Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Austin Homeless Free for All Ordinance

rage-a-holic

By rage-a-holic
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TKthunder2
TKthunder2

Do what San Antonio did.  Spend a couple million on a facility in Far East Austin that is equipped to receive the homeless and parter with local charities, church, community colleges and hospitals to

crash_davis
crash_davis

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/austins-homeless-residents-fear-whats-next-once-camping-ban-takes-effect/ Abigail Wilson is among those who just found out about the Prop B ban. She said sh

Red Five
Red Five

I realize hindsight is 20/20, but perhaps building a gigantic homeless shelter in the middle of downtown Austin wasn't the greatest idea ever. 

Posted Images

Samson's Wig

Samson's Wig 3,195

Posted
Posted

The city has already let asshole dog owners and weekend sojourners come in and ruin bull creek, so I guess why not let the homeless finish the job?  As someone who lives right up the hill from there and already deals with the occasional vagrant poking around, this won't end well for anybody.  Police are already down there frequently due to weekend drunks hanging around.  A homeless camp will make things interesting to be sure.  

But why protect a beautiful natural resource when you can use it for political maneuvering?  I honestly don't even know what they're trying to accomplish at this point other than give voters a big middle finger.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pasken

Pasken 1,309

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, LABEVO said:

45 locations. this is out of control. f this city government. 

 

It's a broad list. Some of them won't work and city staff will keep eliminating ones that don't fit the criteria that council put together. I think they want to settle on 10 total locations.  

 

Nothing has been passed here. Council asked about official encampments and that is what city staff is working toward.  They are also looking at community owned property that isn't own by the city that could work.  

 

TLDR: It's really early. 

Edited by Pasken
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasBeta

TexasBeta 1,266

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pasken said:

It's a broad list. Some of them won't work and city staff will keep eliminating ones that don't fit the criteria that council put together. I think they want to settle on 10 total locations.  

 

Nothing has been passed here. Council asked about official encampments and that is what city staff is working toward.  They are also looking at community owned property that isn't own by the city that could work.  

 

TLDR: It's really early. 

May I be so bold as to recommend - College Station.. or Oklahoma City?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pasken

Pasken 1,309

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, TexasBeta said:

May I be so bold as to recommend - College Station.. or Oklahoma City?

Another option is no camps. The city staff was asked about them 2 years ago and they advised council against them. It's just then we send all the homeless out to the woods heading into a very dry year that is going to be good for wild fires. Just cross your fingers.

Edited by Pasken
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
MAUFRAIS

MAUFRAIS 6,642

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 minute ago, Pasken said:

Another option is no camps. The city staff was asked about them 2 years ago and they advised council against them. It's just then we send all the homeless out to the woods heading into a very dry year that is going to be good for wild fires. Just cross your fingers.

you really think one fire could get them all?  i guess it doesn't hurt to try.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11,754

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

I'm convinced that this whole scheme is intentionally designed to fail.  Ridiculous.

No cash to be made in solutions.  Conversely lots of dough to scoop up in woke spaghetti on the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StruggleBus

StruggleBus 3,922

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bschoolprof said:

The list from the kxan story:

AUSTIN (KXAN) — The City of Austin has identified 45 city-owned areas to possibly turn into designated camps for people experiencing homelessness.

The move comes after the reinstatement of Austin’s citywide camping ban, which went back into effect May 11 after voters approved Proposition B in May 1’s election.

Here’s the initial list of the spots being considered:

 

  1. Mary Moore Searight — 907 W. Slaughter Lane

To be fair, Searight has been the proud home to drug addicted losers for decades

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

I like the location that'll be 500 feet from Adler's proposed Convention Center Expansion.  Say what you want about the criminal piece of shit,  you kinda secretly have to cheer for him a bit because his plans are so batshit fucking crazy and fraudulent, that they just might work, captain! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14,381

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pasken said:

Another option is no camps. The city staff was asked about them 2 years ago and they advised council against them. It's just then we send all the homeless out to the woods heading into a very dry year that is going to be good for wild fires. Just cross your fingers.

I'd take my chances with this. The Karens can help spot them and call police.  or we could send them all on buses to the hinterlands and then those that come back we can deal with, with a new policy in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20,676

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I guess the city council’s grand plan to get everyone in the city to hate the homeless is going quite well. They should just put Barton Springs on the list too. Is the children’s museum still there? That would work too.

Hell, why not the south mall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
utee94

utee94 15,869

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, mchookem said:

lmao that list reads like a temper tantrum...'so y'all wanna reinstate the camping ban, huh?? fine then! we're gonna put a camp here! and here! and here! and here! how you like them apples??'

good grief 🙄

Exactly.  It's puerile and reactionary.  Which is exactly what you'd expect from this council. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14,381

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Chet Steadman said:

My favorite part of this list of nearly fifty potential sites, is that the city has left open the possibility that the final determining site, may not in fact, be included on this list.

I guess the next list will include elementary schools and retirement homes.

maybe banks.  nobody goes to a bank anymore anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bevo

Bevo 13,602

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Lobo said:

I like the location that'll be 500 feet from Adler's proposed Convention Center Expansion.  Say what you want about the criminal piece of shit,  you kinda secretly have to cheer for him a bit because his plans are so batshit fucking crazy and fraudulent, that they just might work, captain! 

Look at this article: https://www.fourpointsnews.com/2021/02/02/new-homeless-hotel-to-be-near-rm-620-lakeline-mall/?doing_wp_cron=1621376929.4826409816741943359375

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/texas-senator-joins-debate-about-converting-hotel-into-homeless-shelter

 

and let me know if this is where Adler wants to have one of his homeless camps.

Edited by Bevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pasken

Pasken 1,309

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Exactly.  It's puerile and reactionary.  Which is exactly what you'd expect from this council. 

Again, council didn't put together list and it seemed like most of them hated it. They directed city staff to come up with list. City staff first identified city land that wasn't in a flood zone. There are still council criteria that this list has not been checked against. They also haven't reached out to private groups that might be willing to partner.  

 

Does Cronk want this to fail? Probably but I'm not sure it's possible to find these perfect spots in the city that aren't going to cause a big stir. City staff still seem very concerned that they won't be able to close these down after they are opened. Still, seemed like Cronk should have said they needed more time to present a list that matches up with council's directives. I mean it's a stupid task anyway. This isn't a good idea but I guess you need to look into it first. Still, Cronk and Staff really made a mess of the item. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

maybe banks.  nobody goes to a bank anymore anyway.

That's not a bad idea.  I see so many pad sites/encaps/bottom floor of CBD high-rise with a bank branch and all I think is Rodney in Caddyshack, "I tell ya', banks these days, biggest wastes of prime real estate.  Ask Wang, he'll tell ya!"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bschoolprof

bschoolprof 6,273

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Deej said:

Flood zones seem like the perfect spots. 

Now just wait a goddamn minute sir. Letting homeless dudes set shit on fire and trash public places is one thing, but threatening the watershed is something that Austin progressives simply can't abide.  It's a non starter.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 76,981

Posted
Posted

We've been letting their shit flow into the watershed for the past two years. Why stop now?

The last bass I caught on Town Lake started going through heroin withdrawal when I pulled it out of the water.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

You caught Iggy as well?  Hard to tell if he was smallmouth or largemouth, fucking guy's teeth were clenched together so tight.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

I don't work for the City, but I can tell you that on some issues, Cronk deserves way more blame, and other issues---he's been a fall guy who was not quite aware of the corruption and criminal activity present in our City Hall leadership.  As is probably the case with most City Managers in places of our size (and massive budget). 

Guy's been here 40 months, and for the first 20 months the only thing I ever heard about him was that he was gay.  And I thought, "great, happy for you and your partner.  What's say you get to fucking work though on this bond oversight shit I sent over to your office a fucking year ago." (Spoiler alert-one of the agencies has downgraded our credit rating because of Cronk's ineptitude and another is about to do the same after this current round of bond sales finishes this month).  For the last 20 months he's been playing catchup on everything from homelessness, to mobility, to a disaster Water Dept., to audit pressures, to dozens of ballot proposals meant to actually improve our city that he finds ways to fuck up. 

To Spencer's credit, there's absolutely no whispers of him being in on any of the grift that Adler and Casar and a few others are spearheading.  He simply gets stuck implementing most of their dumb shit.  A most recently telling example is two weeks before the election on the camping plan, Adler finally reveals his comprehensive plan to deal with homelessness after six years in office.  Who helped him throw it together like me finishing a book report on the bus in 9th grade?  Cronk.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TKthunder2

TKthunder2 4,999

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, immamac said:

Do we need a CR version of this thread? 

Why?  This isn’t a GOP vs Dems issue other than lump they are all Dem leaning and half of them are reasonable.  This is simply a local city issue that we are all having to deal with on a daily basis.  If there was republican mayor candidate sniping at everyone with some of the posters chanting GOP at anyone posting in this thread then go ahead, but at this point quotes like “my liberalness goes down each time I have to pick up human shit on my front lawn” isn’t exactly a divisive topic.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macklemore

Macklemore 2,876

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

It is CR. Bipartisan or not.

 

Page fucking one cites Denver,Portland, and away we go. At TOS this was CR fodder.

This is a good thread because it’s not parked in the CR cesspool and with just the echo chamber denizens chiming in. Local issue threads have always been in Daily Texan.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jester

Jester 382

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

It is CR. Bipartisan or not.

 

Page fucking one cites Denver,Portland, and away we go. At TOS this was CR fodder.

Fuck that.  The city council of Austin has finally united the sides.  It's the only thing they have done right.  Let's have this fight out in the open...the Daily got damn Texan.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...