Austin Homeless Free for All Ordinance

[bschoolprof 6271]

Adler wrote an OP-ed in the statesman.

Quote

Adler: Want to stop people sleeping in public spaces? House them.

Quote

Our homelessness challenge requires us to reintegrate vulnerable people who’ve lost their footing. People experiencing homelessness aren’t “others.” They are us. That tumble off the last rung of the social ladder might have begun with a lost job, a rent hike, a drug problem, a mental health issue, a family schism, a divorce, or a perfect storm of several hitting at once. The roots of homelessness lie in human fragility — a condition we all share.

Yet, many see embracing others as we would have others embrace us as ignoring legitimate concerns about our public spaces. I reject the suggestion that this is a forced choice. We will succeed against homelessness when we are successful with both.

Our homelessness challenge is becoming more chronic and visible as Austin becomes more unaffordable and bedrolls are replaced with tents. We must do better, but how? We’ve had some success. We’ve achieved “effective zero” veteran homelessness and helped half the homeless children off our streets.

Unfortunately, a lot of what we’ve done, empowered by ordinances, has been merely to move people around — from here to there and back again. A business owner calls the police. The police tell the person to move along. The immediate concern is handled as the person and the challenge shift out of view — but only for the moment.

Still homeless, she moves to a different door, neighborhood or overpass. Along the way, she loses belongings and a piece of her remaining dignity and hope. You and I spend millions of taxpayer dollars playing this perverse game of moving people around and solving nothing.

I refuse to play any longer. We can actually address both our concern for people and our concern for our public spaces. There is one simple answer. Want to help people? House them. Want to stop people sleeping in public spaces? House them.

EDITORIAL: United effort needed to house Austin’s homeless

Courts recognize this, too. Across the country, ordinances are being invalidated that outlaw people camping in public places if the government can’t tell them where they should go instead.

 

 

To prevent camping, sitting and lying in certain locations, we need to provide better and safer places for people experiencing homelessness to be, with the appropriate social services. That’s the deal, the quid pro quo, the social compact we must achieve. The council laid the groundwork in June to start the process in August of finding those better and safer places. This social compact is one piece of the comprehensive solution needed to actually address the challenge and stop relying on band-aids for symptoms.

 

We can do this. Austin’s unhoused numbers are not overwhelming — about 2,200 people experience homelessness on any given night, a 4% increase from last year. Seattle, with 200,000 fewer people, has six times our number in their homeless population. The national average yearly increase was 5%; Dallas was at 9%. Los Angeles’ homeless population increased 16% to almost 40,000 people.

TELL US ABOUT IT: Click here to submit a letter to the editor

During recent visits to Los Angeles and Seattle, Mayors Eric Garcetti and Jenny Durkan told me they wish their cities had acted more decisively and earlier. Their cities, they warned, relied too much on half-measures and ordinances that dealt with symptoms, not solutions. Sound familiar?

Achieving real results requires difficult decisions and community and political will. It won’t be easy to prioritize needed spending on housing and wraparound services because of competing needs. It won’t be easy to place housing because there will be opposition to any location. Our goal must be to address neighborhood concerns, rather than be stymied by them.

Let’s also be clear. Police must be able to arrest and ticket anyone creating a public safety or health risk, and the City Council’s June vote specifically preserved these tools. Shame on those who suggest otherwise.

I believe the recent community-wide conversation about the June council actions has sufficiently elevated the homelessness issue to forge the will to act meaningfully and decisively. We must take advantage of this moment.

 

 

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

13 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

Adler wrote an OP-ed in the statesman.

 

 

You know who else would “LOVE” to live in Austin?

Teachers, firefighters, nurses, janitors and the middle class. You failed to see how when California supplies an endless amount of funding and incentives they were only able to exacerbate the problem. 

Naive of you to think 2,000 (at $100k per) beds will solve the problem when you just sent up the Hobo Bat Signal. 

According to those that work in the field on this thread, the vast majority of unsheltered homeless are NOT someone simply down on their luck and just in need of an assist to get on their feet.  The rest suffer from mental illness, substance abuse or both. So why are we putting people with mental illness or drug problems in neighborhoods?  What reasoning are you following that this will not drastically increase our number of permanent homeless? 

Following the worst examples our country has to offer when you could drive down I35 and get working solutions.....

Insanity. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[InkaUtexas 26017]

Adler needs to lead by example. 

[phdhorn 6224]

You can tell that Adler and the council are taking a lot of shit just by the way he wrote that editorial. Defensive apologetic 101.

[demos 3004]

you know an easier way to score heroin?

Maybe

[Neonmoon 38129]

1 hour ago, bschoolprof said:

Let’s also be clear. Police must be able to arrest and ticket anyone creating a public safety or health risk, and the City Council’s June vote specifically preserved these tools. Shame on those who suggest otherwise.

Shame on you who don’t want people sleeping in front of your business. How dare you expect to make a living. What an asshole 

[futureman 22510]

7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Especially considering that she’s 16. Very creepy.

your daughter is 16 working on dirty 6th?

[Steel Shank 9429]

With this increase in the homeless population, my idea of a "Homeless & Hotness" thread seems more and more viable.

[David Dennison 18940]

4 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

You know who else would “LOVE” to live in Austin?

Teachers, firefighters, nurses, janitors and the middle class. You failed to see how when California supplies an endless amount of funding and incentives they were only able to exacerbate the problem. 

Naive of you to think 2,000 (at $100k per) beds will solve the problem when you just sent up the Hobo Bat Signal. 

According to those that work in the field on this thread, the vast majority of unsheltered homeless are NOT someone simply down on their luck and just in need of an assist to get on their feet.  The rest suffer from mental illness, substance abuse or both. So why are we putting people with mental illness or drug problems in neighborhoods?  What reasoning are you following that this will not drastically increase our number of permanent homeless? 

Following the worst examples our country has to offer when you could drive down I35 and get working solutions.....

Insanity. 

Where should we put them?

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

your daughter is 16 working on dirty 6th?

Its nothing she can’t handle.

[TKthunder2 4995]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Where should we put them?

Instead of asking rhetorical questions on every page, why don’t you go read my comment on page one.  The drug addicts should either be in a rehab facility or jail.  Those deemed mentally unstable should also be a facility for the mentally infirm.  It’s dumb to put these people in high traffic areas near schools and businesses for millions of dollars when you can spend the same millions on a new facility specifically designed to handle the homeless population away from the majority of tax paying citizens.  There is plenty of land East of the Airport near the Travis County Correctional Complex (for obvious reasons) that can be put to use and public transportation nearby that can also be utilized.

 

edit: here’s a link

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by TKthunder2

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

Instead of asking rhetorical questions on every page, why don’t you go read my comment on page one.  The drug addicts should either be in a rehab facility or jail.  Those deemed mentally unstable should also be a facility for the mentally infirm.  It’s dumb to put these people in high traffic areas near schools and businesses for millions of dollars when you can spend the same millions on a new facility specifically designed to handle the homeless population away from the majority of tax paying citizens.  There is plenty of land East of the Airport near the Travis County Correctional Complex (for obvious reasons) that can be put to use and public transportation nearby that can also be utilized.

 

edit: here’s a link

 

No there isn’t, and it’s too far from transit and too far from basic services if there was. What’s your objection to rehabilitation or support or housing in Austin as opposed to Del Valley or Weberville or Garfield or wherever city you imagine Austin should be exporting problematic human beings to?

[David Dennison 18940]

2 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Instead of asking rhetorical questions on every page, why don’t you go read my comment on page one.  The drug addicts should either be in a rehab facility or jail.  Those deemed mentally unstable should also be a facility for the mentally infirm.  It’s dumb to put these people in high traffic areas near schools and businesses for millions of dollars when you can spend the same millions on a new facility specifically designed to handle the homeless population away from the majority of tax paying citizens.  There is plenty of land East of the Airport near the Travis County Correctional Complex (for obvious reasons) that can be put to use and public transportation nearby that can also be utilized.

So what you're saying is we should round them up and concentrate them in areas where they are out of sight from the respectable tax paying citizens.

That sounds familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

[Trey3216 15350]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So what you're saying is we should round them up and concentrate them in areas where they are out of sight from the respectable tax paying citizens.

That sounds familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

I’m in for a hundred for some fine Mogen David to be delivered to your front lawn.  

[David Dennison 18940]

3 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

I’m in for a hundred for some fine Mogen David to be delivered to your front lawn.  

What flavor?

[TKthunder2 4995]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No there isn’t, and it’s too far from transit and too far from basic services if there was. What’s your objection to rehabilitation or support or housing in Austin as opposed to Del Valley or Weberville or Garfield or wherever city you imagine Austin should be exporting problematic human beings to?

No there’s isn’t, isn’t an argument.  And are you saying that a facility located within 3 miles from the Airport doesn’t have transportation? Even if I concede that point, a shuttle service to downtown and back would cost far less than the proposed housing the city council came up with,

I’m not opposed to housing homeless in the middle of Austin, I’m opposed to housing drug addicts and mentally unstable people around our community and enabling their current lifestyle.  For those that are neither I’d happily support a halfway house situation in busy population centers providing certain requirements are met including drug testing and proof of employment or proof of seeking employment (like most halfway houses have in place).  The goal is to help these people end their homelessness and not to enable their current lifestyle.

[TKthunder2 4995]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So what you're saying is we should round them up and concentrate them in areas where they are out of sight from the respectable tax paying citizens.

That sounds familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

And you are generating shit post after shit post and contribution nothing to the conversation.

[Trey3216 15350]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What flavor?

Their choice. 

[David Dennison 18940]

1 minute ago, TKthunder2 said:

And you are generating shit post after shit post and contribution nothing to the conversation.

Probably because this is a thread where extermination of people we don't like to look at has been suggested by multiple posters.

But continue thinking we're having an honest conversation about solving Austin's homeless problem.

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

No there’s isn’t, isn’t an argument.  And are you saying that a facility located within 3 miles from the Airport doesn’t have transportation? Even if I concede that point, a shuttle service to downtown and back would cost far less than the proposed housing the city council came up with, I’m not opposed to housing homeless in the middle of Austin, I’m opposed to housing drug addicts and mentally unstable people around our community and enabling their current lifestyle.  For those that are neither I’d happily support a halfway house situation in busy population centers providing certain requirements are met including drug testing and proof of employment or proof of seeking employment (like most halfway houses have in place).  The goal is to help these people end their homelessness and not to enable their current lifestyle.

 

yeah yeah, tell me more about how you’re happy to have broken souls in communities where they can heal anywhere really, just as long as they aren’t in your backyard.  

 

Good stuff about “enabling their lifestyle”, really. Yes, they are totally doing it for the lifestyle. Chef’s kiss, my man. That’s the high grade shit.

 

[David Dennison 18940]

13 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

No there’s isn’t, isn’t an argument.  And are you saying that a facility located within 3 miles from the Airport doesn’t have transportation? Even if I concede that point, a shuttle service to downtown and back would cost far less than the proposed housing the city council came up with,

I’m not opposed to housing homeless in the middle of Austin, I’m opposed to housing drug addicts and mentally unstable people around our community and enabling their current lifestyle.  For those that are neither I’d happily support a halfway house situation in busy population centers providing certain requirements are met including drug testing and proof of employment or proof of seeking employment (like most halfway houses have in place).  The goal is to help these people end their homelessness and not to enable their current lifestyle.

Except for the ones who already live there, right? Because your neighborhood is probably crawling with drug addicts and mentally unstable people. They just have money.

[GringoSalado 1651]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Except for the ones who already live there, right? Because your neighborhood is probably crawling with drug addicts and mentally unstable people. They just have money.

Yes but we're functioning, unstable drug addicts.

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

6 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No there isn’t, and it’s too far from transit and too far from basic services if there was. What’s your objection to rehabilitation or support or housing in Austin as opposed to Del Valley or Weberville or Garfield or wherever city you imagine Austin should be exporting problematic human beings to?

No it’s not. Take the services to them. Easy access to panhandling and drugs and alcohol is an obstacle, not a benefit. 

What is the benefit of mass transit?  New panhandling locations?  These aren’t the people having 5 job interviews each week. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Guest Lobo]

Cap Metro has a dozen bus lines that they freely admit are 10% or less full on average. 

Jeez, if only the City Council had access to a bus service in Austin that they could order to redirect some of its assets to transporting homeless folks to these satellite facilities.  If only a city like Austin had an asset like that.  Some sort of public bus line with a bloated budget, who has admitted it has decreasing ridership, that could have better deploy its resources to help a real in need population.  

[Armybrat 40856]

9 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Except for the ones who already live there, right? Because your neighborhood is probably crawling with drug addicts and mentally unstable people. They just have money.

So, just give them all money?

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

@Lobo and @ChickenSandwich - tell me more about these imaginary. unbuilt, satellite facilities that Austin can export 4000 homeless people and the full compliment of housing, security, social services, food services, healthcare and transportation services to.

I mean, I could ask you what you imagine that would accomplish, but before we get there tell me roughly what these far flung "satellite facilities" would even look like.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[David Dennison 18940]

8 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

So, just give them all money?

And healthcare.

[gsoda3 3274]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

@Lobo and @ChickenSandwich - tell me more about these imaginary. unbuilt, satellite facilities that Austin can export 4000 homeless people and the full compliment of housing, security, social services, food services, healthcare and transportation services to.

I mean, I could ask you what you imagine that would accomplish, but before we get there tell me roughly what these far flung "satellite facilities" would even look like.

i haven't kept up with this thread for the past few weeks and have only read the last page, but is it your contention that's not a realistic solution because it's unbuilt?  if so i can see your point in how it will take a while before the effect takes place and we need a better solution for the now, but we also shouldn't dismiss it simply b/c it will take time and money to make it a reality.  

 

as for your other question of what it looks like, that was addressed by several other posters, including myself, weeks ago.  

[David Dennison 18940]

2 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

i haven't kept up with this thread for the past few weeks and have only read the last page, but is it your contention that's not a realistic solution because it's unbuilt?  if so i can see your point in how it will take a while before the effect takes place and we need a better solution for the now, but we also shouldn't dismiss it simply b/c it will take time and money to make it a reality.  

as for your other question of what it looks like, that was addressed by several other posters, including myself, weeks ago.  

You also need political will. Rounding people up for forced removal isn't an easy sell. That's one of the main reasons why it hasn't been done.

Also, the people in east Travis County don't want facilities like this in their backyard, either.

[gsoda3 3274]

Just now, David Dennison said:

You also need political will. Rounding people up for forced removal isn't an easy sell. That's one of the main reasons why it hasn't been done.

Also, the people in east Travis County don't want facilities like this in their backyard, either.

and those are valid issues this or any other solution needs to address, but that's not what bozo was asking.  

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

16 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

@Lobo and @ChickenSandwich - tell me more about these imaginary. unbuilt, satellite facilities that Austin can export 4000 homeless people and the full compliment of housing, security, social services, food services, healthcare and transportation services to.

I mean, I could ask you what you imagine that would accomplish, but before we get there tell me roughly what these far flung "satellite facilities" would even look like.

About as imaginary as the office building bought for ten million a month ago that will be turned into 100 beds. 

[David Dennison 18940]

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

and those are valid issues this or any other solution needs to address, but that's not what bozo was asking.  

So what do we do with Austin's homeless population during the time it takes to pass laws and build facilities?

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

and those are valid issues this or any other solution needs to address, but that's not what bozo was asking.  

Messaging. 

No one should be allowed to live on the streets. You are forcing them to get help and services. Those that refuse have no interest or ability to contribute to society so their choice is taken away. Help, jail or leave. 

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So what do we do with Austin's homeless population during the time it takes to pass laws and build facilities?

The same thing they are doing now while their 10 million dollar office building sits vacant waiting for renovation 

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

Also, there is a manufactured home dealer right on 71/bill price road. Near the airport, jail and HWY. How many single wides you get for 5 million?  Bulk deal?  Buy used fema trailers? Convert used shipping containers?  

Texas has a shit ton of land. 

[gsoda3 3274]

jail for those who need to get sober.  build out programs for mental health transients is the most important and hardest task.  how do you compel participation?  where do you get the workers?  where do you house them?  it's an effort that needs to be addressed as a priority by different agencies working together.  would probably need to be funded on a state or national level.  we really do need something more than we have now but not quite the institution-level horror from the 18th - early 20th centuries.

[David Dennison 18940]

4 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

jail for those who need to get sober.  build out programs for mental health transients is the most important and hardest task.  how do you compel participation?  where do you get the workers?  where do you house them?  it's an effort that needs to be addressed as a priority by different agencies working together.  would probably need to be funded on a state or national level.  we really do need something more than we have now but not quite the institution-level horror from the 18th - early 20th centuries.

The trick is convincing taxpayers that providing the homeless with adequate housing and healthcare should be a priority.

Many of them would rather pay for jail.

[gsoda3 3274]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The trick is convincing taxpayers that providing the homeless with adequate housing and healthcare should be a priority.

Many of them would rather pay for jail.

in my experience it's convincing people HOW to use the money rather than actually agreeing to use money that faces more objections.  

[phdhorn 6224]

22 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The same thing they are doing now while their 10 million dollar office building sits vacant waiting for renovation 

Maybe they could just sledgehammer and spray paint the walls, drop shit all over the floor, and spray some ungodly stench into the rooms.  That kind of renovation is very cheap and it'll be like that in about 5 months anyway.  Hell, they don't have to do anything to it now and it's ready.

Edited July 23, 2019 by phdhorn

[Newdoc 3448]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

with adequate housing and healthcare

You’re getting close. Provision of mental health services and addiction treatment would get a large chunk of these homeless back into society as actual productive citizens. Our electorate and our “leaders” have not shown the fortitude to accomplish this either out of ignorance or blind narcissistic ambition that leaves people in their political wake to contract Hepatitis A, B and C, typhus and chlamydia under a bridge.

[Armybrat 40856]

39 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And healthcare.

Clinics are already available for that instead of flooding the ER facilities.

Go right ahead and give them your money. It’ll keep the K2 dealers employed.

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

3 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

Maybe they could just sledgehammer and spray paint the walls, drop shit all over the floor, and spray some ungodly stench into the rooms.  That kind of renovation is very cheap and it'll be like that in about 5 months anyway.  Hell, they don't have to do anything to it now and it's ready.

Why blow a chance to spend more money? Shits going to have fountains. 

[Orange&White 5528]

10 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No there isn’t, and it’s too far from transit and too far from basic services if there was. What’s your objection to rehabilitation or support or housing in Austin as opposed to Del Valley or Weberville or Garfield or wherever city you imagine Austin should be exporting problematic human beings to?

Is it impossible to move transit? Bus routes can be changed very quickly. A bus route that goes directly from wherever the homeless facilitates end up is far more economical than buying facilities in more developed areas at exorbitant markup.

We don't need to ":export" anyone to any peripheral cities/towns, but that doesn't mean we need them in the most expensive real estate in the city where all of the Commercial and tourism business is.

[HenryJames 66134]

7 hours ago, GringoSalado said:

Yes but we're functioning, unstable drug addicts.

New Surly motto.

[Armybrat 40856]

23 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Also, there is a manufactured home dealer right on 71/bill price road. Near the airport, jail and HWY. How many single wides you get for 5 million?  Bulk deal?  Buy used fema trailers? Convert used shipping containers?  

Texas has a shit ton of land. 

Texas would also have a shit ton of $$$$ available for that kind of housing if the nonviolent drug addicts were released from prison & “War on Drugs” funding was diverted to treatment facilities.

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

What Adler should have been asking on his vacation to California was why after spending so much money and taking all of these measure has the problem gotten worse? (Instead of implementing those same ideas but let’s move on). 

Are we dense enough to believe these new arrivals saw the economic and social opportunity in the most expensive places to live to change their personal situation? Or do we think maybe they flocked there because they will NOT be forced to change their situation and will be left alone to do so and given the tools.  

Edited July 23, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Armybrat 40856]

3 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Is it impossible to move transit? Bus routes can be changed very quickly. A bus route that goes directly from wherever the homeless facilitates end up is far more economical than buying facilities in more developed areas at exorbitant markup.

We don't need to ":export" anyone to any peripheral cities/towns, but that doesn't mean we need them in the most expensive real estate in the city where all of the Commercial and tourism business is.

But the homeless families should be spread around to the suburbs where there are decent schools and less crime.

[Orange&White 5528]

51 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

@Lobo and @ChickenSandwich - tell me more about these imaginary. unbuilt, satellite facilities that Austin can export 4000 homeless people and the full compliment of housing, security, social services, food services, healthcare and transportation services to.

I mean, I could ask you what you imagine that would accomplish, but before we get there tell me roughly what these far flung "satellite facilities" would even look like.

The city just got done over paying for a "satellite facility" that was chosen with nearly ZERO forethought that happens to be next to a school full of children. Maybe they could choose their next "magical, builtin satellite facility" in a place where they don't have to exorbitantly overspend on it.

[HenryJames 66134]

Portland is using boulders.

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

Planters look better

CALIFORNIA

Desperate to get rid of homeless people, some are using prickly plants, fences, barriers

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-encampment-planter-fence-resident-neighborhood-20190710-htmlstory.html