Austin Homeless Free for All Ordinance

[MAUFRAIS 6,739]

That chick on the other corner there is fine as Thunderbird wine.

[TexasBeta 1,277]

That chick on the other corner there is fine as Thunderbird wine.

Yeah. What’s up with that. She’s young and not not all tore up. I see her with some dude in the corner. Them and that dude with half a leg.

[hayden_horn 11,402]

39 minutes ago, TexasBeta said:

From Mopac and 2222. Thanks COA.

she's been there for a while now. always camped out with a tarp or an umbrella. sometimes she's in the starbucks, usually watching her tablet with headphones on. she's not right in the head, but she at least to be jovially crazy. oh and she'll full on nap out there under her tarp.

Edited June 24, 2019 by hayden_horn

[David Dennison 19,518]

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

lol, no they don’t. If they did they would support solutions rather than pour out in droves to testify against shelters. 

Some of it isn’t solvable at the local level, because you would need to make mental healthcare available to indigent people outside the criminal justice system.

 

But for the long term homeless population (which is who we are talking about) you need more projects like Community First. The main problem there is a lack of support for appropriate zoning inside the city limits. That’s why there’s only one Community First- any property available for stable housing for this population in high opportunity areas inside the city limits would (and has) faced intractable, furious opposition, which is ironic, because many of those people erecting barricades to housing also support the totally ineffective camping ban.

 

Here’s the main lesson I learned when my mother was a mentally ill homesless person in Austin: there are a many priests, even more Levites, and even a few Good Samaritans, and a vast majority who like the Jericho road just fine the way it is.

Homeless poors are gross and smelly. They offend delicate senses.

It's peanut butter jelly time.

[Deej 77,805]

How many of these poor souls have you taken in?

[David Dennison 19,518]

4 minutes ago, Deej said:

How many of these poor souls have you taken in?

Zero. That's why I favor the government providing housing for them. Duh.

[immortal13 4,059]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Zero. That's why I favor the government providing housing for them. Duh.

Then shut the fuck up, you heartless bastard.

[David Dennison 19,518]

Solving problems on the internet.

[Armybrat 41,388]

$9.95?

[Bozo_Casanova 26,841]

she's been there for a while now. always camped out with a tarp or an umbrella. sometimes she's in the starbucks, usually watching her tablet with headphones on. she's not right in the head, but she at least to be jovially crazy. oh and she'll full on nap out there under her tarp.

Don’t let facts get in the way of an impotent rage Hayden

[workswithseed 2,204]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Zero. That's why I favor the government providing housing for them. Duh.

Why wont you take them in?

[futureman 22,691]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Homeless poors are gross and smelly. They offend delicate senses.

It's peanut butter jelly time.

[futureman 22,691]

5 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

If some stinky piece of underpass fuck comes at me hard is it ok if my dog bites the ever living shit out of him while I've got her on a leash? Shit I thought she was gonna go through my car window when this fucktard started knocking on it asking for change. 

eh.  he’d just go to the ER and tie up medical staff for hours getting free healthcare.  

[gsoda3 3,362]

lol, no they don’t. If they did they would support solutions rather than pour out in droves to testify against shelters. Some of it isn’t solvable at the local level, because you would need to make mental healthcare available to indigent people outside the criminal justice system.
 
But for the long term homeless population (which is who we are talking about) you need more projects like Community First. The main problem there is a lack of support for appropriate zoning inside the city limits. That’s why there’s only one Community First- any property available for stable housing for this population in high opportunity areas inside the city limits would (and has) faced intractable, furious opposition, which is ironic, because many of those people erecting barricades to housing also support the totally ineffective camping ban.
 
Here’s the main lesson I learned when my mother was a mentally ill homesless person in Austin: there are a many priests, even more Levites, and even a few Good Samaritans, and a vast majority who like the Jericho road just fine the way it is.
 

Many posters on this thread alone have said the homeless setting up camp on sidewalks and underpasses is a problem. Just because they don't come out en masse to support one of the solutions you agree with doesn't mean they don't think homeless camping is a problem.

You have this crazy idea that people who don't actively DO something about an issue or participate in local gvt like you aren't entitled to criticize or have an opinion.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,841]

Many posters on this thread alone have said the homeless setting up camp on sidewalks and underpasses is a problem. Just because they don't come out en masse to support one of the solutions you agree with doesn't mean they don't think homeless camping is a problem.  You have this crazy idea that people who don't actively DO something about an issue or participate in local gvt like you aren't entitled to criticize or have an opinion.

 

Right, because the hundreds, plural, of people who showed up to try stop the city from building a new shelter week before last aren’t actively working to keep people on the street. I’m not talking about people who merely don’t support solutions I agree with. I’m talking about people who come out en masse to actively oppose incremental solutions while complaining about the problems they address out of the other side of their mouths.  

Serious question for you- what do you think they should do about homeless people ... being homeless and sleeping outside? Jail them? Fine them? That’s what the “camping ban” refers to, you know. Serious question. I mentioned specifics pertaining to what municipalities can do to reduce camping in public. Do you have any specific ideas about what cities can do?

 

And you are wrong, btw, of course- people who don’t do anything have the right to have an opinion. Everyone does. They just choose to have their opinion not go very far. I hate, HATE the meetingocracy that runs this town, but that’s the way it is.

 

 

[David Dennison 19,518]

1 hour ago, futureman said:

eh.  he’d just go to the ER and tie up medical staff for hours getting free healthcare.  

Those stinky poors get all the breaks. 

[futureman 22,691]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Those stinky poors get all the breaks. 

they really really do.  free real estate, free healthcare, free time all day, not a care in the world.  I may quit my job. 

[David Dennison 19,518]

2 minutes ago, futureman said:

they really really do.  free real estate, free healthcare, free time all day, not a care in the world.  I may quit my job. 

You'd make a good hobo.

[futureman 22,691]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

You'd make a good hobo.

anyone would make a good hobo. 

[David Dennison 19,518]

This brings back memories of voting for Leslie.

Good times.

[gsoda3 3,362]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Right, because the hundreds, plural, of people who showed up to try stop the city from building a new shelter week before last aren’t actively working to keep people on the street. I’m not talking about people who merely don’t support solutions I agree with. I’m talking about people who come out en masse to actively oppose incremental solutions while complaining about the problems they address out of the other side of their mouths. 

Did they oppose the idea of a new shelter or the location for the new shelter?  Lumping everyone together who opposes that specific proposal without listening to their reasons of WHY isn't conducive to solving any problem.

 

Quote

Serious question for you- what do you think they should do about homeless people ... being homeless and sleeping outside? Jail them? Fine them? That’s what the “camping ban” refers to, you know. Serious question. I mentioned specifics pertaining to what municipalities can do to reduce camping in public. Do you have any specific ideas about what cities can do?

 

I asked you this exact question a few posts ago and you didn't answer, but I guess it's because you answered it previously.  I'll have to go back and look for it because I missed it. 

 

What would I do to reduce camping in public?  Several things.  First, I would tell APD to strictly enforce the law.  Secondly, I would assemble a coalition comprised of faith-based leaders, non-profit representatives, police reps, healthcare reps, and municipal reps to come up with a multi-pronged solution of how to address the problem.  The first step is to figure out what's behind the problem and then from there plan how to best address the needs of the homeless and then lastly how to execute that plan. 

 

The second part is key.  If those different areas of our city could link up and brainstorm ideas a lot could get done.  City officials could use their influence to push through programs (think Community First but expanded to include workshops from different industries staffed by faith-based and non-profit volunteers).  The funding could come from a combination of the CoA, non-profits, and faith-based orgs.  The police and healthcare representatives are on the front-line of this epidemic-  they see the ugliness of it every day and would be an invaluable source of information. 

 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,841]

 
I asked you this exact question a few posts ago and you didn't answer, but I guess it's because you answered it previously.  I'll have to go back and look for it because I missed it. 
 
What would I do to reduce camping in public?  Several things.  First, I would tell APD to strictly enforce the law.  Secondly, I would assemble a coalition comprised of faith-based leaders, non-profit representatives, police reps, healthcare reps, and municipal reps to come up with a multi-pronged solution of how to address the problem.  The first step is to figure out what's behind the problem and then from there plan how to best address the needs of the homeless and then lastly how to execute that plan. 
 
The second part is key.  If those different areas of our city could link up and brainstorm ideas a lot could get done.  City officials could use their influence to push through programs (think Community First but expanded to include workshops from different industries staffed by faith-based and non-profit volunteers).  The funding could come from a combination of the CoA, non-profits, and faith-based orgs.  The police and healthcare representatives are on the front-line of this epidemic-  they see the ugliness of it every day and would be an invaluable source of information. 
 
 

You mean like the Religious Coalition to Assist the Homeless that gives out grants and supports programs through a diversion of wastewater fees paid by churches and faith groups?

Literally everything above is stuff the city already does. Except for “strictly enforcing” the camping ban because there isn’t enough room in the jail and you would have the entire patrol force rounding up homeless people all the time because they are homeless.

That’s what makes your question about protesting the location vs the abstract idea of a shelter so lolzy. You like Community First and I do too. That’s the zoning problem I mentioned when I talked about Community First- the kind of thing you say you want that is politically impossible to build in any high opportunity area. People like the idea of Community First but they don’t want it anywhere near their house. The reason why Community First got built where it did was that it couldn’t get built anywhere closer in.

[Orange&White 5,573]

 

[ChickenSandwich 9,952]

50 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You mean like the Religious Coalition to Assist the Homeless that gives out grants and supports programs through a diversion of wastewater fees paid by churches and faith groups?

Literally everything above is stuff the city already does. Except for “strictly enforcing” the camping ban because there isn’t enough room in the jail and you would have the entire patrol force rounding up homeless people all the time because they are homeless.

That’s what makes your question about protesting the location vs the abstract idea of a shelter so lolzy. You like Community First and I do too. That’s the zoning problem I mentioned when I talked about Community First- the kind of thing you say you want that is politically impossible to build in any high opportunity area. People like the idea of Community First but they don’t want it anywhere near their house. The reason why Community First got built where it did was that it couldn’t get built anywhere closer in.
 

Yes, put it next to the airport. Plenty of room opposite the Travis County Correctional Complex as well. Then build a full mental health facility next door and recruit universities to be partners and collaborators in the project. Use it to study, teach and treat. 

Tons of unused open land, but a councilmen prolly doesn’t own that piece of property so the 3x market rate doesn’t move the needle for them

Edited June 25, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[ChickenSandwich 9,952]

It’s not like they actually asked the city population where it should go or would listen to them anyway. 

Separate into 4 groups. Women and children, those who are down on luck and need a hand, the mentally ill, and substance abusers. These all require different solutions. The first two groups become infinitely easier to assist when they can be separated from the latter two. 

Address the mentally ill with treatment, same as the addiction. Those addicted who fail to comply/accept treatment get a bus ticket or jail time. The Travis county jail is no where near capacity at an time. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Bozo_Casanova 26,841]

Yes, put it next to the airport. Plenty of room opposite the Travis County Correctional Complex as well. Then build a full mental health facility next door and recruit universities to be partners and collaborators in the project. Use it to study, teach and treat. 

Tons of unused open land, but a councilmen prolly doesn’t own that piece of property so the 3x market rate doesn’t move the needle for them

Put it next to the airport or the jail? Right. Where they are far from transit, jobs, educational institutions, churches, services, healthcare and your house? Why would we put a shelter there and incur the cost of bringing services to it?

 

Better we could build an equivalent community on the grounds of the state school in West Austin next to Camp Mabry or the MHMR land at 45th & Lamar, where they are already close to those things on land already dedicated to mental health services and have access to transit on top of it.

[woohorn 1,131]

The ones who won't seek out shelters are couples, dog owners, guys with shopping carts full of gear, etc.

No modern, humane mental health facility is gonna help one bit,because the guys you see in the street won't go voluntarily.

[Parliament 14,593]

It’s not like they actually asked the city population where it should go or would listen to them anyway. 
Separate into 4 groups. Women and children, those who are down on luck and need a hand, the mentally ill, and substance abusers. These all require different solutions. The first two groups become infinitely easier to assist when they can be separated from the latter two. 
Address the mentally ill with treatment, same as the addiction. Those addicted who fail to comply/accept treatment get a bus ticket or jail time. The Travis county jail is no where near capacity at an time. 

A moment of levity on Surly Horns. What is becoming of this place.

[ChickenSandwich 9,952]

BC-

There is a bus stop at the jail. 

We need a dedicated mental health facility to deal with the chronic homeless whose access to transportation and jobs mean shit. I don’t think our city has an over saturation of mental health facilities. 

The city is tiny and a few more busses can easily fix the transportation problem. The space I’m talking about is literally less than 10 miles from the proposed building the city just bought  

what you are cutting off is their access to panhandling

You also make access to drugs and alcohol more difficult. 

As for cost, that is where university investment comes in and private funding. We have a good blue print with ARCH how all of the current proposed solutions will go down.  What kind of facility could be built for the $8million + renovation costs the city is prepared to spend on 100 beds using valuable land 

Edited June 25, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Bozo_Casanova 26,841]

The ones who won't seek out shelters are couples, dog owners, guys with shopping carts full of gear, etc.

No modern, humane mental health facility is gonna help one bit,because the guys you see in the street won't go voluntarily.

Community First is not a mental health facility. It’s dignity, safety and something to do. That’s what they want.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,841]

There is a bus stop at the jail. 
We need a dedicated mental health facility to deal with the chronic homeless whose access to transportation and jobs mean shit. The city is tiny and a few more busses can easily fix the problem. The space I’m talking about is literally less than 10 miles from the proposed building the city just bought  
what you are cutting off their access to is panhandling
You also make access to drugs and alcohol more difficult. 
As for cost, that is where university investment comes in and private funding. We have a good blue print with ARCH how all of the current proposed solutions will go down. 

ARCH is not housing. Housing is very different.

[irishtexan 11,711]

9 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

What would I do to reduce camping in public?  Several things.  First, I would tell APD to strictly enforce the law.  Secondly, I would assemble a coalition comprised of faith-based leaders, non-profit representatives, police reps, healthcare reps, and municipal reps to come up with a multi-pronged solution of how to address the problem.  The first step is to figure out what's behind the problem and then from there plan how to best address the needs of the homeless and then lastly how to execute that plan. 

The second part is key.  If those different areas of our city could link up and brainstorm ideas a lot could get done.  City officials could use their influence to push through programs (think Community First but expanded to include workshops from different industries staffed by faith-based and non-profit volunteers).  The funding could come from a combination of the CoA, non-profits, and faith-based orgs.  The police and healthcare representatives are on the front-line of this epidemic-  they see the ugliness of it every day and would be an invaluable source of information. 

Enforce the law how? Fine them? You think a homeless person is going to pay a ticket? Arrest them? Jail is just a more expensive shelter, which they'll stay in until the judge can hear their case and impose a fine that they'll never pay and they're released. Are you proposing long-term jailing for camping? The challenge here is that there is nothing punitive the state can really do to a homeless person.

Multi-pronged solutions sure sound great, but they never result in actual change because they require massive amounts of funding which will never be approved by elected officials or tax payers. They also require that homeless people are rehabilitated somewhere, which inevitably results in hundreds of NIMBYs coming out en masse to protest that rehabilitation taking place in their community. This is a problem that people want someone else to take care of. They don't want to be active participants in the change, or have it affect them in any way.

Living in South Austin, I wasn't too happy about the shelter coming to our community. Things are already pretty shitty with the church on Manchaca and the hundreds of homeless camped out along Ben White. I also would have preferred that a dedicated police district be paired to the shelter to ensure an increased level of supervision of the additional homeless the shelter will undoubtedly attract. And I also don't think building more shelters solves the problem. The best approach seems to be what Community First is doing. But that's pretty unique because it serves a segment of the homeless population that truly wants to turn their lives around. There has to be buy-in among the residents for that to work. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing a very large percentage of the homeless population are fine just getting fucked up every day and hanging out with other homeless people under a bridge. 

In short, I have no idea what the solution is, because there doesn't seem to be an easy solution. It starts with increased access to mental healthcare. But, much like the gun control debate, everyone seems to agree that mental health is a huge part of the problem. But as taxpayers, we don't want to pay for it. So I guess we're fucked.

[Larry T. Spider 1,747]

Just spitballing here: 

We have 2000 chronically homeless people in Austin. I would create a database of these people (with pictures) that includes basic information on them, any mental health diagnosis, addiction issues, work history, and criminal record. When an officer approaches one of these people they will (hopefully) be able to identify them and get some history on them. They can then divert the homeless person to the correct service.

The three basic options would be a work program, mental health treatment, or addiction treatment. I’m not sure what already exists in these areas but I’m under the assumption it would be created from scratch or an existing programs would need significant funding increases. If you are involved in one of these three programs, you get access to a huge shelter that would be built in north east Austin with bus access to the rest of the city. The shelter would have tiers of living with the top tier being like a halfway house.

If the person refuses all three options then jail is the last resort. 

I truly want to help homeless people by treating the root cause of their homelessness and would be willing to pay more for a comprehensive program. I’m not in favor of just letting them camp and do drugs all over the city. That isn’t helping the homeless live a fulfilling life or the city in any way.

[gsoda3 3,362]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You mean like the Religious Coalition to Assist the Homeless that gives out grants and supports programs through a diversion of wastewater fees paid by churches and faith groups?

Literally everything above is stuff the city already does. Except for “strictly enforcing” the camping ban because there isn’t enough room in the jail and you would have the entire patrol force rounding up homeless people all the time because they are homeless.

That’s what makes your question about protesting the location vs the abstract idea of a shelter so lolzy. You like Community First and I do too. That’s the zoning problem I mentioned when I talked about Community First- the kind of thing you say you want that is politically impossible to build in any high opportunity area. People like the idea of Community First but they don’t want it anywhere near their house. The reason why Community First got built where it did was that it couldn’t get built anywhere closer in.
 

 

right now there aren't any groups with as diverse a board as the one i suggested.  coupled with my first point of enforcing the law of no camping it's not close to "literally everything above is stuff the city already does".

 

10 minutes ago, irishtexan said:

Enforce the law how? Fine them? You think a homeless person is going to pay a ticket? Arrest them? Jail is just a more expensive shelter, which they'll stay in until the judge can hear their case and impose a fine that they'll never pay and they're released. Are you proposing long-term jailing for camping? The challenge here is that there is nothing punitive the state can really do to a homeless person.

Multi-pronged solutions sure sound great, but they never result in actual change because they require massive amounts of funding which will never be approved by elected officials or tax payers. They also require that homeless people are rehabilitated somewhere, which inevitably results in hundreds of NIMBYs coming out en masse to protest that rehabilitation taking place in their community. This is a problem that people want someone else to take care of. They don't want to be active participants in the change, or have it affect them in any way.

Living in South Austin, I wasn't too happy about the shelter coming to our community. Things are already pretty shitty with the church on Manchaca and the hundreds of homeless camped out along Ben White. I also would have preferred that a dedicated police district be paired to the shelter to ensure an increased level of supervision of the additional homeless the shelter will undoubtedly attract. And I also don't think building more shelters solves the problem. The best approach seems to be what Community First is doing. But that's pretty unique because it serves a segment of the homeless population that truly wants to turn their lives around. There has to be buy-in among the residents for that to work.  I'm no expert, but I'm guessing a very large percentage of the homeless population are fine just getting fucked up every day and hanging out with other homeless people under a bridge.

In short, I have no idea what the solution is, because there doesn't seem to be an easy solution. It starts with increased access to mental healthcare. But, much like the gun control debate, everyone seems to agree that mental health is a huge part of the problem. But as taxpayers, we don't want to pay for it. So I guess we're fucked.

how do you enforce it?  three strikes approach.  each time they're arrested is a strike.  after three strikes they're transferred to a long term care facility/boot camp (run by the city with state funds and volunteer assistance) where they're screened for health issues.  there's a work/rehab/treatment course where they're required to stay a minimum of 6 months.  they'll be fed, looked after, and trained in basic vocational skills.  

 

and yes this camp is out in the sticks.  run shuttles from the camp to arch/downtown/central transportation hub.  it's called a commute, something almost everyone has to deal with.  

 

as for the bolded part, that's not ok.  it makes those parts of the city unsafe.  it costs too much to continue to allow them in that destructive behavior.  

Edited June 25, 2019 by gsoda3

[irishtexan 11,711]

Just now, gsoda3 said:

 

right now there aren't any groups with as diverse a board as the one i suggested.  coupled with my first point of enforcing the law of no camping it's not close to "literally everything above is stuff the city already does".

 

how do you enforce it?  three strikes approach.  each time they're arrested is a strike.  after three strikes they're transferred to a long term care facility/boot camp (run by the city with state funds and volunteer assistance) where they're screened for health issues.  there's a work/rehab/treatment course where they're required to stay a minimum of 6 months.  they'll be fed, looked after, and trained in basic vocational skills.  

 

and yes this camp is out in the sticks.  run shuttles from the camp to arch/downtown/central transportation hub.  it's called a commute, something almost everyone has to deal with.  

so you're proposing institutionalizing indigent homeless in a boot camp? and how do you compel participation among a group of people that don't want to be rehabilitated, participate in work/rehab/treatment courses, and have nothing else to lose. they stay their 6 months and then what?

[Bozo_Casanova 26,841]

No, Gsoda- there aren’t “groups” like that because all the diverse groups are all working together in the kind of approach you describe already. Good grief.

 

It’s not a coordination problem although you can always be more coordinated, and it’s really not even a money problem although you can always use more money. It’s a citizen obstruction problem against a backdrop of broad indifference more than anything else.

 

 

[ChickenSandwich 9,952]

Bozo - In your opinion.....

Austin has a population of approximately 3-8k sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals.

How does that number divide between the groups?  What would you say the percentage break down is?  It would help to know this to better allocate resources.

How many are looking for work or down on their luck?  How many are substance abuse related and how many are mentally ill?  

A 100 beds for $10 million does nothing to even scratch the surface of the problem. 

[Guest Lobo]

The internal job posting just among city email lists, not the one that went out to the general public stated that the permanent homeless population was “nearly 3000”, so let’s call that 2,800 by government rounding standards.  Let’s use nationwide statistical breakdowns and say that 75% of that number suffers from mental illness and/or drug addiction.  

Then there’s the additional ~5,000 frictionally homeless due to a much more predominant, but not solely, economic and/or health or employment tipping point.   In that group, one could likely assume at least a 50% mental illness/addiction challenge on top of the housing one that is morE glaringly obvious.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26,841]

Bozo - In your opinion..... Austin has a population of approximately 3-8k sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals.

How does that number divide between the groups?  What would you say the percentage break down is?  It would help to know this to better allocate resources.

How many are looking for work or down on their luck?  How many are substance abuse related and how many are mentally ill?  

A 100 beds for $10 million does nothing to even scratch the surface of the problem. 

 

I can’t speak to the numbers, but you made a good point upthread that speaks to the categories. The people “camping” are mostly the “permanent homeless” population, many of whom as addicts and mental health issues of various kinds. The others, particularly families with kids tend to be sleeping in cars or in and out of motels, and don’t stay in Austin or on the streets forever, but come in and out of assistance programs. There’s a substance abuse population here as well, but it’s really more the vicious cycle of poverty in play here.

 

Ive got personal experience with the population of women on the streets and that’s a weird one, because they break into the temporary and permanent population pretty neatly. The permanent ones are mentally ill and often but not always addicts. The temporary ones are typically in transit from one place to another and had some bad breaks. What virtually all have in common is that they have been subjected to physical abuse by men in their lives and are very afraid.

 

 

In all cases- drugs and alcohol are often the mechanism by which adults move into the permanent homeless population, because once they lose their dignity they lose hope and the obstacles to getting off the street seem insurmountable. It’s crucial to break the cycle before they lose themselves as human beings.

 

So the point here is that not all programs work for all populations as you said. The permanent population needs a restoration of human dignity which is a big lift. The temporary population needs intervention and assistance. In all cases criminalizing their plight makes things worse for them and makes it more likely they will stay on the street.

 

[hayden_horn 11,402]

23 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I can’t speak to the numbers, but you made a good point upthread that speaks to the categories. The people “camping” are mostly the “permanent homeless” population, many of whom as addicts and mental health issues of various kinds. The others, particularly families with kids tend to be sleeping in cars or in and out of motels, and don’t stay in Austin or on the streets forever, but come in and out of assistance programs. There’s a substance abuse population here as well, but it’s really more the vicious cycle of poverty in play here.

 

Ive got personal experience with the population of women on the streets and that’s a weird one, because they break into the temporary and permanent population pretty neatly. The permanent ones are mentally ill and often but not always addicts. The temporary ones are typically in transit from one place to another and had some bad breaks. What virtually all have in common is that they have been subjected to physical abuse by men in their lives and are very afraid.

 

 

In all cases- drugs and alcohol are often the mechanism by which adults move into the permanent homeless population, because once they lose their dignity they lose hope and the obstacles to getting off the street seem insurmountable. It’s crucial to break the cycle before they lose themselves as human beings.

 

So the point here is that not all programs work for all populations as you said. The permanent population needs a restoration of human dignity which is a big lift. The temporary population needs intervention and assistance. In all cases criminalizing their plight makes things worse for them and makes it more likely they will stay on the street.

 

honestly, this underlines to me the difficulty of solving HUMAN problems, because people are humans and are so complicated. we managed as a society to get men to the fucking moon, but we cannot understand or maybe don't want to try and understand complicated issues like this. 

when you watch space movies or documentaries, one of the most important elements is that "not giving up and solve the fucking problem" aspect. we don't seem to put that kind of analytical thought into human issues.

i don't think i've explained myself well enough. i'll try again later.

[futureman 22,691]

2 hours ago, Larry T. Spider said:

We have 2000 chronically homeless people in Austin. I would create a database of these people (with pictures) that includes basic information on them, any mental health diagnosis, addiction issues, work history, and criminal record. 

we already have one here.  and on TOS for sure. 

[CDAK 216]

I chuckle when the ultra-rich cities (and I live in Seattle) claim that it's not a local issue and they need state or federal money.  Yes, folks in Fresno should be taxed and their money sent to SF to address SF's homeless problem.  Maybe Texas can tax taxpayers in Del Rio or Beaumont and send that money to Austin.  The ultra-rich cities have ultra-rich people.  Tax them if you need money.

[Auto Driller 2,566]

I found a solution.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/104429/look-glenn-were-saved

[ButtFumble 5,286]

the issue as I see it is that those that often "advocate" for the homeless the most are almost always the ones that can't grasp a shit load of homeless are simply not in control of their life and they need some long term intervention in their life that they cannot simply walk away from to ever have hope

and worse than that those that have some ability to at least control their thoughts and actions and that really may have shitty circumstances going on all around them are the ones that are the most fucked over by the others that are just out of control be it mentally out of control, on drugs out of control, or a combination of both

top it off with the fact that you simply can't evaluate to figure out what any one individual is in a matter of hours or days....because crazy is not always full on constant and addiction can often be mask until it gets to the point where one simply loses all ability to cope

for the vast majority of homeless you are not just going to dangle something in front of them that sane and non-addicted people see as desirable and get them to react to it and behave in the manner that a sane and non-addicted person would react or think that others would react....or if you do get the expected reaction it is fleeting at best and just a way to rest up, fuel up, and get back out there and fuck up bigger than ever

people that smoke crack or meth to the point that they are homeless are not going to be capable of taking a nice place to live, not shitting it out, and making it to any type of fucking job and then take their pay and not go buy crack or meth with it...shit just does not work like that they need to be in a highly controlled environment for an extended period of time where they simply have no control of the money they earn if they manage to work and where they basically have no free time that is not controlled...they simply can't have free reign of the streets nor can they have unlimited visitors to where they live nor can they have un-monitored interaction with others in the same place

 

I know 60 days in was a "reality" TV show, but the simple reality is we can't keep hard drugs out of jails and many people in jail are not hard core addicts like those that are so addicted they are homeless......yet these mother fuckers are in JAIL where they sleep with a bunch of wild ass fucked up people with all types of issues and shit in front of 40 people and look around at fuckers beating off all over the place....and if they get the chance they will do dumb shit like make toilet wine or have some heroine smuggled in and do it.....instead of THINKING "I think I will at least try and do my time and get the fuck out of here and then drink or do some hard drugs and hopefully not get caught once I am out of jail"

so you can't expect someone that is more addicted than that to the point they are sleeping under a rock to suddenly get a "dignified" place to live and just start in making good choices with even a minute of free time or uncontrolled time

 

and with mental illness again so someone is good for 2 weeks then the next thing you know they are just walking out of their job and saying fuck it and going to sleep under a bridge.....or dragging 300 pounds of old news papers into the "dignified" housing they have along with a bunch of rotten food.....you have to step in and stop that shit or better yet not let it happen in the first place because they did not have the chance to head down that path with all that freedom everyone wants to give them

 

over and over what I see "advocates" thinking about most is "freedom", lack of consequences, lots of treats and goodies and new stuff that anyone that is sane and not an addict would love......but it always ends up shitted out at worst or unused at best

 

it is like giving more child support to someone that is a shitty parent with kids that come to school hungry, unwashed, unprepared, and the person just hand another kid....well fuck they were not taking care of the ones they had with the money given to them how in the fuck do you think that they will take care of more kids just because they got more money....they just don't give a fuck and make terrible decisions and they need to have their freedom to find time to breed highly restricted along with a lot of mandated doing shit like washing cloths and making beds and preparing meals instead of thinking that some medical transcription classes will get them a job so they will suddenly work and be a good parent when they were a shitty parent with FREE MONEY and still breeding more kids

 

some people just need to have their life controlled until suck time as they slowly are given more opportunity to prove they will make proper decisions with their free time and money and little opportunity to just totally fall off a cliff if they decide to try and fuck up a little....it is like that fat fuck that stole his grannies car 3 or 4 times and always smashes the shit out of it....."doing bad shit is fun"....well fuck yea it is when you pay for none of it, nothing bad happens to you, you are free to do it again and you get to be on TV and say dumb ass shit and then laugh about it with your friends.....guess what he is going to steal that old bitches car again and tear the shit out of it again...and again and again...until his day id filled with un fun shit and he decided he needs to do something different....which will probably be after he kills someone in a police chase 

[Armybrat 41,388]

All that aside, when will Austin have its own Human Feces Map.... like San Francisco has? 

Maybe someone here can conjure up an app for that.

[ChickenSandwich 9,952]

Shitbook

[justhookit 4,206]

10 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

All that aside, when will Austin have its own Human Feces Map.... like San Francisco has? 

Maybe someone here can conjure up an app for that.

They can host it over on Shaggy

[atomheartbevo 90,636]

54 minutes ago, CDAK said:

I chuckle when the ultra-rich cities (and I live in Seattle) claim that it's not a local issue and they need state or federal money.  Yes, folks in Fresno should be taxed and their money sent to SF to address SF's homeless problem.  Maybe Texas can tax taxpayers in Del Rio or Beaumont and send that money to Austin.  The ultra-rich cities have ultra-rich people.  Tax them if you need money.

Most of the homeless people from Beaumont or Del Rio and elsewhere end up in Austin, Houston, etc. because those cities offer services that they don’t get elsewhere.  Alpine or Longview aren’t dropping a shitload of money on shelters.  

[crash_davis 23,468]

the more i think about this, the more pissed i get. 

the mayor and city council decided that shitheads who do nothing for austin, pay no taxes, do nothing to advance the city in any way are more important than the taxpayers and voters of austin.  where's their responsibility to the safety of the very people who elected these sorry sons of bitches?  where's their fiscal responsibility to the taxes that property owners pay?

fuck the homeless, fuck the mayor, and fuck the city council.  

[CDAK 216]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Most of the homeless people from Beaumont or Del Rio and elsewhere end up in Austin, Houston, etc. because those cities offer services that they don’t get elsewhere.  Alpine or Longview aren’t dropping a shitload of money on shelters.  

People move.  Their cities of origin aren't responsible for their upkeep in a new place.