Austin Homeless Free for All Ordinance

[Abogado Peligroso 89]

14 minutes ago, Deej said:

We were told the violence was directed towards the homeless. That story can't be true. 

The most telling and alarming quotes come from the women who were attacked.  They are tourists and will not return.  I also read that the Texas Women’s Conference being held at the Convention Center is urging attendees not to walk anywhere downtown and to take Uber instead.  The City Council and fuck face Adler might actually do it; they might kill the Austin golden goose of tourism.   

[MAUFRAIS 6746]

You don’t say? Maybe we should wait a little longer then.

[Bozo_Casanova 26911]

https://www.kxan.com/top-stories/man-violently-attacked-while-protecting-women-on-congress-avenue-bridge/ I walked up on this as the good samaritan was being loaded into the ambulance.    He was all fucked up and looked terrified.   We need to stop emboldening these people.  

 

Interesting. How do you “embolden” such a person? There are lots of mentally ill people out on the street. A small number are very dangerous. Pity there’s no system to manage them until they do something violent. People hurting others or themselves and then being taken In is the way our system is designed to work.

maybe that’s “emboldening” them.

 

[crash_davis 23470]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Interesting. How do you “embolden” such a person? There are lots of mentally ill people out on the street. A small number are very dangerous. Pity there’s no system to manage them until they do something violent. People hurting others or themselves and then being taken In is the way our system is designed to work.

maybe that’s “emboldening” them.

 

maybe a small number are very dangerous, maybe it's larger than a small number.  we all agree that we need to get them off the fucking street.  you can start by not inviting them to make a home anywhere they damned please. fuck the city council for putting the needs and wants of tax paying citizens behind the shitheads who wreak filth on the streets.  we're spending tens of millions on these leeches and it's not doing anything to address the issue.  buy a plot of land in the middle of nowhere, ship these assholes there and set up all the shit they need.  ban illegal camping anywhere outside of that area.  crack down hard on shitheads who break that ban.

take back the city from the leeches.

fuck the homeless.

[Guest Lobo]

Everybody knows that the cure for addiction and  the best treatments for mental illness start with a good corner camping spot.  It's in every psychology and social work textbook.  

Edited October 15, 2019 by Lobo

[Bozo_Casanova 26911]

maybe a small number are very dangerous, maybe it's larger than a small number.  we all agree that we need to get them off the fucking street.  you can start by not inviting them to make a home anywhere they damned please. fuck the city council for putting the needs and wants of tax paying citizens behind the shitheads who wreak filth on the streets.  we're spending tens of millions on these leeches and it's not doing anything to address the issue.  buy a plot of land in the middle of nowhere, ship these assholes there and set up all the shit they need.  ban illegal camping anywhere outside of that area.  crack down hard on shitheads who break that ban.
take back the city from the leeches.
fuck the homeless.

Great. Once you wipe the spittle from your keyboard/monitor, where’s the plot of land and what zoning is available?

On the less terrible end of things, People keep pretending they want something like Haven for Hope in San Antonio, but that’s a non starter in Austin because there is no place to put it.

If you want anything to be better (or even something as wildly awful as the tent city you propose above) the land use will have to be available someplace.

[Horn of Gabriel 1886]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Great. Once you wipe the spittle from your keyboard/monitor, where’s the plot of land and what zoning is available?

On the less terrible end of things, People keep pretending they want something like Haven for Hope in San Antonio, but that’s a non starter in Austin because there is no place to put it.

If you want anything to be better (or even something as wildly awful as the tent city you propose above) the land use will have to be available someplace.

Multiple places have been proposed upthread, such as the old Home Depot building near St. John's.  YES of course zoning would need to be changed but if the CoA can effectively rezone the entire City to decriminalize public camping, they can rezone a handful of plots for more effective relocation and servicing of population that suffers from homelessness.

[crash_davis 23470]

5 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Multiple places have been proposed upthread, such as the old Home Depot building near St. John's.  YES of course zoning would need to be changed but if the CoA can effectively rezone the entire City to decriminalize public camping, they can rezone a handful of plots for more effective relocation and servicing of population that suffers from homelessness.

the city controls zoning. tis but a mere inconvenience to change zoning.  and the city paid 3x the value for a piece of property in south austin.  i'm sure they can find plenty of sellers if they offer 3X the value of any property.  

i will gladly pay 3X the value if it means getting the leeches off the streets and away from downtown.  

i'm all for helping people who want to help themselves.  although in this case, i don't know how many of the people we are trying to "help" actually want to be helped.  i think many are homeless because of choice.  and to those people, fuck you.

Edited October 15, 2019 by crash_davis

[Guest Lobo]

We could also repurpose the ACC tower at the Y-Oak Hill.  But we won't because the City Council grift is on privately owned real estate being acquired and being repurposed.  You can't do that with other non-profit own lands/properties.  

How are some of you not seeing the long game here?  

[Cajun 11780]

3 hours ago, Abogado Peligroso said:

The most telling and alarming quotes come from the women who were attacked.  They are tourists and will not return.  I also read that the Texas Women’s Conference being held at the Convention Center is urging attendees not to walk anywhere downtown and to take Uber instead.  The City Council and fuck face Adler might actually do it; they might kill the Austin golden goose of tourism.   

I drove Lyft for a lot of ACL.

They aren't the only ones saying they won't return.

Got a lot of that kind of feedback while making my MILLIONS. 

[Cajun 11780]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

We could also repurpose the ACC tower at the Y-Oak Hill.  But we won't because the City Council grift is on privately owned real estate being acquired and being repurposed.  You can't do that with other non-profit own lands/properties.  

How are some of you not seeing the long game here?  

Perhaps you should ask that of City Council.

The "long game" is not in their favor here.

[Bozo_Casanova 26911]

Multiple places have been proposed upthread, such as the old Home Depot building near St. John's.  YES of course zoning would need to be changed but if the CoA can effectively rezone the entire City to decriminalize public camping, they can rezone a handful of plots for more effective relocation and servicing of population that suffers from homelessness.

No, that’s false.

[skittlebrau 474]

I’m all ears for anything that makes the Home Depot site useful. What’s the issue with it?

[skittlebrau 474]

Haven for Hope also relies on a ton of private funding, including $40 million from NuStar. Who’s writing that check in Austin?

[InkaUtexas 26975]

3 minutes ago, skittlebrau said:

Haven for Hope also relies on a ton of private funding, including $40 million from NuStar. Who’s writing that check in Austin?

The taxpayer. 

[demos 3042]

I drove Lyft for a lot of ACL.
They aren't the only ones saying they won't return.
Got a lot of that kind of feedback while making my MILLIONS. 

Well of course they won’t be back, you were raping and murdering them you creepy lyft driver. /ann kitchen

[atomheartbevo 90683]

3 hours ago, Lobo said:

How are some of you not seeing the long game here?  

Most everybody currently in office, will be out of office within an election or two - there's not much of a long game for some.

If they can go drop a shit-ton of money on a new property, they could make things like Home Depot happen.

[Horn of Gabriel 1886]

No, that’s false.

Wrong.

[Wally Pryor 5413]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No, that’s false.

Elaborate, please.

[Bozo_Casanova 26911]

Elaborate, please.

Rescinding the camping ban is not an “effective” rezone. Only a rezone is a rezone. Land use regulation is unique and has nothing in common with regulation pertaining to public behavior.

As much as I wish it did, the zoning for projects like Community First or Haven for hope does not exist in the Austin city limits and passing those two things is not at all the same.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26911]

the city controls zoning. tis but a mere inconvenience to change zoning. 

Zoning ‘tis the most fraught and polarized subject matter in our city. Control of zoning is the proxy for factional control of city hall.

[Murfdogg21 4578]

Does anyone have statistics if homeless crime, violent attacks, or other unpleasantness has significantly increased since the campathon was imposed? It seems that way. Others like Bozo would argue that the number of mentally ill are the same, camping or not. 

[skittlebrau 474]

18 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

Does anyone have statistics if homeless crime, violent attacks, or other unpleasantness has significantly increased since the campathon was imposed? It seems that way. Others like Bozo would argue that the number of mentally ill are the same, camping or not. 

Not really. This is the problem. KVUE points to 311 calls going up, but that can easily be just perception.

[Guest Lobo]

Chief Manley indicated that both violent crime and property crime, in the emphasized areas, have increased 10-20% since the ordinance shift.  I'll get some flack for reporting this but it's a fucking press conference line item that is easy to google.  But your fucking idiot asses will refuse to do so.  I'll get the link.  But that's not the point, the point is what I and others have on this thread have been advocating for.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26911]

Does anyone have statistics if homeless crime, violent attacks, or other unpleasantness has significantly increased since the campathon was imposed? It seems that way. Others like Bozo would argue that the number of mentally ill are the same, camping or not. 

I posted what I’m advocating for multiple times above. What part do you have a problem with?

[Murfdogg21 4578]

I caught a few snippets of today’s city council meeting. A couple members are getting hyper defensive and then started attacking the police chief and police union president for not doing their jobs. Adler deflected by suggesting they will ban camping on sidewalks and roadways, which should make everything hunky dorry. 

[Murfdogg21 4578]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I posted what I’m advocating for multiple times above. What part do you have a problem with?

Nothing. I only mentioned you because you are usually well informed and are on the pro-camping side. I was asking if there was data to say if things are getting better or worse for crime, have the numbers of homeless or population density of them gone up, and are the quality of lives of the homeless better now after lifting the ban. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26911]

Nothing. I only mentioned you because you are usually well informed and are on the pro-camping side. I was asking if there was data to say if things are getting better or worse for crime, have the numbers of homeless or population density of them gone up, and are the quality of lives of the homeless better now after lifting the ban. 

Yeah, but just want to be clear here- I am under no circumstances “pro-camping” and the lives of the homeless are not better in any meaningful way.

I do think that it shouldn’t be a criminal offense to be homeless in the absence of a care strategy or that we should force the homeless into the woods where they are subject to predation, which is what a blanket camping ban does. The city has done a really bad job of rolling out the policy change, and the police department and union have handled this badly.

Anyway/ My understanding is that the number of permanent homeless and serious crimes committed by the homeless is about the same, with numbers ticked up a bit for low level offenses at points of contact. That being said I haven’t seen any reliable hard data. It’s very frustrating.

[Horn of Gabriel 1886]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Rescinding the camping ban is not an “effective” rezone. Only a rezone is a rezone. Land use regulation is unique and has nothing in common with regulation pertaining to public behavior.

As much as I wish it did, the zoning for projects like Community First or Haven for hope does not exist in the Austin city limits and passing those two things is not at all the same.

 

Really, it sure seems like they have something in common!  One may be called zoning code and the other ordinance but they both govern behaviors and where they are allowed.  The shopkeep on Lavaca doesn't care if it's a zoning problem or an ordinance problem - he wants the homeless guy to stop shitting outside his door.

Also I'll note that even though zoning appropriate for Community First or Haven type development doesn't exist doesn't mean that it can't.  If Austin can built the ARCH in the beating heart of the tourist district, continue rolling out the disaster of CodeNEXT, and build a ghost-train to nowhere, then they can create a new code appropriate for this problem.  It takes leadership, guts, and community engagement to get constituent trust up and stakeholders bought in - exactly the kind of stuff that Austin city council leadership has NOT done by forcing this on the city and doing lip service engagement to the community.

People act as if contentious land use regulation and having a city where there are a few well connected and funded advocacy groups is unique; they are not.  Maybe Jimmy is the guy to break this problem - I've known him personally for many years - but I'm not holding my breath.

[Horn of Gabriel 1886]

19 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yeah, but just want to be clear here- I am under no circumstances “pro-camping” and the lives of the homeless are not better in any meaningful way.

I do think that it shouldn’t be a criminal offense to be homeless in the absence of a care strategy or that we should force the homeless into the woods where they are subject to predation, which is what a blanket camping ban does. The city has done a really bad job of rolling out the policy change, and the police department and union have handled this badly.

Anyway/ My understanding is that the number of permanent homeless and serious crimes committed by the homeless is about the same, with numbers ticked up a bit for low level offenses at points of contact. That being said I haven’t seen any reliable hard data. It’s very frustrating.

Pretty much agree with all of this.  Austin like so many cities have failed here.  The failure has been at many levels: recognizing the scope of the problem, getting constituent buy-in to address it, funding the solution, managing the solution, and communicating positive outcomes.

As a result, plus the macro us/them polarization of the country overall, we've fallen into a death spiral of "homeless bad" vs. "Heartless KLBJ Todd and Don listener!" ...which if we're being fair I'm pretty sure I saw that smear thrown around earlier as well.  Neither is true (who listens to KLBJ anyway?), I believe that those that are against open camping would agree that they want a fair solution for those that suffer from homelessness that doesn't belittle, criminalize, and helps give them a hand up - or more extensive help for those that really need it with mental health issues.  The frustration is borne out of how the City adjusted for a symptom without treating the disease, while not communicating what they were doing.

Like the train debacle, if it were done right from the start, we might/could have gotten something that was actually good.  Now because of inept management by the City and people who are too proud to admit they fucked it up, it's probably too late to go back and do it right, at least until a good portion of the council and mayor are turned over, IMO.

[Guest Lobo]

8 hours ago, Murfdogg21 said:

I caught a few snippets of today’s city council meeting. A couple members are getting hyper defensive and then started attacking the police chief and police union president for not doing their jobs. Adler deflected by suggesting they will ban camping on sidewalks and roadways, which should make everything hunky dorry. 

Adler is just comical at this point.  He reminded me of that Seinfeld episode with the dry cleaner who he saw wearing with his mom's fur coat in violation of the cleaner's code.  "You need a code to tell you not to wear other people's clothes?!?" 

Mayor Adler---you need a fucking ordinance to tell you not to sleep on roads?!?  

Edited October 16, 2019 by Lobo

[MissingInAction 25604]

Surprised a wretch hasnt been shot by a CHL holder yet.

[Wally Pryor 5413]

5 hours ago, Lobo said:

Mayor Adler---you need a fucking ordinance to tell you not to sleep on roads?!?  

Wet rag.   Ward had him pegged correctly as a funeral home director. 

[skittlebrau 474]

15 hours ago, Lobo said:

Chief Manley indicated that both violent crime and property crime, in the emphasized areas, have increased 10-20% since the ordinance shift.  I'll get some flack for reporting this but it's a fucking press conference line item that is easy to google.  But your fucking idiot asses will refuse to do so.  I'll get the link.  But that's not the point, the point is what I and others have on this thread have been advocating for.  

Man, why so surly?

[atomheartbevo 90683]

13 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Now because of inept management by the City and people who are too proud to admit they fucked it up, it's probably too late to go back and do it right, at least until a good portion of the council and mayor are turned over, IMO.

Some cracks are appearing.  Four members want them to ban camping on sidewalks and a few other places that were opened up to camping back in June.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/austin-city-council-members-say-its-time-to-act-on-homelessness/

Quote

On Tuesday, members of the Austin City Council released a letter saying that it’s time for the council to take action on homelessness in the city.

According to the letter, Council members Kathie Tovo, Ann Kitchen, Alison Alter and Leslie Pool are proposing an ordinance clarifying that homeless camping will not be allowed in unsafe areas that pose risks to public health and safety.

Quote

Those “unsafe” areas will include sidewalks, right-of-way along streets with high pedestrian or car traffic, traffic medians, sloped underpasses and areas around emergency shelters.

Camping in culverts, creeks, river beds and high fire-risk areas also pose health and safety risks.

 

[drt 647]

Comparison of proposed revisions available here: http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincouncilforum/5A-20191016134757.pdf

 

[ChickenSandwich 9986]

On 10/15/2019 at 2:39 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Interesting. How do you “embolden” such a person? There are lots of mentally ill people out on the street. A small number are very dangerous. Pity there’s no system to manage them until they do something violent. People hurting others or themselves and then being taken In is the way our system is designed to work.

maybe that’s “emboldening” them.

 

you are correct, it's all coincidence 

[ChickenSandwich 9986]

23 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Great. Once you wipe the spittle from your keyboard/monitor, where’s the plot of land and what zoning is available?

On the less terrible end of things, People keep pretending they want something like Haven for Hope in San Antonio, but that’s a non starter in Austin because there is no place to put it.

If you want anything to be better (or even something as wildly awful as the tent city you propose above) the land use will have to be available someplace.

 

plenty of land near the Air Port or COTA as well

Edited October 16, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Newdoc 3511]

On 10/15/2019 at 3:32 PM, crash_davis said:

i'm all for helping people who want to help themselves.  although in this case, i don't know

What’s your address? I’m going to send you a “shift” key.

[Guest Lobo]

If only there was a wealthy real estate industrialist with many empty buildings in central Austin near homeless populations. And what if this person was in legal trouble and could use the publicity of helping out the homeless and downtrodden.  What if this person could offset some of the money due his investors.  What if this person needed to build local goodwill with city and state in order to cut a deal with t feds.  What if this person had hundreds of thousands of square feet of empty space to hand over for a few years to our homeless population? 
 

if only someone like that existed in the Austin real estate community.  Someone with legal troubles but tons of floors of empty space.  Wow; the things we could do.  
 

if only. 

[MissingInAction 25604]

Maybe an incel will go on a homeless camp shooting spree beecause Adler wouldnt fuck him.

Edited October 16, 2019 by MissingInAction

[Deej 77894]

Had an incident last night at the house (see the "my dog is awesome" thread), and had to let the cops into my backyard to search for a tossed weapon. I gave them a heads up that since it was raining, I hadn't picked up the dog shit in the yard yesterday evening.

"We have dogs. Understand. We're stepping in human feces a couple of times a day, now. Dog shit is nothing."

[workswithseed 2205]

[Chet Steadman 940]

Council shoved the nonsense down our throats over four months ago and homelessness stories are STILL one of the Top 4-5 stories every.single.night on the local news.  

Nevertheless, Adler and Co. still don’t see any reason to admit...err...revise their decision.  

[crash_davis 23470]

On 10/16/2019 at 9:12 PM, Chet Steadman said:

Council shoved the nonsense down our throats over four months ago and homelessness stories are STILL one of the Top 4-5 stories every.single.night on the local news.  

Nevertheless, Adler and Co. still don’t see any reason to admit...err...revise their decision.  

the revised it, some.

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/homeless/austin-news-homeless-problem-ordinance-camps-city-council/269-572a1696-86fe-4e91-86b9-3eb30465235e

After the Austin City Council voted to lift a ban on homeless camping, sitting and lying, city leaders have decided to make some changes at a council meeting Oct. 17.

The changes mean camping on all city sidewalks will be banned, but sitting and lying down will not – unless it is 15 feet from an operating business. Camping, sitting or lying downtown around the ARCH will be banned, within a quarter mile of the area. That rule will eventually apply to the South Austin homeless shelter when it is built.

Camping, sitting and lying will also be banned in high wildfire risk zones, which is 14% of the city, or if it is endangering the health or safety of the public. It was approved by a 7-4 vote.

The four nays were Katie Tovo, Leslie Pool, Ann Kitchen and Alison Alter, who supported a more specific plan that would add bans in more areas and make the ordinance clearer for enforcement.

RELATED: It's now legal for homeless to camp on Austin streets

Underpasses were not addressed in the changes on Thursday.

Thursday's amendments are essentially a modified version of the June changes.

Molly Oak

 

✔@MollyAndAMic

 · 13h

 

Replying to @MollyAndAMic

POSTPONED: Mayor Adler says they'll postpone 30 and 32. (also postponing 31--not related to homeless ordinances.) @KVUE

Molly Oak

 

✔@MollyAndAMic

 

Ok here is what happened tonight:
-you will no longer be able to camp, set up a tent or structure on any sidewalk in the city of Austin.
-You cannot sit or lie within 15 feet of a doorjam—aka entrance of business or residence.
-Ban sit, lie, or camp downtown around the arch.

 

15

9:07 PM - Oct 17, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

See Molly Oak's other Tweets

 

 

 

Homeless people found camping on sidewalks will be given notice and must be given a reasonable place where it is lawful to camp, the council ruled. They must also be given a reasonable offer to some shelter, if there is any.

The changes will go into effect in 10 days.

 

There were three separate ordinances councilmembers considered before heading into the meeting:

Ann Kitchen, Alison Alter, Kathie Tovo and Leslie Pool's proposal

The original draft would have banned camping in areas like medians, high fire or flood risk areas and under highway underpasses. It also contained a list of specific streets where camping would be prohibited.

A revision to this draft was released Wednesday afternoon and Kitchen told KVUE over the phone the changes would not include specific streets. 

Instead, camping, sitting or lying would not be permitted within 15 feet of the entrance or exit of businesses or residences, compared to the six feet of space required by the original draft. 

Mayor Adler's proposal

Adler's proposal was less specific about certain areas where camping, sitting or lying would be prohibited. Adler's office told KVUE the broader language would leave enforcement up to Austin police officers.

The draft ordinance outlines an offense as if the person is camping and it "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly rendering impassable or impending the reasonable use of a public area making usage of such area unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous."

Kitchen said the lack of specifics in Adler's plan was concerning.

Delia Garza's

Garza released a heavily edited version of Adler's draft, which included prohibitions on camping in specific locations and areas. It also included the part of Kitchen's proposal that did not allow camping within 15 feet of a door to a residence or business, which ultimately made its way into Thursday's changes.

Garza said on Tuesday she would not support the Kitchen proposal.

This comes months after the city council voted to reverse its ban on camping, sitting and lying.

[crash_davis 23470]

in other news. we're spending $390K cleaning up after these model, tax paying citizens. 

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/homeless/city-spending-390000-annually-to-clean-underneath-overpasses-in-austin/269-6219cf54-73a1-4f84-903c-070a37c3e2d3

 

The City of Austin’s Department of Public Works is spending $390,000 this year to contract cleaning services for areas underneath bridge overpasses in Austin.

Prior to May, the Texas Department of Transportation provided those cleaning services. That responsibility switched to Austin Public Works back in May.

Coincidentally, several homeless people choose to camp under the overpasses, which is the same area where crews clean up trash.

RELATED: Austin 311 still seeing record number of homeless complaints

“We understand there are people in these locations that are experiencing homelessness, and that does come with another layer of added debris and trash and other items,” Austin Public Works spokesperson Kyle Carvell said. “We feel like it’s definitely our responsibility to make sure those areas are safe for all of our residents in this community.”

Carvell said crews clean about 60 areas under overpasses in Austin once per month.

[gsoda3 3363]

hang on, they clean 60 overpasses once a month and get paid $32,500 / month for it?? is there anything else they're contractually obligated to clean?  because that is RIDICULOUS.  

[Biff Tannen 46206]

19 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

hang on, they clean 60 overpasses once a month and get paid $32,500 / month for it?? is there anything else they're contractually obligated to clean?  because that is RIDICULOUS.  

$540 per overpass.  I don't know, seems like it could be reasonable, depending on how big the crew is and how horrifying it is.

[crash_davis 23470]

20 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

hang on, they clean 60 overpasses once a month and get paid $32,500 / month for it?? is there anything else they're contractually obligated to clean?  because that is RIDICULOUS.  

cleaning human shit isn't enough?

[gsoda3 3363]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

$540 per overpass.  I don't know, seems like it could be reasonable, depending on how big the crew is and how horrifying it is.

maybe i'm underestimating the mess-  seems like a 2 person crew could easily clean 2 underpasses a day.  even after dumping fees they'd each clear $500 a day.