937* (42 U.S.C. § 1437f), often called *Section 8*, as repeatedly amended, authorizes the payment of rental housing assistance to private landlords on behalf of approximately 4.8 million low-income households, as of 2008,[1] in the United States.


Finland has about 11,000 "homeless" people.
They only have 5.5 million people, so they are smaller than some of our cities.

From your source:


> In the UK, a study by the homeless charity Crisis found that a policy of this kind in the UK could be more than five times as effective and nearly five times more cost-effective than existing services.
> 
> But a recent Government report concluded that, whilst the work of Housing First in Finland was to be commended, “we believe that resources should be focussed on supporting more mainstream efforts to tackle homelessness and prevent instances of entrenched homelessness.”


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20190725/sarasotas-new-community-care-court-helps-homeless

"What is happening in Denkin’s courtroom is a subtle, incremental negotiation process that flips the tired old script of plea bargaining, one repeat offender at a time. Sarasota’s Community Care Court — a quiet experiment in addressing the most stubborn category of homelessness — is the first of its kind in Florida.

And after six months of trial and error, founding partners in the program are ready to declare a modest and encouraging success: Of the pilot project’s 21 individuals experiencing homelessness, five have graduated and had their criminal charges dismissed. Word is spreading in the community, the partners believe, that this is a way out of repeating the same fruitless mistakes.

Or, as one gray-haired man puts it to Denkin, “I just can’t go on like this.”

On this Wednesday session of Community Care Court, out of 40 cases called, another 10 or so agree to get with the program. Their nonviolent offenses, mostly open container violations, also include soliciting funds, trespassing, possession of designer drugs, driving with a suspended license and unlawful activity in a closed park."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I expect countless posts about why none of those solutions can work here. I am glad that they are trying instead of just talking. Jail and hospitals cost way more per day than these solutions and they are worth a try.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I expect countless posts about why non of those solutions can work here. I am glad that they are trying instead of just talking. Jail and hospitals cost way more per day than these solutions and they are worth a try.


They've tried low rent/ no rent housing before.
They call them "slums" now.

Time will tell if they really work.
I'm not seeing it on a large enough scale to really matter.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/thin...YDodr1i_rUcXmU8LW_DaNwyqPzjRIFtzL5a4IMtCMAeJc
*"Think Utah Solved Homelessness? Think Again"*

Utah provided permanent housing and supportive services to chronically homeless individuals—those with lengthy periods of homelessness and mental health or substance abuse problems. Although *overall homelessness has actually increased slightly over the past decade in Utah*, such a large reduction in chronic homelessness is still an impressive achievement. But is it real?

Unfortunately, no. I spent some time studying Utah’s data and found that *the miraculous 91 percent reduction in chronic homelessness appears to be driven by changes in how people were counted, rather than by how many there were."*


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> You've never really addressed how to enforce those existing laws. How will a homeless person pay a fine for public urination/defecation and will they still be on site when police show up to ticket them? How would you see the problem of used condoms and needles be investigated and how much realistic police resources can be made available? Certainly, if caught in the act, it's fairly easy but they seem to come out at night when decent people are sleeping and police are dealing with more serious crimes.
> 
> Will the average homeowner be thrilled to learn that their taxes will increase significantly because a specific area needs increased police presence to hand out tickets that will never be paid?


There is a fantastic invention called the jail. It works wonders for keeping indigent criminals out of trouble assuming that one does not wish to consider other more premanent solutions which have already been addressed at length.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/thin...YDodr1i_rUcXmU8LW_DaNwyqPzjRIFtzL5a4IMtCMAeJc
> *"Think Utah Solved Homelessness? Think Again"*
> 
> Utah provided permanent housing and supportive services to chronically homeless individuals—those with lengthy periods of homelessness and mental health or substance abuse problems. Although *overall homelessness has actually increased slightly over the past decade in Utah*, such a large reduction in chronic homelessness is still an impressive achievement. But is it real?
> ...


This is at best mixed in terms of truthfulness. One of the biggest discrepancies cones from no longer classifying people in long term/permanent shelters as homeless. If you give them a home, modest as it may be, they by definition are no longer homeless.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Had you gone to the trouble of paying attention to what I daid rather than what you chose to assign to me you would have realized that i already addressed the lack of political will to deal with the problem, but then again that would take all the fun out of arguing apparently for the fun of it.


I didn't "choose to assign"anything to you.
It's merely the facts as documented by previous posts.
Claiming you "addressed" some things changes nothing *I* said.
You also "addressed" things that were fabrications from the beginning.

I can see there won't be anything new added today either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> This is at best *mixed in terms of truthfulness*. One of the biggest discrepancies cones from no longer classifying people in long term/permanent shelters as homeless. If you give them a home, modest as it may be, they by definition are no longer homeless.


Tell it to HuffPo, or *show* something which refutes the article.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

the cemetery thing is really disgusting. I don't like desecration of gravesites.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> There is a fantastic invention called the jail. It works wonders for keeping indigent criminals out of trouble assuming that one does not wish to consider other more premanent solutions which have already been addressed at length.


Your tone is fairly condescending when you really didn't answer my questions. How does one jail somebody for used condoms and syringes when all you have for evidence is used condoms and syringes? How much police time would you personally feel is reasonable to investigate these findings? 

Since you've resorted to being rude instead of realistic, would you DNA test human feces left in people's yards or is it just easier to snarl at someone rather than answer my questions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It does not have to be only the police. Code enforcement officers hired by the city and clean up crews can be a start. Police for crimes. 

There is no way to solve the problem without spending money. You have to spend it initially to get the problem under control. The only real problem is having the community, the police, and the courts coming together on a way forward.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Force the police to do their job and actually patrol the area. The property owners must band together, go to the local government, and tell them it's unacceptable. They may have to hire an attorney, but it can be done. They can also vote the local government out of office.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You are arguing against* fabrications of your own manufacture*. It leads a person to the conclusion that you are being dishonest rather than mistaken.


I asked you to *show* any "fabrications", but you still just keep talking.



IndyDave said:


> You suggested I had not watched the video.


You act as if you didn't based on many of your comments such as this:


> IndyDave said: ↑
> Outlawing the presence of homeless people is the only alternative to addressing individual illegal acts.





> IndyDave said: ↑
> If there were a shred of truth to this, then *why has addressing illegal activity been held up as inadequate*?





IndyDave said:


> Do you understand the concept that *words mean things?*


Do you?
I'm still waiting for you to *show* the quote where anyone supported "arresting the homeless just for being homeless", as you claimed earlier. 

I'm betting you'll just repeat yourself without ever adding anything new, and without ever proving anything at all.

That pattern never changes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It does not have to be only the police. *Code enforcement officers* hired by the city and clean up crews can be a start. Police for crimes.


"Code enforcement officers" *are* "police".



Irish Pixie said:


> Force the police to do their job and actually patrol the area.


Tell that to the liberal politicians who have created the problems in their "sanctuary cities".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Code enforcement officers" *are* "police".
> 
> 
> .


True but not all code enforcement officers are police.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Bearfootfarm said: ↑
> "Code enforcement officers" *are* "police".





painterswife said:


> *True *but not all code enforcement officers are police.


Read what I said, then read what you said.

You're contradicting yourself in your rush to refute me.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Force the police to do their job and actually patrol the area. The property owners must band together, go to the local government, and tell them it's unacceptable. They may have to hire an attorney, but it can be done. They can also vote the local government out of office.


It isn't a matter of 'forcing police to do their job' and I've been pretty clear on the problems but it's easier to believe the police are lazy than to comprehend that much of the misery comes out after dark and in seculded yards, behind schools and as someone else mentioned, in abandoned buildings and cemeteries. 

Police can only be spread so thin and when faced with burglaries, assaults, muggings, fires, vandalism, OD's burglaries, etc, they aren't inclined to leave the scene of a major crime because someone is pooping on a wealthy woman's well manicured lawn or concerns her blue bin has been dumped through the night by someone looking for bottles to recycle. 

I'm very certain that even if response time was immediate, police are very likely to find a pile of human feces and the person who made the deposit will be long gone.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> It isn't a matter of 'forcing police to do their job' and I've been pretty clear on the problems but it's easier to believe the police are lazy than to comprehend that much of the misery comes out after dark and in seculded yards, behind schools and as someone else mentioned, in abandoned buildings and cemeteries.
> 
> Police can only be spread so thin and when faced with burglaries, assaults, muggings, fires, vandalism, OD's burglaries, etc, they aren't inclined to leave the scene of a major crime because someone is pooping on a wealthy woman's well manicured lawn or concerns her blue bin has been dumped through the night by someone looking for bottles to recycle.
> 
> I'm very certain that even if response time was immediate, police are very likely to find a pile of human feces and the person who made the deposit will be long gone.


What is your solution to the problem?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I think we have to clarify if we are still discussing Seattle, WA or Alberta, CA?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> True but not all code enforcement officers are police.


Yes, but not part of the police force, they are part of city/town government. Thus not able to arrest, only hand out citations.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Code enforcement officers" *are* "police".


I suspect they would be what we refer to as bylaw enforcement. In my part of the world, they can hand out parking tickets, ticket for barking dogs, noisy bock parties, etc, but they have no authority to enforce any provincial or federal laws.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think we have to clarify if we are still discussing Seattle, WA or Alberta, CA?


Are homeless problems different in Seattle, Calgary, or California in some way?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You are arguing against fabrications of your own manufacture. It leads a person to the conclusion that *you are being dishonest* rather than mistaken.


Remember when you said words mean things?



> IndyDave said: ↑
> This is at best *mixed in terms of truthfulness*. One of the biggest discrepancies *cones from no longer classifying people in long term/permanent shelters as homeless*. If you give them *a home*, modest as it may be, they by definition are no longer homeless.


A "long term *shelter*" isn't a "home". 
Can you show the *quote from the article* that said "long term/*permanent* shelter".

They did give a few "permanent *homes*", so *they* do know the difference in what the words mean.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> Are homeless problems different in Seattle, Calgary, or California in some way?


No, not that I know of anyway. The laws, and how to get things done are different in the US and Canada.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

and from city to city


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think we have to clarify if we are still discussing Seattle, WA or Alberta, CA?


This discussion has traveled around the globe.



Irish Pixie said:


> The laws, and *how to get things done are different in the US* and Canada.


Tell PW.
She brought up Finland.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> This discussion has traveled around the globe.
> 
> 
> Tell PW.
> She brought up Finland.


Solutions are solutions, and around the globe may offer something that can be used here in the US. The laws do vary from country to country, and as was recently mentioned, city to city.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> This discussion has traveled around the globe.
> 
> 
> Tell PW.
> She brought up Finland.


I also provided plenty of US examples and each example clearly said where they were discussing. Pixie asking which location WR was discussing was for information.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

One thing different here in the US is the Sheriff or Head of police is usually an elected position. That means that if they don't make dealing with crimes by the homeless a priority they can be voted out of the position. That is different in Canada. The same goes with the head Prosecutor .


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> What is your solution to the problem?


I didn't realize that insight into reality was unwelcome and one could only respond if one had a solution.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> I didn't realize that insight into reality was unwelcome and one could only respond if one had a solution.


That is a snarky response to a simple question.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, not that I know of anyway. The laws, and how to get things done are different in the US and Canada.


There must be some relevance if you asked clarification.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> That is a snarky response to a simple question.


I was curious as to why I was singled out for a solution when others were not. My personal solution was to express great relief when my company relocated to a much safer area shortly after the OD was found in my parking spot. It's worked well for me but as businesses and property owners have done the same, things don't seem to have shown much improvement, except the bigger concern in the area is fentanyl deaths, which seem quite dangerous. Two paramedics have had already suffered the consequences of someone else's actions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> I was curious as to why I was singled out for a solution when others were not. My personal solution was to express great relief when my company relocated to a much safer area shortly after the OD was found in my parking spot. It's worked well for me but as businesses and property owners have done the same, things don't seem to have shown much improvement, except the bigger concern in the area is fentanyl deaths, which seem quite dangerous. Two paramedics have had already suffered the consequences of someone else's actions.


Others have expressed their ideas for solutions. I don't recall seeing one from you. That is why I asked. So often we all just shoot down others ideas and I wanted to know what direction you think might work as I had read your problems with current situations. Nothing more, nothing less. I am working very hard to not make negative comments against others in this forum and it took me back when you assumed that a simple question was in that vain.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> There must be some relevance if you asked clarification.


Yes, the relevance was that the laws are different in the US, Canada, other countries, cities, etc. 

My prior response was how to rectify a problem in the US, other countries may be vastly different.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Others have expressed their ideas for solutions. I don't recall seeing one from you. That is why I asked. So often we all just shoot down others ideas and I wanted to know what direction you think might work as I had read your problems with current situations. Nothing more, nothing less. I am working very hard to not make negative comments against others in this forum and it took me back when you assumed that a simple question was in that vain.


I believe I've offered some firsthand experience on what kind of crime occurs, why police struggle to make arrests, the associated health and safety risks, how businesses are affected and why they tend to leave the area, which in turn makes the homeless problem even greater as they take over those abandoned buildings. 

Many seem to have been quick to shoot down factual comments on what it's truly like and why the law is ineffective but they also seem to lack insight into the actual reasons.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, the relevance was that the laws are different in the US, Canada, other countries, cities, etc.
> 
> My prior response was how to rectify a problem in the US, other countries may be vastly different.


I can understand how you may see it that way but I don't think there's much difference. You can throw homeless people in jail until the jails are full but sentences on petty crimes would be quite brief, regardless of where you live and they'll be back on the street doing to the same thing again. 

Serious crimes are dealt with the same or similar but a lot of what's associated with a high homeless population are petty crimes that are low police priority, no matter what country you live in. 

I have friends in many countries and it seems the homeless problem is universal and I haven't heard of too many effective solutions for those who prefer to live on the streets. 

Calgary has a great program to help those who want to get off the streets, which is much like Finland but it sure doesn't seem overly appealing to the hardcore addicts.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Finlands program likes others will not work for all. It is only part of a solution. Each different group of homeless will need something different and still there will be homeless that can't be helped or don't want help. Working to reduce the numbers is the goal. Just like we work to reduce crime. We need to keep at it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> I can understand how you may see it that way but I don't think there's much difference. You can throw homeless people in jail until the jails are full but sentences on petty crimes would be quite brief, regardless of where you live and they'll be back on the street doing to the same thing again.
> 
> Serious crimes are dealt with the same or similar but a lot of what's associated with a high homeless population are petty crimes that are low police priority, no matter what country you live in.
> 
> ...


We disagree. I do think there's a difference in how the situation would be handled in different countries. Some solutions have been provided on this thread, not all will work in every country tho.


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

Way back I went to university for a while (never finished my oldest son showed up) I remember a professor talking about a study done on rats. If rats are crowded into a small place homosexuality and other anti-social behaviours manifested-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...vioral_sink&.usg=AOvVaw3fJGYLDXgEV7q56Y1cDycs.
Perhaps the simple solution is best,restrict the size of our cities. I'm sure few if any politicians want to limit the numbers of businesses and people in their jurisdictions. So many seem involved in proving mine is bigger then yours. I'm unsure where the will to restrict size/population growth would come from. Perhaps many more of us need to vote with our feet.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

prinellie said:


> Now everyone is waiting for someone else to solve their problems and take care of them. Handouts instead of hands up


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> What is your solution to the problem?


Don't do what the liberals are doing.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..................The city\state\feds need to construct holding facilities of sufficient size to put these people behind locked doors to isolate them from their drug sources . Once there , they can be evaluated by professionals and decisions made to prosecute , institutionalize , treat ,etc ! The court system must be become a part of the overall solution rather than a vehicle for lawyers to manipulate through endless filings where the individual is released back onto the street .
.................Some type of martial law should be set up to organize and coordinate all resources to solve this problem rather than allow it too continue as it currently , IS ! , fordy


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I also provided plenty of US examples and each example clearly said where they were discussing. Pixie asking which location WR was discussing was *for information*.


That changes nothing I said.

That's for your information.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Solutions are solutions, and around the globe may offer something that can be used here in the US. The laws do vary from country to country, and as was recently mentioned, city to city.


That has nothing to do with what I said.
I don't know why you think my simple statement of facts about what was posted before has any relation to what you said above.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> One thing different here in the US is the Sheriff or *Head of police* is usually an elected position.


Sheriffs are elected, and have overriding jurisdiction in the county for some things, but a Chief of Police isn't usually elected. They are more likely to be hired by, and answer to, the City Council.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, the relevance was that the laws are different in the US, Canada, other countries, cities, etc.
> 
> My prior response was how to rectify a problem in the US, other countries may be vastly different.


That seems to contradict:



> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> *Solutions are solutions*, and around the globe may offer something that can be used here in the US.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> I was curious as to why I was singled out for a solution when others were not. My personal solution was to express great relief when my company relocated to a much safer area shortly after the OD was found in my parking spot. It's worked well for me but as businesses and property owners have done the same, things don't seem to have shown much improvement, except the bigger concern in the area is fentanyl deaths, which seem quite dangerous. Two paramedics have had already suffered the consequences of someone else's actions.



I've seen the discussion on this thread go back and forth like a long tennis match, lol.
WR, you aren't the only one to say "enforcing existing laws aren't solving the problem", that's for sure.
But you are one of the few that can handle a serious discussion and give an intelligent answer though.
So take it as a compliment and recognition that asking someone else the same question, would be a waste of time.


Although no one said the precise phrase, "Make homelessness a crime" the problem and lack of an effective solution does lead to that logical conclusion if it's repeated often enough.
What do we do? We can't catch and arrest them fast enough with what we have now.
Even if we could, are the jails big enough to house them all?




wr said:


> I believe I've offered some firsthand experience on what kind of crime occurs, why police struggle to make arrests, the associated health and safety risks, how businesses are affected and why they tend to leave the area, which in turn makes the homeless problem even greater as they take over those abandoned buildings.
> 
> Many seem to have been quick to shoot down factual comments on what it's truly like and why the law is ineffective but they also seem to lack insight into the actual reasons.



Would some kind of curfew work?
A legal remedy that doesn't technically make it a crime to be homeless, but you wouldn't be allowed to roam the streets all night unless you were working or commuting to work.
That would be kinda extreme and tricky to enforce, separating late night entertainment customers and night shift workers from the real targets, but it might help in the clean up effort.
Of course that still leaves the daylight hours.....................

No easy quick solutions available, but maybe with some consistent pressure, some will leave, some find jobs and a better life and some in jail where they can't hurt the general public.
It's easier to concede defeat and quit trying, I know, but I think it would only get worse.


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

Those of you advocating locking up the homeless need to read some Charles Dickens to see how well work houses/jails worked in the past. Try Oliver Twist first. Or perhaps John Updikes Poorhouse Fair.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

It’s not going to be a popular idea. 

In the past this country has quickly, and economically built housing units in remote areas. For hundreds or thousands. They had medical, food, sanitation, eduction, everything needed for a humane life style. Often times with security. Sometimes they were for our own citizens, usually military. Sometimes they were for long term visitors, prisons of war. If those places and conditions were good enough for them then there good enough for the homeless that have serious issues. 

The police just have to arrest a few every day, in a year or two you will have made some serious progress in the local populations. 

It would have some cost, but a lot of it would be offset by savings on the repeat monetary issues that we now have. And a lot of the money issues would be consolidated and thus more savings.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> If the person is violent or threatening, they're always admitted.


For what duration of time? Remember - they have rights.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Can you point out where I shamed you or said that you said anyone should be jailed because of homelessness?


Wow... you carry yourself in the same hand basket wherever you go...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Yes and all these cities have something in common.
> 
> Raise the wages... Housing goes up. Rent goes up. Homelessness increases. Drug use increases. Mental illness increases. Crime increases. Death increases.


OOOO Austin is the place fer me!!! [wanna be social counselor]


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wr said:


> Having worked in an area with a lot of homeless people, it adds a whole new dimension to the problem. Homeowners find their garbages dumped in alleys because people are looking for bottles (ten cent recycle fees add up to another fix or another bottle pretty quick), spent condoms and used needles left in yards are health risks, human feces left on front lawns are health risks and offensive and even more offensive when you catch someone leaving their feces in the yard, and I'm sure many homeowners are thrilled to find a group of homeless people sharing a bottle of cheap booze in their front yard. By the time police have responded to non emergency calls of his nature, the problem has departed.
> 
> It's also not that much fun being harrassed for spare change as you try and make your way through these areas local businesses find they start losing customers when customers are being harrassed on the streets for change. Malls thrive and small shops die.
> 
> ...


There was a period of time in this country where Rock Salt solved a lot of problems by contributing that solution to the rumor mill that traveled both the protector and violator grapevines...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Redlands Okie said:


> It’s not going to be a popular idea.
> 
> In the past this country has quickly, and economically built housing units in remote areas. For hundreds or thousands. They had medical, food, sanitation, eduction, everything needed for a humane life style. Often times with security. Sometimes they were for our own citizens, usually military. Sometimes they were for long term visitors, prisons of war. If those places and conditions were good enough for them then there good enough for the homeless that have serious issues.
> 
> ...



I can't speak to its popularity, but that's not a bad idea.
The details could be fine tuned or tailored to the locality, but I could see the possible positive outcomes.

It could be voluntary or mandatory, according to the behavior of the person.
If it was minor criminality, then off to a 'boot camp' to live for a while instead of a jail cell.
If it's a desire to get off the street and better themselves, the CCC of the Depression Era comes to mind as a model.


Dang it people, just when ya think the world is full of negativity and defeatism, someone comes along with a better idea.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

IndyDave said:


> If there were a shred of truth to this, then why has addressing illegal activity been held up as inadequate? The only alternative to that is making homelessness itself illegal. So, how in the universe does the argument that no one supports arresting people solely for being homeless make sense?


I do not know but it seems that they are not even prosecuting the crimes that those that are homeless commit so I cannot see how you fall so far up the line to even suggest that purely homeless people are being arrested. I see LEOs moving them but I have not seen an effort to arrest homeless people in mass events.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> I can't speak to its popularity, but that's not a bad idea.
> The details could be fine tuned or tailored to the locality, but I could see the possible positive outcomes.
> 
> It could be voluntary or mandatory, according to the behavior of the person.
> ...


AND... If there was an effort to connect this remote location to some sort of a transit route than I think that would improve the premise of the idea. I am not of the mindset to give people something for free but if people identify a remote location that has rudimentary housing AND those people use that "permanent address" to further their employ-ability then I think that it would be a good thing to pony up some free transportation passes, not forever but until a better place has been achieved.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wr said:


> After much discussion, I didn't realize you supported outlawing homeless people.


I was a homeless people once, but not of my own acts and actions. It was a chance event that caught me without an emergency fund and an awareness that someone would use the law against me even if I did not break it. I do not think that sleeping where one would should be a jailing offense, of course, unless you choose to sleep in an area where there is rampant drug use and crimes being committed. I hate the idea of borders, because there is someone who wants to give people who have made it to this side of the border money collected by those that live on the side of the border where people are trying to come to. Part of that money was what I contributed. I drive the streets and go to the parks and sit in the downtown areas for some enjoyment. Why should people who have no place to go populate a place where other people seek out calm enjoyment? Is that their right?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Shine said:


> I do not know but it seems that they are not even prosecuting the crimes that those that are homeless commit so I cannot see how you fall so far up the line to even suggest that purely homeless people are being arrested. I see LEOs moving them but I have not seen an effort to arrest homeless people in mass events.


I did not suggest that homeless people ARE being arrested for homelessness. I was addressing that this is the only alternative (aside from doing nothing) other than enforcing laws against individual illegal acts.

We started with the premise that the status quo is not acceptable.

We could demand of our elected and appointed officials to actually enforce laws. Doing so may come at a significant cost.

We could start arresting people for being homeless. I dont advocate it but can see it as the only other alternative to enforcing the existing laws.

I am not going to reiterate my broader solutions to the problem but I feel it is a workable answer.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Shine said:


> AND... If there was an effort to connect this remote location to some sort of a transit route than I think that would improve the premise of the idea. I am not of the mindset to give people something for free but if people identify a remote location that has rudimentary housing AND those people use that "permanent address" to further their employ-ability then I think that it would be a good thing to pony up some free transportation passes, not forever but until a better place has been achieved.



Sure, I hadn't thought that far ahead but the specific details would be left up to the locals to decide what was needed, and how to do it.
I was thinking in terms of baby steps. First get into a routine, everyone has chores to do keeping the place maintained.
Chow halls, beds, showers, etc.
The next step is joining a work detail team that could be anything from road work to construction/manufacturing to cleaning gov't buildings or whatever. Wash the police cars, it doesn't matter, just get up and go to work, bring home a check, go to bed, act right and do it again tomorrow. Probably a good idea to direct deposit in a bank and have the bulk of it in a controlled savings account for their future new start.

Of course the hard cases would be a lot farther out of town, basically run like a minimum security facility with a mandatory rehab. A lot less freedom and the reward if earned, might be to work in the food garden on the back 40, in the kitchen or laundry along with getting clean and second chance when their sentence is done.

Who knows?
It would take some serious effort, but as we all know, the efforts we are doing now are costly, unpleasant, ineffective and take a toll on our resources - without yielding results that satisfy anyone.
What's that definition of insanity?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Force the police to do their job and actually patrol the area. The property owners must band together, go to the local government, and tell them it's unacceptable. They may have to hire an attorney, but it can be done. They can also vote the local government out of office.


Wow, I agree with you 100% with what you have written above.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> This discussion has traveled around the globe.


And it seems as if it is coming to every city anywhere. I saw Denver, I've seen San Juan and Ponce. I see it in my own city. Can one say that it is an invisible Tsunami?


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

I live very near Seattle. My observation as a tax payer is that 1, the homelessness problem is not a homelessness problem. A drug addict does not care about home. The drugs are his home. Treating it as a housing problem is not helping. 2, the politicians Mae a huge pot of gold sitting there for them to milk. The defend the ascots while attacking the tax payers. The politicians have a base in the progressives and addicts and continually pass taxes o the workers from which we cannot defend ourselves. Next year we get taxes for how many miles you drive plus tolls on the two highways we use and the money goes to the “homeless”. Gag, we are moving in three years and may they rot in their stew


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

IndyDave said:


> I did not suggest that homeless people ARE being arrested for homelessness. I was addressing that this is the only alternative (aside from doing nothing) other than enforcing laws against individual illegal acts.
> 
> We started with the premise that the status quo is not acceptable.
> 
> ...


Generally they are drug addicts


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> Treating it as a housing problem is not helping.


Exactly.
They will trash any place they live.



> IndyDave said: ↑
> I did not suggest that homeless people ARE being arrested for homelessness.


You claimed people here are "supporting" that, and that I in particular have lied about something.

You just keep talking and denying, but still are not showing your proof of those claims.



IndyDave said:


> We could start arresting people for being homeless. I dont advocate it but can see it as the only other alternative to enforcing the existing laws.
> 
> I am not going to reiterate my broader solutions to the problem but I feel it is a workable answer.


You have come closer than anyone else to "supporting" it
I don't know why you think it has to be an "alternative".
Why not simply enforce all the laws there are now?
A huge part of the problem is liberals ignoring the laws.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ydderf said:


> Those of you advocating locking up the homeless need to read some Charles Dickens to see how well work houses/jails worked in the past. Try Oliver Twist first. Or perhaps John Updikes Poorhouse Fair.


Those in the "work houses" were no worse off than they were when living on the streets, and the rest of the world was safe from them while they were there.

No one has said lock up everyone who is "homeless".

It's not hard to figure out which ones need to be locked up somewhere for their own good as well as the good of the public, and which ones just need some temporary help.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You claimed people here are "supporting" that, and that I in particular have lied about something.
> 
> You just keep talking and denying, but still are not showing your proof of those claims.
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm still waiting for you to *show* the quote where anyone supported "arresting the homeless just for being homeless", as you claimed earlier.


We all have to sleep sometime.........




Bearfootfarm said:


> Sleeping on the sidewalks is a crime.





Bearfootfarm said:


> No one other than you has set arbitrary limits on the number of "alternatives"
> 
> No one other than you and PW has suggested arresting anyone *just* "for being homeless".
> She was the first to say it in the thread.
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> They have no right to sleep on the sidewalks downtown.



https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...It-s-not-a-crime-to-sleep-on-the-13204373.php


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> I've seen the discussion on this thread go back and forth like a long tennis match, lol.
> WR, you aren't the only one to say "enforcing existing laws aren't solving the problem", that's for sure.
> But you are one of the few that can handle a serious discussion and give an intelligent answer though.
> So take it as a compliment and recognition that asking someone else the same question, would be a waste of time.
> ...


The ironic thing is that I have not said that enforcing existing laws won't work. 

What nobody seems to understand is that I have indicated and agreed that enforcing existing laws would be great but the crimes committed are primarily petty crimes with no greater implications than a traffic ticket so the problem does not lie with enforcing existing laws but the priority which all police departments handle calls. 

Calls relating to shootings, accidents, burglaries and such are going to have a much higher priority than someone defecating on a wealthy woman's lawn or passed out on a park bench. Even in developing neighburhoods, assaults, assaults with a weapon, robberies, OD's, fights in front of the shelters, liqour store robberies will see a quicker police response, as it should. 

Calling because someone's defecating on your lawn is not going to get a quick response because there's a strong chance that moments after the caller hung up, the offender was heading up the street. Used condoms are a symptom of sex trade workers those ones don't stand on street corners, they service clients for drugs and alcohol or cash and even if they're seen and the call is made, they quickly vanish back onto the street before police arrive. 

It seems to me that the homeless are caught in the middle of a mess. Those that live with the problems want the problems to end and look to the police to fix the problem. If the police fill the court dockets will trivial charges, advocates start shouting that the homeless are being harrassed for no greater crime than being homeless.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> The ironic thing is that I have not said that enforcing existing laws won't work.
> 
> What nobody seems to understand is that I have indicated and agreed that enforcing existing laws would be great but the crimes committed are primarily petty crimes with no greater implications than a traffic ticket so the problem does not lie with enforcing existing laws but the priority which all police departments handle calls.
> 
> ...


I understand what you're saying specifically. When I put everyone's opinion in the same general pot - whether the laws carry light sentences or there aren't enough cops to handle loitering etc. AND major crimes because we'd need a cop ratio of 2 or 3:1, it boils down to "it ain't workin".
Add the fact that jails aren't fully equipped for mental health and addiction treatment, ya get the same conclusion again.

We're never gonna be 100% successful, that's for sure.
But it was refreshing to see a few different ideas that could help make a permanent change instead of bandaids in the ER.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> We all have to sleep sometime.........


I've been waiting for days now.

I've been waiting for years for some other answers.
"Sleep" isn't an excuse in either case.



farmrbrown said:


> https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...It-s-not-a-crime-to-sleep-on-the-13204373.php


From your source:



> Cities can’t make it a crime to sleep on a public street or sidewalk *when no homeless shelters are available*, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a case that could affect so-called “sit/lie” ordinances in San Francisco and elsewhere.





> Advocates for the homeless were joined in the case by the U.S. Justice Department, which filed arguments in the Boise case in 2015 saying laws against sleeping on public property, *when no shelter space was available*, unconstitutionally punished people for being homeless.





> The constitutional ban on “cruel and unusual punishment,” under the Eighth Amendment, prohibits “criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals *who cannot obtain shelter*,” said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. T


There are shelters available, which means they have no *right* to sleep on the sidewalks downtown.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> From your source:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read the source again, including the actual court ruling.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/15-35845.pdf
This one might be easier.
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/09/04/homeless-sleeping-on-streets/

It didn't depend on whether they HAD shelters, it was whether they were full, had length of stay restrictions or religious requirements.

A simple google search will show that makes it difficult for most cities to hit that trifecta to be constitutional.

BTW, the "right" was found to be in the 1st, 5th and 8th amendments.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Read the source again, including the actual court ruling.


I quoted from the source.
It will still say the same thing if I read it again.



farmrbrown said:


> It didn't depend on whether they HAD shelters, it was whether they were full, had length of stay restrictions or religious requirements.


Your source said it mattered if they "had shelters available".
Spin that however you like. 
It won't change what it said.



farmrbrown said:


> This one might be easier.
> https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/09/04/homeless-sleeping-on-streets/





> BOISE, Idaho (AP) – Cities *can’t prosecute* people for sleeping on the streets *if they have nowhere else* *to go* because it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, which is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.


They had "somewhere else to go".

It doesn't say they can't make them move to somewhere else.
It just says they "can't prosecute".



farmrbrown said:


> BTW, the "right" was found to be in the 1st, 5th and 8th amendments


There's no mention there about homeless people having a right to sleep on sidewalks downtown if other places are available.

This was a ruling by a 3 judge panel.
It's only temporary and quite limited.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I quoted from the source.
> It will still say the same thing if I read it again.
> 
> 
> ...



The good part is, it doesn't have to be spun, and it doesn't have to "change what it said."

In fact at the conclusion of the ruling they also mentioned Texas and California laws that rendered all 3 of your statements as false.


Bearfootfarm said:


> Sleeping on the sidewalks is a crime.
> Being intoxicated in public is a crime.
> Doing drugs in public is a crime.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> In fact at the conclusion of the ruling they also mentioned Texas and California laws that rendered all 3 of your statements as false.


That's your interpretation.
I'll stick with the parts I quoted and the actual wording used rather than taking your word for anything.

I can't count on your words being reliable.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's your interpretation.
> I'll stick with the parts I quoted with the actual wording rather than taking your word for it.
> I can't count on it being reliable.


I linked the court ruling, you can read it yourself.
There are 2,000 shelter beds in Seattle and 11,000 homeless.
You can find that info and do the math yourself, no need to take anyone's word for it.
Of course you also have the right to deny the truth, I think the 1st amendment applies to that too.


----------



## TwoBoyMom (Mar 31, 2018)

Mish said:


> I really don't think housing prices are driving any of this. You can move an hour/couple of hours outside of Seattle (or San Francisco, or L.A., or San Diego) and find affordable housing, and jobs, or commute like a lot of people do. Or you could move to another part of the country and have affordable housing, jobs, and little commute time.
> 
> From the homeless I see daily, it's people choosing to be homeless and do drugs. What caused them to do drugs in the first place, be it mental illness or just liking to do drugs, I don't know, but you don't go from being a normal person, housing prices rise and suddenly you turn to drugs and homelessness (or become mentally ill, other than depression it really doesn't work like that, and major/clinical depression is different than situational depression).
> 
> 99% of the homeless I see daily are either fairly young men, or fairly old men. 1% of the time I'll see an older/elderly woman. If it were the "housing crisis" causing the issue, I'd see a lot more young women and children on the street. I can't remember if I ever have, even once, other than in Tijuana. My son lives in San Francisco so I go there quite a bit, haven't seen that there, either.


You are correct! Maybe for the average upwardly mobile type - yes, prices continue to rise. Not like before, but steadily. But for low/no income, Seattle can’t seem to build these beautiful new apartment complex’s fast enough! Nice 2/3 bdrm units w/rent completely decided by income. We have 150 units in that area and have lost quite a few tenants to one of these places down the street and another one is supposed to be finished by September even closer.
We’ve heard lots of talk about how people are getting in...including QUITTING THEIR JOBS so they don’t have to pay any (or just a tiny bit of ) rent! The woman responsible for these and SO MUCH OTHER bad use of of tax funds should be the poster child for how to piss away 100’s of millions of dollars on ill-conceived, not thought through to logical ending, benefiting only self, associates and party, and outright ridiculous projects that are ALL played to PC catchwords/phrases. Everything she does “will benefit: people of color, women, single moms, LBGT/Bi/Trans,
immigrants/Mexican and “disadvantaged”(aka: poor).
She seems to be concerned just for these topics. No others comes up or are focused on.
These housing places have so much money to waste, they paid off three remaining months on the lease of one tenant PLUS about $5800 additionally in unpaid rent and a few late fees!! She stopped paying her rent after she applied to the new place. When they asked her why, she said she just wanted to move. They simply popped a check in the mail for (if I remember correctly) 
Just shy of 15K. And she quit her job.
What...the...hell...just... happened?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> For what duration of time? Remember - they have rights.


"Mandatory Treatment Laws in New York
*Like every state*, New York has civil commitment laws that establish criteria for determining when involuntary treatment is appropriate for individuals with severe mental illness who cannot seek care voluntarily. New York's laws allow for the use of court-ordered treatment in the community, known as assisted outpatient treatment (AOT).

For inpatient treatment, a person must be meet the following criteria:


be a danger to self/others;
have treatment in a hospital deemed essential, and
be unable to understand need for care and treatment.
For outpatient treatment, a person must meet the following criteria:


be unlikely to survive safely in community without supervision;
have a history of noncompliance that includes two hospitalizations in past 36 months, or
act/threaten/attempt violence to self/others in 48 months immediately preceding petition filing;
be unlikely to voluntarily participate, needs in order to prevent relapse or deterioration likely to result in serious harm to self/others, and
be likely to benefit from assisted treatment."

A mentally ill person can be held as long as deemed necessary for them to no longer be a threat to themselves or other. Initially with a 72 hour hold, and legally via three month holds. All legal and approved treatment- medication, therapy, etc. can be court ordered.


----------



## huggintree (Oct 17, 2016)

I don't know a lot about homeless people,but it seems that the majority are drug addicts and they gather in numbers because it's then easier to get drugs. I've seem people openly buying drugs in plain sight. I may be naive, but why not have a concerted effort to arrest the people selling drugs and cut off the supply. At the least, they would move out of your city and maybe a small number would seek help. Seems like just standing by and letting people openly sell drugs is enabling.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

You can't just bus them to the county line. You can give them an incentive or a nudge to move on. I said back in post 67 about a drifter who came though a while back. He liked the foyer to the office/ down stairs and the foyer to the apartments upstairs. He peed and slept there. This went on for three weeks. Not much help from the local authorities . It got dad very upset.

I called my brother one night we laid him down on a nice blanket, put a pillow under his head and a army surplus sleeping over him. The next morning he had crawled out of the dumpster and took the sleeping bag and pillow. Problem here solved...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> The good part is, it doesn't have to be spun, and it doesn't have to "change what it said."
> 
> In fact at the conclusion of the ruling they also mentioned Texas and California laws that rendered all 3 of your statements as false.


It seems counter productive to allow people to do drugs in public places, unless Texax and California are okay with children watching people get high on street corners. 

In Canada, illegal drugs are actually illegal, which thankfully includes using illegal drugs in public places. It's also illegal to be drunk or consuming alcohol in public places as well, which also includes passed out on park benches and patio furniture. 

Do you feel it's really in society's best interest for these things to be happening in front of children and families or substantiating my claim that the law has limited power to resolve the homeless issue?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Of course you also have the right to *deny the truth*


That works for you.
Your first two sources were clear about the wording.



farmrbrown said:


> In fact at the conclusion of the ruling they also mentioned Texas and California laws that rendered all 3 of your statements as false.


Your new claim that the ruling makes public intoxication and drug use legal is simply ridiculous.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

wr said:


> It seems counter productive to allow people to do drugs in public places, unless Texax and California are okay with children watching people get high on street corners.
> 
> In Canada, illegal drugs are actually illegal, which thankfully includes using illegal drugs in public places. It's also illegal to be drunk or consuming alcohol in public places as well, which also includes passed out on park benches and patio furniture.
> 
> Do you feel it's really in society's best interest for these things to be happening in front of children and families or substantiating my claim that the law has limited power to resolve the homeless issue?


Most of that is still illegal here. We're just missing the part where politicians and the legal system want to enforce the existing laws.

That's one of the biggest gripes you'll hear from law enforcement. They're supposed to be enforcing the laws (and most of them seem to want to), but the prosecutors, judges and politicians actively fight against enforcement or simply refuse to prosecute/hand down sentences. Resulting in the revolving door legal system the original video talks about.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> *In Canada, illegal drugs are actually illegal*, which thankfully includes using illegal drugs in public places. *It's also illegal to be drunk or consuming alcohol in public places *as well, which also includes passed out on park benches and patio furniture.


They are still illegal in all states here too, as is public intoxication.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Mish said:


> Most of that is still illegal here. We're just missing the part where politicians and the legal system want to enforce the existing laws.
> 
> That's one of the biggest gripes you'll hear from law enforcement. They're supposed to be enforcing the laws (and most of them seem to want to), but the prosecutors, judges and politicians actively fight against enforcement or simply refuse to prosecute/hand down sentences. Resulting in the revolving door legal system the original video talks about.


Well said. The arguments against enforcing existing laws as an inadequate solution are parallel with arguing that my tractor is broken because I haven't been motivated to go outside and use it (even though it is working just fine).


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> The *arguments against enforcing existing laws as an inadequate solution* are parallel with arguing that my tractor is broken because I haven't been motivated to go outside and use it (even though it is working just fine).


That makes no sense at all.
You're the only one who said any such thing.
No one has argued against enforcing existing laws.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That makes no sense at all.
> You're the only one who said any such thing.
> No one has argued against enforcing existing laws.


As much text as we have had spilled over how enforcement of existing laws can't work you could say somwthing like this? There had been a very clear argument made that it cannot be done.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> As much text as we have had spilled over *how enforcement of existing laws can't work *you could say somwthing like this? There had been a very clear argument made that it cannot be done.


You're still pretending someone other than you said that.
You just keep repeating the same lines, thinking the end result will be different.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Did anyone hear anything in here? I didn't think so. Never mind.


That makes just as much sense as everything else you've said.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> Well said. The arguments against enforcing existing laws as an inadequate solution are parallel with arguing that my tractor is broken because I haven't been motivated to go outside and use it (even though it is working just fine).


I can't grasp your analogy. If one goes by the articles you cite as being fact, then it seems pointless to arrest homeless people for those issues, if the courts will not prosecute. 

I'm my opinion, this is one of those symptoms that I mentioned. If police start arresting, there seems to be advocates that feel the homeless have enough problems and they should be exempt from prosecution. 

The street ministry I have mentioned several times is comprised of very weathy men and women who seem to feel better about feeding and nurturing the homeless right on the street, some even hand out cash donations to help those people 'buy a nice supper.' They even deliver designer clothing and handbags to the homeless. They're also pretty keen to keep those people right where they are because if they happen to migrate less than 1/4 mile south, they will be in their neighbourhood. The land of old money, multi million dollar mansions passed down from one generation to another, swimming pools and tennis courts in their back yards. 

They are also the same advocates for the homeless that advocated that they clean injection site and the new homeless shelter be moved a couple miles from where it was planned (too close to them for comfort) and stand in the way when police start laying charges because they know it won't solve the homeless problem and will do nothing more than causing them to migrate and very likely set up in their back yards, along the river.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

wr said:


> I'm my opinion, this is one of those symptoms that I mentioned. If police start arresting, there seems to be advocates that feel the homeless have enough problems and they should be exempt from prosecution.


I probably missed the point of the main debate between you two on this subject somewhere in here, but...

The quoted part is the main issue, at least where I live. Like the rest of your post I didn't quote, the advocates always seem to be those that have the power to choose to do something, or not, and are also those that deal with the problem the least in their daily lives.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> As much text as we have had spilled over how enforcement of existing laws can't work you could say somwthing like this? There had been a very clear argument made that it cannot be done.


Please explain how it can work? You can't keep people in jail forever and in the best possible scenario, the homeless people will go away but they simply pick a new location. 

The area I worked in, gained the homeless population because the downtown merchants and oil companies wanted the downtown area cleaned up. Police ticketed and arrested, the city cancelled business permits for dive bar, slum hotels, liqour stores specializing in cheap booze, the downtown merchants association hired security guards to keep drunks and drugs out of the parks and within 2 years, the downtown area was free of the homeless population. They had all moved exactly 2 miles south of their original location.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> Please explain how it can work? You can't keep people in jail forever and in the best possible scenario, the homeless people will go away but they simply pick a new location.
> 
> The area I worked in, gained the homeless population because the downtown merchants and oil companies wanted the downtown area cleaned up. Police ticketed and arrested, the city cancelled business permits for dive bar, slum hotels, liqour stores specializing in cheap booze, the downtown merchants association hired security guards to keep drunks and drugs out of the parks and within 2 years, the downtown area was free of the homeless population. They had all moved exactly 2 miles south of their original location.


That is the purpose for establishing a remote location. The incentive is that those who prefer to be homeless can do so out from under everyone else's feet with a strong element of salutary neglect while ratcheting up enforcement in areas where the rest of us live.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> It seems counter productive to allow people to do drugs in public places, unless Texax and California are okay with children watching people get high on street corners.
> 
> In Canada, illegal drugs are actually illegal, which thankfully includes using illegal drugs in public places. It's also illegal to be drunk or consuming alcohol in public places as well, which also includes passed out on park benches and patio furniture.
> 
> Do you feel it's really in society's best interest for these things to be happening in front of children and families or substantiating my claim that the law has limited power to resolve the homeless issue?



Nope.
I have my opinions that are similar to yours. That however is separate from quoting legal rulings and acknowledging they exist. That's the reality that's hard to face, for some.

The Texas and CA rulings were narrow, specific and legally correct. That was explained by the judges and why I suggested reading it.
Public intoxication for a homeless person is a catch 22 that the courts acknowledged. 
The confusion seems to be that every time someone appears intoxicated, that you witnessed the illegal consumption.
If someone is injecting themselves in open view, THAT'S a crime. If they harm property or persons after the fact, they committed a crime based on their intoxicated *behavior, * which is legally enforceable.
But if they are simply observed being intoxicated in public - sleeping, sitting, drooling or whatever - that in itself is NOT a crime, no more than if you were drunk on your on sofa at home. The court reason since they had no home and their "home" was out in public, that unless they committed a criminal behavior that was witnessed or had evidence to prove, they weren't constitutionally subject to arrest.
That's why I said this statement is false and provided the link to the case that supports it. 



> Sleeping on the sidewalks is a crime.
> Being intoxicated in public is a crime.
> Doing drugs in public is a crime.



I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS upheld it as well, but I haven't reviewed the case cited to confirm that. It was at a later date.


Now, that's an unpleasant reality. My *opinion* is that it's a bad thing to expose the public to, especially children.
But it has nothing to do with the facts as they are presently.

And I'll repeat, it DOES substantiate your opinion that the law has limited power to resolve this issue.
We both agree.
That was the reason after several pages, other options were being considered, instead of trying to arrest our way out of it or doing nothing at all.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That works for you.
> Your first two sources were clear about the wording.
> 
> 
> Your new claim that the ruling makes public intoxication and drug use legal is simply ridiculous.


Then why not read the ruling and show me?
The "claim" isn't mine, you'll have to take that up with the courts.
Hint, start at the last few pages.


Page 29 should get you started........
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/15-35845.pdf



> MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 29
> 
> “Even one day in prison would be a cruel and unusual punishment for the ‘crime’ of having a common cold.” Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667 (1962). Cases construing substantive limits as to what the government may criminalize are rare, however, and for good reason — the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause’s third limitation is “one to be applied sparingly.” Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 667.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> "Mandatory Treatment Laws in New York
> *Like every state*, New York has civil commitment laws that establish criteria for determining when involuntary treatment is appropriate for individuals with severe mental illness who cannot seek care voluntarily. New York's laws allow for the use of court-ordered treatment in the community, known as assisted outpatient treatment (AOT).


I hope that this sort of treatment has sufficient oversight and that it flourishes in an honest desire to help those that sincerely need this sort of care. I was unaware of this level of care.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I've cleaned this one up three times but it seems like it's run it's course.


----------

