Austin Homeless Free for All Ordinance

[cactusflinthead 27,613]

35 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

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.

You mean the same ones that were in TOS?

Rocko? Swam?

 

[TKthunder2 5,015]

6 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

You mean the same ones that were in TOS?

Rocko? Swam?

A quick look at your posting history shows 9 of your last 15 posts were in the CR where I’m assuming you acquired most of that tainted rep.

[ChickenSandwich 9,856]

3 hours ago, Pasken said:

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. 

There is plenty of space next to the airport. Nice flat land. Cheap too. Show all who visit where our priorities are. 
 

any soon to be shuttered public schools would be an obvious second choice. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by ChickenSandwich

[mchookem 16,494]

and fuck off all of y'all babies bitching about CR. that's what will make this have to be moved 🙄

[cactusflinthead 27,613]

4 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

A quick look at your posting history shows 9 of your last 15 posts were in the CR where I’m assuming you acquired most of that tainted rep.

Incorrect. Most of my rep is from elsewhere. My last posts might be from there, but in the last week or so most rep has been somewhere else.

 

Come on by the landscaping thread. Maybe you can come by the mental health thread too. Or bevoette and jade's cavalcade of critters.

Been in all of those too

[Texas Jeff 1,969]

3 hours ago, Pasken said:

City staff still seem very concerned that they won't be able to close these down after they are opened.

They should be.

The homeless folks are going from camping on a sidewalk to a spot with a full time manager, two security guards, a social worker, food, laundry, restrooms, showers ...
... versus living in a tent down by the river in most other Texas towns.

The city will be able to fill up 100 of those campsites.

[dcar00 14,551]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

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.  

yeah, Cronk is probably just in over his head.  but dealing with idiots can make everything more difficult and time consuming

[dcar00 14,551]

1 minute ago, Texas Jeff said:

They should be.

The homeless folks are going from camping on a sidewalk to a spot with a full time manager, two security guards, a social worker, food, laundry, restrooms, showers ...
... versus living in a tent down by the river in most other Texas towns.

The city will be able to fill up 100 of those campsites.

agreed.  it has to be difficult to be homeless.  the drug withdrawal(and limitations on panhandling) part of it will be the only reason they don't want to go to these places.  its gonna be like Sandals for these folks.

[SKA the boss 729]

How is spending more of our money to create “legalized” camping zones in places no one is going to want one going to help anyone escape homelessness?
Does the plan include making panhandling illegal with a massive public PR promotion to the public expressing how handouts only harm? And we’re creating real resources to help individuals who want to renter society and beat addiction and contribute? Because that would be a first step.

Surely there’s some graft money to make that work.

[We’reTexas 1,473]

2 hours ago, dcar00 said:

agreed.  it has to be difficult to be homeless.  the drug withdrawal(and limitations on panhandling) part of it will be the only reason they don't want to go to these places.  its gonna be like Sandals for these folks.

What if I were to tell you that providing homeless people with high quality, unconditional shelter actually makes them amenable to seeking treatment, all the while decreasing a city’s cost per homeless (especially chronic homeless) and with the vast majority moving through the system paying for their own housing to some extent? Because that’s exactly what Houston did, decreasing unsheltered homelessness by over 50% and chronic homelessness by over 70% since 2011. 
 

Housing First and similar initiatives, the current favored school of thought for attacking homelessness, do not provide a universal solution. It has not proved to be in feasible in California. Maybe it would not be in Austin. But at the very least, an evidence-based approach to reducing homelessness is what we should aspire to. “Homelessness should be hard” or “Why bother helping those who don’t want help” are useless statements from a policy standpoint and frankly belie an understanding of the basics of homelessness: the vast majority (75-85%) get out within a year, because being homeless is awful. The rest, chronic homeless, are generally beset with mental illness or addiction. And homelessness is caused by housing prices.
 

That small group is our focus. If the tent camps get them out of sight and out of mind while costing the city less money in the long run, why do you care? The issue, of course, is whether the plan will work - that’s the conversation. I don’t know. I think it’s a national issue. But the moralism is largely pointless and muddies this debate. 

[Wally Pryor 5,285]

Cronk probably checked out when the AK-47-bearing protesters started showing up in front of his house last summer.    I'm very surprised he's still the City Manager - either having been fired by the council or leaving on his own.   Guessing the latter happens in the near future.   Can't imagine anyone leaving such a wonderful work environment, but yeah. 

[BurntOrange&White 40,224]

17 hours 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. Walter E. Long 11455 Decker Lake Road
2. John Trevino 9501 FM 969
3. Walnut Creek Sports Park — 7800 Johnny Morris Road
4. Given Recreation Center — 3811 E. 12th Street
5. Fleet Service Yard — 8401 Johnny Morris Road
6. Colony Park land
7. 3511 Manor Road
8. Tannehill Lane
9. Onion Creek Metro North
10. 7720 ½ Kellam Road
11. 5400 E. William Cannon, Decommissioned WWTP
12. FM 812 at FM 973
13. Eco-Park at FM 973
14. W. Slaughter Lane and 8908-8916-9006 Cullen Road
15. Parque Zaragoza Recreation Center — 2609 Gonzales Street
16. South Austin Recreation Center — 1100 Cumberland Road
17. Roy G. Guerrero — 400 Grove Boulevard
18. 6700 Bolm Road District Park
19. Edward Rendon Dellgado Pavilion
20. 4800 – 4906 Bolm Road
21. Levander Loop
22. 1311 Tillery Street
23. Gus Garcia — 1201 East Rundberg Lane
24. 7211 North I-35
25. 7309 North I-35
26. Mary Moore Searight — 907 W. Slaughter Lane
27. Lakeline Neighborhood Park
28. 12101 Anderson Mill Road
29. 10900 FM 2222 (WWT)
30. Commons Ford Park — 614 North Commons Ford Road
31. Walnut Creek/Havens
32. Northwest Recreation Center
33. Sir Swante Palm Neighborhood Park — East Third Street
34. Duncan Park — 900 West Ninth Street
35. San Beach on Cesar Chavez
36. Patterson Park — 4200 Brookview Road
37. Bull Creek Park — Lakewood Drive
38. Ryan Drive Warehouse
39. Circle C
40. Dick Nichols — 8011 Beckett Road
41. 11800 FM 1826
42. 9513 Circle Drive
43. 4905 Convict Hill Road
44. Norwood Tract
45. Austin Recreation Center

I've identified one place that is ideal, NO WHERE!

[BurntOrange&White 40,224]

17 hours ago, blacklab said:

Last year: "We are never going to allow camping in parks"

This year: "Let's open up all the parks to camping!"

I'd be fucking livid if I was a resident of Austin. Your tax dollars went into these parks so you can enjoy them with your family but with these homeless camps being propositioned there you can't even take your family there and you'll be taxed again.

[Sandman 3,420]

I went to a home & garden show in Oklahoma City over the weekend and there was a booth from what I assume was the Texas tourism board. I find this whole topic interesting, so I asked this very nice middle-aged woman about the camping ban and her face just sank. She said she lives just outside of Austin but she frequently has to go to the capitol for work stuff and it's no longer a fun trip. Pretty much echoed many of the sentiments posted here. 

[Armybrat 40,946]

11 hours ago, Revolution512 said:

Lol, if there’s a way to blame a republican for any of it

Well, fitlump has been a repository for a lot of garbage... so if the crack fits, fill hers up with it too.

[Guest Lobo]

I've got lots of informed opinions on the homelessness issue in Austin.  

But for the rest of the day, if I'm honest, I'm just gonna be staring outside wondering what, exactly, goes on at an Oklahoma Home & Garden Show.  

[Steel Shank 9,435]

Let's put a population of folks with a portion suffering mental illness next to where kids play on a playground. Good thinking.

[Pasken 1,309]

9 hours ago, SKA the boss said:

How is spending more of our money to create “legalized” camping zones in places no one is going to want one going to help anyone escape homelessness?
Does the plan include making panhandling illegal with a massive public PR promotion to the public expressing how handouts only harm? And we’re creating real resources to help individuals who want to renter society and beat addiction and contribute? Because that would be a first step.

Surely there’s some graft money to make that work.

It doesn't, that's why the city staff said they didn't want to do it last year so council didn't pursue it. All it does is distract efforts from housing people. 

[Armybrat 40,946]

53 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I've got lots of informed opinions on the homelessness issue in Austin.  

But for the rest of the day, if I'm honest, I'm just gonna be staring outside wondering what, exactly, goes on at an Oklahoma Home & Garden Show.  

It is sponsored by Firestone & Goodyear?

[StruggleBus 3,922]

43 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

Let's put a population of folks with a portion suffering mental illness next to where kids play on a playground. Good thinking.

[Enchubben 5,549]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

I've got lots of informed opinions on the homelessness issue in Austin.  

But for the rest of the day, if I'm honest, I'm just gonna be staring outside wondering what, exactly, goes on at an Oklahoma Home & Garden Show.  

Tutorials on how to change the oil?

[Sandman 3,420]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

I've got lots of informed opinions on the homelessness issue in Austin.  

But for the rest of the day, if I'm honest, I'm just gonna be staring outside wondering what, exactly, goes on at an Oklahoma Home & Garden Show.  

There were no gardens or gardening, so it was quite a bait and switch. Lots of storm shelter/siding/window vendors. 

This is the price I had to pay for my wife going to various gun and car shows. 

[phdhorn 6,224]

21 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

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

Lakeline Neighborhood Park
Circle C

LOL Circle C?  Sure, why not on the community center lawn.  People will eat it up!  Kind of like inviting a zombie to your cookout. 
I mean now, they're just trolling us.

[Armybrat 40,946]

11 minutes ago, Sandman said:

There were no gardens or gardening, so it was quite a bait and switch. Lots of storm shelter/siding/window vendors. 

This is the price I had to pay for my wife going to various gun and car shows. 

Did you attend the Tulsa Show?

[Armybrat 40,946]

7 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

LOL Circle C?  Sure, why not on the community center lawn.  People will eat it up!  Kind of like inviting a zombie to your cookout. 
I mean now, they're just trolling us.

They think they are prodding the electorate to accept their idea of buying more hotels and building new apartments for all the bums.

or else they are more stupid than the voters who elected them ....

or crazier than the hard case mentally ill they allowed to take over the streets.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Armybrat

[phdhorn 6,224]

3 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

They think they are prodding the electorate to accept their idea of buying more hotels and building new apartments for all the bums.

I think the only thing they're prodding is the "Significantly Below Average" (used to be the "r" word) IQ level.

Edited May 19, 2021 by phdhorn

[Armybrat 40,946]

1 minute ago, phdhorn said:

I think the only thing they're prodding is the "Significantly Below Average" (used to be the "r" word) IQ level.

Oh, the 42% that voted against Prop B?

[Bevo 13,628]

28 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

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

Lakeline Neighborhood Park
Circle C

I'm sure Williamson County won't have a problem with the Lakeline location even though it just stopped the purchase/use of Candlewood Suites by Austin at the exact same spot.

[Orange&White 5,551]

2 hours ago, Pasken said:

It doesn't, that's why the city staff said they didn't want to do it last year so council didn't pursue it. All it does is distract efforts from housing people. 

The Council has already started buying multiple hotels for housing and they have made it CRYSTAL FUCKING CLEAR that the people that live under the freeways and that are the targets of these proposed camping areas, are not targets/eligible for their housing plans because they will not now, or ever abide by the requirements of living in City funded housing. You know, crazy things like looking for a job, stop using drugs, make an effort to get out of their homelessness.

But you already know that and are simply defending blindly.

[dcar00 14,551]

10 hours ago, We’reTexas said:

What if I were to tell you that providing homeless people with high quality, unconditional shelter actually makes them amenable to seeking treatment, all the while decreasing a city’s cost per homeless (especially chronic homeless) and with the vast majority moving through the system paying for their own housing to some extent? Because that’s exactly what Houston did, decreasing unsheltered homelessness by over 50% and chronic homelessness by over 70% since 2011. 
 

Housing First and similar initiatives, the current favored school of thought for attacking homelessness, do not provide a universal solution. It has not proved to be in feasible in California. Maybe it would not be in Austin. But at the very least, an evidence-based approach to reducing homelessness is what we should aspire to. “Homelessness should be hard” or “Why bother helping those who don’t want help” are useless statements from a policy standpoint and frankly belie an understanding of the basics of homelessness: the vast majority (75-85%) get out within a year, because being homeless is awful. The rest, chronic homeless, are generally beset with mental illness or addiction. And homelessness is caused by housing prices.
 

That small group is our focus. If the tent camps get them out of sight and out of mind while costing the city less money in the long run, why do you care? The issue, of course, is whether the plan will work - that’s the conversation. I don’t know. I think it’s a national issue. But the moralism is largely pointless and muddies this debate. 

yes California is a disaster and Adler wanting to emulate that(yay buy hotels that will fix it) is dumb upon dumb.  what if I told you that 80% of the people who are currently homeless have already been through some government funded support program AT LEAST once and are still homeless?  I already said close down Lions or use the Home Depot for them to camp. separate the wheat from the chaff.  the single biggest factor in homelessness is drug use which can make people unemployable.

I'm good with using taxes we already pay to help.  maybe the morons on the city council might want to look at what is important and what is not important in the already ridiculous budget.  quit asking for more money.  maybe instead of building a chunnel and useless rail line and giving people millions because we built a rail line near them, we should build more roads and use that money to help the homeless here(which our lovable idiots, thing 1 and thing 2 made way worse)while discouraging more from coming here.

 

[dcar00 14,551]

40 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

I think the only thing they're prodding is the "Significantly Below Average" (used to be the "r" word) IQ level.

yep, prodding the below average IQ level and waiting for most of the rest to give up like San Francisco did.  the plan is working like clockwork.

[Armybrat 40,946]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

yep, prodding the below average IQ level and waiting for most of the rest to give up like San Francisco did.  the plan is working like clockwork.

And every corrupt enabler on the council will get reelected by the woke fools.

[HornsOverIthaca 2,338]

Wang would like banks though.  He is Jewish after all.

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, but tell him not to tell nobody.  He's from Shanghai, so you know...there's history there. 

[Bevo 13,628]

44 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, but tell him not to tell nobody.  He's from Shanghai, so you know...there's history there. 

Cliff Clavin: The term "Shanghaiing" originated on the docks in the 19th century, where civilians were often tricked into forced labor aboard American merchant ships, usually heading to Shanghai.

[UTHornFan014 713]

My wife I and live within 800 feet of the proposed location at Edward Rendon park. I'm gonna start researching motion activated machine guns to mount on our house.

And I can hardly wait to see the homeless camp in the middle of the weekly car/low-rider show that takes place in the park.

But, in all seriousness... That park is packed on the weekends, multiple homes within 300 feet, has a public pool within 500 feet of the proposed site, and a school within a 1000 feet. What in the hell are they thinking?

[mchookem 16,494]

they aren't thinking, they're throwing a tantrum bc the voters didn't vote the way they wanted 🙄

[Deej 77,043]

3 minutes ago, UTHornFan014 said:

My wife I and live within 800 feet of the proposed location at Edward Rendon park. I'm gonna start researching motion activated machine guns to mount on our house.

And I can hardly wait to see the homeless camp in the middle of the weekly car/low-rider show that takes place in the park.

But, in all seriousness... That park is packed on the weekends, multiple homes within 300 feet, has a public pool within 500 feet of the proposed site, and a school within a 1000 feet. What in the hell are they thinking?

Does it have a pond? A pond would be good for the homeless.

[MAUFRAIS 6,671]

tantrum sure has become a buzzword lately

[Bevo 13,628]

Tantrum has been a word for awhile and its occurrence in the adult population has been increasing. Just go on Nextdoor. It should come as no surprise that politicians are throwing more and more tantrums.

[Deej 77,043]

You'd be throwing a tantrum too if the voters made you have to adjust your grift.

[mchookem 16,494]

i mean 1/6 was pretty much a giant tantrum

[Steel Shank 9,435]

The homeless can spread stealing bikes all around the city, into new areas with nicer bikes. The homeless bathing in the Dick Nichols pool will also be pleasing. The children in these neighborhoods will lose their bikes, skateboards, parks and pools in the name of equity. Great learning lesson for an 8 year old.

[Deej 77,043]

All the "give the homeless a chance" folks would kick 90% of those fuckers out of their homes if they were a family member. 

[mchookem 16,494]

i hike Bull Creek and St. Edwards parks frequently during the week...and i'm already wary in Bull Creek bc i've stumbled across some gentlemen in, uh, some compromising activities more than once (i'm prone to taking the 'road less traveled' but boy have i stopped that there!). adding a homeless camp is basically going to make me give up Bull Creek altogether. how can that possible be a desired goal??? idiots 😡

[Revolution512 1,499]

On 5/18/2021 at 9:20 PM, JimmyJames said:

58-42 in favor of reinstating the ban in a county that went 75-25 in favor of Biden means this is not a partisan political issue.

First rule of cloak room is you can’t say both sides. You of all people should know better.

[Revolution512 1,499]

4 hours ago, mchookem said:

they aren't thinking, they're throwing a tantrum bc the voters didn't vote the way they wanted 🙄

Impossible

[Biff Tannen 45,761]

What I don't understand is we literally had a vote where the people said, "no more public camping" and the first thing that happens is we are presented a list of possible public places for camping.  

[ZB'Tejas 594]

9 hours ago, mchookem said:

i hike Bull Creek and St. Edwards parks frequently during the week...and i'm already wary in Bull Creek bc i've stumbled across some gentlemen in, uh, some compromising activities more than once (i'm prone to taking the 'road less traveled' but boy have i stopped that there!). adding a homeless camp is basically going to make me give up Bull Creek altogether. how can that possible be a desired goal??? idiots 😡

Did I hear right that they would select at least 1 campsite in each district? Considering Bull Creek is the only option in District 10 it might be extremely likely it goes there.

[Deej 77,043]

2 minutes ago, ZB'Tejas said:

Did I hear right that they would select at least 1 campsite in each district? Considering Bull Creek is the only option in District 10 it might be extremely likely it goes there.

They need to be placed in each district's councilperson's yard. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Deej