Fitlump fucking won a Austin City Council seat, Now on to Congress 2026!

[dcar00 14355]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

If you buy a home near a motel, you're probably already used to that kind of shit happening. We're talking about old, beat to shit antequated motels, right?

I'm not advocating that they let those hotels look like the sidewalk in front of the ARCH, and I don't think that's the intention. These people have to go somewhere, and having them in motels is better than the greenbelt or even worse, where they are today. 

The point of my post is that they have to go somewhere, and if every NIMBY gets to veto them being within two miles of their house, then we're going to end up right back to where we are today with them camping. With the added bonus of our taxpayers sending them through the cycle of the justice system over and over.

they aren't talking old beat to shit antiquated hotels.  and of course that isn't the "intention" but it is what will happen.  Its predictable, just like the no camping ban shitshow we have now was predictable.  when the predictable happens, they will say they need more money.  Its what happens when you put govt in charge of ANYTHING.

the city council is full of feel good dumbasses who know shitall about what they are doing.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

they aren't talking old beat to shit antiquated hotels.  and of course that isn't the "intention" but it is what will happen.  Its predictable, just like the no camping ban shitshow we have now was predictable.  when the predictable happens, they will say they need more money.  Its what happens when you put govt in charge of ANYTHING.

the city council is full of feel good dumbasses who know shitall about what they are doing.

 

Where would you put them?

[TexasEd 8077]

I love how the Fitlump thread morphed into the Homeless free for all thread since she lives with her parents and all.

 

As far as the numbers in Austin, I'd ask Alan Graham.  He would likely have a better number than anyone else.

[dcar00 14355]

4 minutes ago, B00M said:

The Texas Bungalows were finished in 2017 if I recall

yeah, I'm sure it is old and beat to shit.  if not, it will be in about 2 years.  this city council is insane.

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Where would you put them?

...

[dcar00 14355]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

 

Where would you put them?

I'd tell the city council to buy fema trailers and cordon off a portion of zilker park.  Or find some land farther out where they can be efficiently diagnosed as to whether they are mentally ill and truly helpless or they are the contingent that just doesn't give a shit or on drugs.  I'd send those folks on their way.

we should put some up in the W and a few other nice hotels downtown as well.  Maybe rent at least one floor.

And I would reinstate the camping ban and start enforcing the shit out of it to disincentivize the activity as much as possible.

[dcar00 14355]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

...

.....

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, dcar00 said:

I'd tell the city council to buy fema trailers and cordon off a portion of zilker park. 

This is literally the stupidest idea on the entire thread. You should be banned from ever commenting again on governance at any level just for saying this.

[BradInATX 9208]

"Austin government is so stupid. They want to put them in hotels where they can be monitored and have access to shared services? What an idiotic idea. Everyone knows we should just put them in FEMA trailers in Zilker Park!"

Holy shit.

[dcar00 14355]

Just now, BradInATX said:

This is literally the stupidest idea on the entire thread. You should be banned from ever commenting again on governance at any level just for saying this.

right because those folks downtown would go insane.  what's your big plan?  let me guess, keep the no camping ban.

[dcar00 14355]

Just now, BradInATX said:

"Austin government is so stupid. They want to put them in hotels where they can be monitored and have access to shared services? What an idiotic idea. Everyone knows we should just put them in FEMA trailers in Zilker Park!"

Holy shit.

holy shit. you really think they are going to be monitored in 10 hotels around Austin?  you live in fucking fantasyland.  

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, dcar00 said:

right because those folks downtown would go insane.  what's your big plan?  let me guess, keep the no camping ban.

I don't have a plan. You haven't seen me on this thread criticizing the city about their long-term housing plans for the homeless because I'm smart enough to know what I don't know. I'm not even saying that the city's plan is great. I'm mostly just reading and absorbing the information. And making fun of Austin for some of the stupid shit they do is always a fun sport, but the "everything Austin does is stupid even though I have no better ideas" schtick is pretty terrible.

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

holy shit. you really think they are going to be monitored in 10 hotels around Austin?  you live in fucking fantasyland.  

Of course they will. Are you unfamiliar with how these type of places work? They already exist. There are already apartments and fourplexes and old motels doing the exact same thing these hotels will be used for. They have social workers assigned to them, and typically nonprofits partner with each facility and provide staffing as well. 

You really should try to actually inform yourself about issues before you dive head first into them.

Maybe @Bozo_Casanova or @Pasken can chime in with more specifics. 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by BradInATX

[B00M 6463]

21 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Where would you put them?

If hotels are the only choice, 183 & I-35 because the area already sucks, with a huge homeless population, and there are lots of hotels to choose from. 

 

[B00M 6463]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Of course they will. Are you unfamiliar with how these type of places work? They already exist. There are already apartments and fourplexes and old motels doing the exact same thing these hotels will be used for. They have social workers assigned to them, and typically nonprofits partner with each facility and provide staffing as well. 

You really should try to actually inform yourself about issues before you dive head first into them.

Maybe @Bozo_Casanova or @Pasken can chime in with more specifics. 

 

Bozo straight up said it totally depends on which people manage the hotel. 

Why don't you share what you've read that's so confidence inspiring.

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, B00M said:

Bozo straight up said it totally depends on which people manage the hotel. 

Why don't you share what you've read that's so confidence inspiring.

I have a family member that was homeless for a few years due to addiction. He stayed in a ton of these places. You'd be surprised where they are. For all you know they're a half mile down the road from you already. He's a year away from his Masters Degree currently.

This isn't even some new thing. It's just an opportunity for people to cry and vent political frustration.

 

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that letting them camp wherever they wanted was an unbelievably stupid decision. I'm not at all a white knight for COA. But the homeless issue seems to bring low-information opinions out like flies to a light.

Edited January 31, 2021 by BradInATX

[Judge Roybeanbag 11820]

8 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

But the homeless issue seems to bring low-information opinions out like flies to a light.

Wow, a light just came on.  Yes, this is why a cam whore got elected.  Because people are OUTRAGED!  They’d elect Pol Pot if he would just get that sonuvabitch with the tent and a dog out from under the overpass and just stick him, well, anywhere but here.  BTW have you heard what Cuomo did with nursing homes?  I’ll be damned if I ever vote for that murdering bastard again, he’s totally inhumane!

Edited January 31, 2021 by Judge Roybeanbag

[BradInATX 9208]

BTW @B00M, my understanding is that this hotel rollout also comes with a repeal of the camping thing. I'd assume the point of the distributed model of hotels all over town (instead of just throwing them in the hood like you talked about) is to get people off of the street in certain areas and into the homes. Doesn't moving 70 homeless from various underpasses and street corners into one location where they can be monitored and have an increased police presence serve the greater good?

I get the argument of not wanting them nextdoor to your house. But, and this is a very overly simplistic hypothetical, doesn't it make more sense to move 70 homeless from 20 street corners in district X into one hotel in district X? I don't see the negative, except for maybe the one house that's nextdoor to the hotel. They sort of get hosed on the scales of greater good, but someone always does. 

Edited January 31, 2021 by BradInATX

[B00M 6463]

It seems clear that Austin will become the southern epicenter for homeless and only Terry town will be left unaffected so it's a good time to sell.

[atomheartbevo 89787]

1 hour ago, Dutchrudder said:

I can't believe the headline of this thread... Is this a joke??? Wtf?

She's gettin' covered in all the major newspapers!

 

[atomheartbevo 89787]

 

[B00M 6463]

The lump is angry

[Johnny Chimpo 479]

Yea that lump is turning into a full on mound 

[Willfully Horn 8049]

5 hours ago, BradInATX said:

I have a family member that was homeless for a few years due to addiction. He stayed in a ton of these places. You'd be surprised where they are. For all you know they're a half mile down the road from you already. He's a year away from his Masters Degree currently.

Thanks for your post. 
 

Seems like it would be valuable to this discussion to mention that there are also families out on the street. 
 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Willfully Horn
free lisbeth

[Armybrat 40893]

8 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Of course they will. Are you unfamiliar with how these type of places work? They already exist. There are already apartments and fourplexes and old motels doing the exact same thing these hotels will be used for. They have social workers assigned to them, and typically nonprofits partner with each facility and provide staffing as well. 

You really should try to actually inform yourself about issues before you dive head first into them.

Maybe @Bozo_Casanova or @Pasken can chime in with more specifics. 

 

We have a halfway house in our neighborhood, so we know how the”safety” and  “monitoring” assurances from the enabling authority can be a big scam.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Armybrat

[Armybrat 40893]

Up until the 1960s there were no homeless crazies on the streets In Austin... they were forcibly committed to the state mental institutions.
Of course the psychiatrist associations & civil liberty crowd reversed all that (starting in California) when they persuaded the politicians those people could be treated & controlled with the new “wonder” drugs. Seeing the opportunity to save millions, said gullible politicians were only too glad to empty out the mental institutions over the next two decades.

Plus the ACLU made sure the run of the mill obnoxious nuts couldn’t be forcibly committed, and vagrancy laws were struck down in a wholesale manner... which enabled the petty criminals and lazy bums to roam the cities and harass the citizenry.

So, here we are.

At least the State of Texas is in the process of modernizing & expanding some of its mental health facilities as a good start to help with that part of the problem:

https://hhs.texas.gov/about-hhs/process-improvement/improving-services-texans/changes-state-hospital-system

[Anastasis 23482]

8 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

lol. Matting game weak. 

[Deej 76903]

9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

She needs to double mask, and by that I mean she needs a second mask to cover the top half of her face. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26533]

13 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:

Yeah, understand that. My observation is that we’re seeing a rising influx of untreated mentally ill homeless people, grifters, and gangs due to decriminalization of camping and homelessness.

I get what you are saying, but the key word here is observation. I’ persuadable, but I have yet to see data that indicates a “rising” problem or an influx of anything. Rather, the existing problems of untreated mentally ill homeless people etc. have become much more observable due to the decriminalization of homelessness. 
 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[Armybrat 40893]

Well, being unstable & addicted doesn’t necessarily mean a person is mentally ill. Look at this place. 🤪

[TexasEd 8077]

2 hours ago, Deej said:

She needs to double mask, and by that I mean she needs a second mask to cover the top half of her face. 

Like the Walker County Lone Ranger?

 

[jimmyjazz 46118]

On 1/28/2021 at 5:19 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

By the way - Dallas has fewer for its size, but Austin's population is smaller,  fewer than 3000.

Looks to me like ratio is about the same, no?

[jimmyjazz 46118]

13 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Yep. Friend and I got jumped by about six dudes right in front of that station walking to our car from sixth street one night sometime in the 2000s. I got popped in the face a couple times and got one or two good shots in on somebody, and my buddy got knocked around pretty good. Cop sitting in his car 50 yards away pointed right at the gas station said he didn't see it and we couldn't prove anything so no reason for him to do anything. 

Still remember the protection scam if you'd park under the bridge there. Bums asking for $5 or $10 to "watch your car" AKA not mess with it. 

That two block area has always been a shit show.

Now imagine playing gigs in that stretch of Red River between 6th and 11th, loading and unloading gear.  It required some fairly serious strategic planning among band members, particularly if one or more were female.

[Brisketexan 105311]

This thread is better when it just makes fun of the psycho who won a council seat.

When it turns to the topic of homeless people, it’s just the good old “talk past each other, but nobody is willing to accept the hard solutions” that we always see.

The homeless population is made up almost entirely of three demographics:
Mentally ill
Addicts
Temporarily displaced by circumstance (economic, abuse, etc)

Until we have a real and robust apparatus to deal with the first two demographics, nothing meaningful will change. And no, “make it unpleasant so they go somewhere else” isn’t a plan. Neither is “just let them do what they want wherever they want.”

A robust and fair legal apparatus for treating mental illness and addiction is the only actual SOLUTION.

And that is a much bigger task than any local jurisdiction can handle. All any city can do right now is rearrange deck chairs.

[Brisketexan 105311]

Dp

[Brisketexan 105311]

Tp

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Was half-listening to Reveal on the radio yesterday and LA is on the verge of trying out a program that recognizes that while transition to independent living is the goal, it cannot be realized in all cases, and cities need to be prepared and able to house some of these people for life. These are the jail "frequent flyers" as exemplified by our recidivist thread here. The theory is that if they were not homeless they would commit fewer or maybe even no petty crimes, and you'd save money (this guy claimed $40k/yr) versus jailing (claimed $200k). While I think both those figures are out of whack, I do believe it would be a net benefit to cities cost-wise. 

[Brisketexan 105311]

Was half-listening to Reveal on the radio yesterday and LA is on the verge of trying out a program that recognizes that while transition to independent living is the goal, it cannot be realized in all cases, and cities need to be prepared and able to house some of these people for life. These are the jail "frequent flyers" as exemplified by our recidivist thread here. The theory is that if they were not homeless they would commit fewer or maybe even no petty crimes, and you'd save money (this guy claimed $40k/yr) versus jailing (claimed $200k). While I think both those figures are out of whack, I do believe it would be a net benefit to cities cost-wise. 

Correct.

Andy the Addict is going to be arrested over, and over, and over (see the recidivist thread). He is going to cost us a fortune from a law enforcement, legal system, and prison perspective. We are going to spend money putting Andy SOMEWHERE. We might as well choose the most cost-effective and humane option. Added bonus: it takes Andy off the street so he can’t to harm to other people or property.

There is no Pollyanna solution of getting every Andy back on the straight and narrow and back to his family: the nature of addiction says otherwise. So, once we acknowledge that reality, we can start to deal with it realistically and effectively.

[Armybrat 40893]

Dp.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Armybrat

[Armybrat 40893]

30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This thread is better when it just makes fun of the psycho who won a council seat.

When it turns to the topic of homeless people, it’s just the good old “talk past each other, but nobody is willing to accept the hard solutions” that we always see.

The homeless population is made up almost entirely of three demographics:
Mentally ill
Addicts
Temporarily displaced by circumstance (economic, abuse, etc)

Until we have a real and robust apparatus to deal with the first two demographics, nothing meaningful will change. And no, “make it unpleasant so they go somewhere else” isn’t a plan. Neither is “just let them do what they want wherever they want.”

A robust and fair legal apparatus for treating mental illness and addiction is the only actual SOLUTION.

And that is a much bigger task than any local jurisdiction can handle. All any city can do right now is rearrange deck chairs.

Well, Adler & Co. just rearranged them a la Titanic.

[Brisketexan 105311]

Well, Adler & Co. just rearranged them a la Titanic.

No doubt. Not a fan of where we are.

The problem is, none of the critics have offered any real, substantive solutions. And I don’t necessarily fault the critics. The point is that there really can’t be any major solution at just the local level.

It’s as if you’ve got two “sides” arguing about whether the best method to attack a forest fire is with buckets of water or lining up a buncha dudes to piss on it. Neither one will do a damned thing. You need a larger effort of fire lines, airdrops of massive quantities of water, etc. And local governments just don’t have the resources or even the power to do that.

[Armybrat 40893]

As I posted earlier, the State is moving in the right direction with its initial steps putting hundreds of millions in the State Hospital (formerly known as the Lunatic Asylum) and other mental health facilities.

Also most everyone here has proposed ad nauseam, the State should dump the failed War on Drugs and redirect some of those financial resources towards drug rehab etc. Fat chance the current State leadership is doing that anytime soon.

Those homeless who qualify but refuse to avail themselves of those services/help should be involuntarily committed. Of course that would require changes in current laws and “approval” by an enlightened court system.

The ones who are unfortunately homeless due to drastic and/or tragic economic circumstances should be given direct financial help & emergency housing, then job training & placement services.... with families at the top of the list.

The large percentage who are just mean drunks, lazy assholes, & criminals who don’t straighten up should be run out of town or put on “chain gangs” for community service. (I know - Like that will never happen)

All the above have been proposed by many of us ever since Adler & Co. trashed the city.

[Brisketexan 105311]

1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

As I posted earlier, the State is moving in the right direction with its initial steps putting hundreds of millions in the State Hospital (formerly known as the Lunatic Asylum) and other mental health facilities.

Also most everyone here has proposed ad nauseam, the State should dump the failed War on Drugs and redirect some of those financial resources towards drug rehab etc. Fat chance the current State leadership is doing that anytime soon.

Those homeless who qualify but refuse to avail themselves of those services/help should be involuntarily committed. Of course that would require changes in current laws and “approval” by an enlightened court system.

The ones who are unfortunately homeless due to drastic and/or tragic economic circumstances should be given direct financial help & emergency housing, then job training & placement services.... with families at the top of the list.

The large percentage who are just mean drunks, lazy assholes, & criminals who don’t straighten up should be run out of town or put on “chain gangs” for community service. (I know - Like that will never happen)

All the above have been proposed by many of us ever since Adler & Co. trashed the city.

I'm not far off from you (well, except the "chain gangs" thing -- sorry, Sheriff Joe -- but I'm fine with criminals facing criminal consequences).

But what's telling is to look at that list....and realize how few things on there are even remotely in the control of local governments.  It's pretty much "make available resources and tools to help people who are temporarily down on their luck" and "arrest people who commit criminal acts."  That's it.  The mental health and drug issues are all largely beyond the powers and abilities of local governments.

1 -- build a robust mental health apparatus.

2 -- legal reform providing for commitment, with real guardrails and safeguards to protect against the very real abuses that led to sharply curtailing mental health homes etc back in the day.

3-- end the motherfucking war on drugs and put those resources into rehab and even long-term care for chronic addicts.  Andy Addict who lives on the streets -- and there actually aren't that many of him -- either needs to be in treatment, or somewhere where he can't hurt himself or others.  That may be some sort of "addict prison" -- in other words, still being kept in state custody for crimes that go with addiction (theft, violence against others, etc.), but not a prison for ordinary violent offenders and whatnot.  Treatment/rehab should be part of that, but we also need to accept that there are certain addicts who will not ever shake the addiction.  So we need a plan for what to do with them.

Do those, and what we're left with is almost entirely people in a transitory homeless state -- bad finances, fleeing abuse, what have you.  They can be helped, and services can provide a bridge to more security.

No comprehensive solutions will come any time soon.

So, we'll fight about whether junkies should sleep where we can see them, or someplace where we don't see them as much.

[Armybrat 40893]

If Austin can afford $100,000 per homeless person, then it sure as heck can afford to kick in its fair share to supplement the State’s efforts.

And yes, put whatever facilities/housing/treatment venues on the far east side away from any established neighborhoods & schools. Nobody wants them crowding their back yard.
As far as the homeless being offended by that, I don’t give a shit because they don’t care who they offend with their garbage and crazy behavior in full front & center view in public places.

[Armybrat 40893]

Just now, Armybrat said:

If Austin can afford $100,000 plus annual maintenance per homeless person to put them in a decent hotel, then it sure as heck can afford to kick in its fair share to supplement the State’s efforts.

And yes, put whatever facilities/housing/treatment venues on the far east side away from any established neighborhoods & schools. Nobody wants them crowding their back yard.
As far as the homeless being offended by that, I don’t give a shit because they don’t care who they offend with their garbage and crazy behavior in full front & center view in public places.

 

[LonghornSean 4022]

Hi fitlump

 

 

[Wally Pryor 5262]

On 1/29/2021 at 2:11 PM, bolverk said:

I get that sounds like a lot of money, and it IS. But, bear with me here, property is really fucking expensive in Austin.

So, let's do the maths on this amount. It comes out to a one-time cost of a little more than $100,000 per room to house the homeless. How many potential occupants will live in each room over how much time? What's the turnover? I honestly don't know.

Can they get someone off the street, into a room for six months, set them on a path for recovery, and back into society in that time? Again, I honestly don't know.

What's the expected useful life of the hotel? How many folks will it help out over the years? Again and again, I don't know.

What I do know is that the federal government spent about $36,000 per year to house its inmates in 2017, but I don't know what the costs are for Travis County inmates.

Seen in that light and compared to other potential unpaid expenses at ERs for overdoses/accidents and visits to the county lockup, that $6.7 million might actually not be that terrible IF the folks living temporarily in these hotels get the counseling/social services they need to become contributing members of society again.

I'm no expert on policies geared toward helping the homeless, but it sort of makes sense to get them sheltered first and then provide services like Maslow's hierarchy of needs would suggest.

 

"I don't know" seems to permeate your post.   That's okay.   Get in line. 

The city council doesn't have a plan on how this hotel deal is supposed to work and thus the taxpayers don't either.   We've been given no specific idea of the all-in costs involved including renovation expenses, food, and security, what the goals are, turnover forecasts, projections for ins vs. out of the housing, treatment plans, transitional expectations, projected hotel / housing needs for the next 3-5 years and those associated costs, metrics for success / how they will being measured with this type housing.  And on and on. 

After paying 3X of FMV for these hotels and doling out kickbacks to the council, maybe the city of Austin has things nailed and this is the model for handling the homeless issue.  Great.  Then explain the plan so we can understand it.  As of today, you've not explained anything  - #s, goals, forecasts and everything else that a $65MM / year spend should entail, especially one this sensitive and impactful.  As is, there appears to be just (more) maniacal idiocy of throwing shit on the wall and hoping that it sticks.  That works for some and probably for a few of you on this thread.  But it also means you place zero value on accountability and fiscal responsibility and thus you're part of the problem as well. 

No one is discounting how big the homeless problem is. But the city's handling of the issue (no stated plans, no goals, no nothing) is almost as big as the problem itself.  It sure as hell is no way to try and sell it to the people paying for it.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26533]

2 hours ago, Armybrat said:

If Austin can afford $100,000 per homeless person, then it sure as heck can afford to kick in its fair share to supplement the State’s efforts.

And yes, put whatever facilities/housing/treatment venues on the far east side away from any established neighborhoods & schools. Nobody wants them crowding their back yard.
As far as the homeless being offended by that, I don’t give a shit because they don’t care who they offend with their garbage and crazy behavior in full front & center view in public places.

Contrary to what you might think, well managed communities have fewer issues  in or adjacent to neighborhoods and residential areas than when they are isolated. 
Take Community First Village, for example. Right next to an “established* neighborhood”. No issues. Plenty of examples. 

Also, human beings in crisis aren’t ignoring your feelings, but continue to pretend that their lives are ruled by rational choices if you want.
 

 

 

*unless by “established” you meant “all white”. The neighborhood Community First Village is next to is a diverse, middle-class subdivision.

[Armybrat 40893]

By “established” I mean a sfh residential neighborhood with schools, not commercial areas. 
my neighborhood is probably as diverse as any with AA , white, Latinx, Asian, South Asian. same sex, and even some New Yorkers. The California family next door moved.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Armybrat

[Bozo_Casanova 26533]

24 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

By “established” I mean a sfh residential neighborhood with schools, not commercial areas. 
my neighborhood is probably as diverse as any with AA , white, Latinx, Asian, South Asian. same sex, and even some New Yorkers. The California family next door moved.

That’s what I meant too. Thats where they put Community First and it’s exactly where you want to rehouse people if you want it to work.