Austin Homeless Free for All Ordinance

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I guess it's hard to reconcile this with the fact that you don't want to push them a bit out of the urban core. With that list, you pretty much have to. 

I don't want to push them out of the core of the city. I want to restrict camping and have better programs. Those are not at all the same thing and not in conflict. 

[dcar00 14619]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't want to push them out of the core of the city. I want to restrict camping and have better programs. Those are not at all the same thing and not in conflict. 

so camping near the dunkin donuts in strip mall off 183 is OK but not near the W because foot traffic and Moody theater

Edited August 4, 2020 by dcar00

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

2 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Because no where in your restrictions does it keep away the massive piles of trash and illegal drug use and harassment of the people that live near it.

Sounds like your problem is the police not enforcing the law. 

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't want to push them out of the core of the city. I want to restrict camping and have better programs. Those are not at all the same thing and not in conflict. 

If you restrict camping based on your above list, there's basically nowhere to go except towards the edges of the city. I agree with your list and your premise, but I don't see how you can say that you don't want them near schools, easements, highways and sidewalks etc. but also be against pushing them out to say, Del Valle as others have suggested. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by BradInATX

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

Just now, dcar00 said:

so camping near the dunkin donuts in strip mall off 183 is OK but not near the W because foot traffic and Moody theater

Camping on a sidewalk should be restricted. Strip malls are private property. What part of this do you not understand?

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

Just now, BradInATX said:

If you restrict camping based on your above list, there's basically nowhere to go except towards the edges of the city.

I don't think that's true, but but if your point is that my list of restrictions would ban nearly all camping in public, you are correct. 

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't think that's true, but but if your point is that my list of restrictions would ban nearly all camping in public, you are correct. 

And that's fine. I like your list. Where is there in the actual city that works for camping? I know they used to be back in the greenbelt, and largely stayed out of the public eye. I don't know much about whether or not they were on private property down there or what. I can't really think of anywhere they could go that's not developed or private land.

[dcar00 14619]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Camping on a sidewalk should be restricted. Strip malls are private property. What part of this do you not understand?

so where do you allow camping?  you were the one that said you didn't want a law making camping illegal.  where would it be legal?  

[atomheartbevo 90116]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Plenty of parcels around, but it’s probably easiest to get stuff like this done on state property already dedicated to a related purpose.  Places would need to be fairly central and close to services. I would probably start with the Austin State Hospital and HHS properties on Guadalupe, which would be ideal. The State School property on 35th would be great too.

ASH is probably going to be a no-go.  Would be a huge (and costly) fight with all of the nearby businesses, residences, schools, etc.  Doesn't matter how you sell it.

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

Just now, BradInATX said:

And that's fine. I like your list. Where is there in the actual city that works for camping? I know they used to be back in the greenbelt, and largely stayed out of the public eye. I don't know much about whether or not they were on private property down there or what. I can't really think of anywhere they could go that's not developed or private land.

I think to a certain extent it would force the issue of program availability -what you would have is people camping in groups of 2-4 in their own spots instead of these big camps in public. You would still have a few hobo jungles, but those have never gone away. 

[ABSR 5328]

17 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

That is the only Rubicon I see turning the tide.

Homeless camping in bike lanes.

Only way the problem is ever addressed. 

You'd think this was tongue in cheek, and while it is in part, it's sadly also true.

Solution is to make more lanes into bike lanes.   So we have camping lanes and bike lanes....but without widening the roads because that is bad.   Really the only solution.

#teamgondola

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think to a certain extent it would force the issue of program availability -what you would have is people camping in groups of 2-4 in their own spots instead of these big camps in public. You would still have a few hobo jungles, but those have never gone away. 

 

To what extent do you think program availability would reduce camping? Genuinely asking. My experience with a family member who bounces in and out of homelessness is that there is a sizable portion of the homeless population who doesn't take advantage of anything offered. Do "programs" include shelter? Or do you imagine some sort of thing like the Arch where you've got services happening and the homeless sort of camp in the general vicinity? 

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

ASH is probably going to be a no-go.  Would be a huge (and costly) fight with all of the nearby businesses, residences, schools, etc.  Doesn't matter how you sell it.

Oh no doubt. The approach they've taken at Community First really works and doesn't create problems for the surrounding area. But none of that matters in this city. Whether it's the homeless or transit or affordability. What matters is feelings and identity. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

 

To what extent do you think program availability would reduce camping? Genuinely asking. My experience with a family member who bounces in and out of homelessness is that there is a sizable portion of the homeless population who doesn't take advantage of anything offered. Do "programs" include shelter? Or do you imagine some sort of thing like the Arch where you've got services happening and the homeless sort of camp in the general vicinity? 

I keep bringing up Community First Village for a reason.

[atomheartbevo 90116]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

 And it's highly likely that these assholes aren't from Austin. Why should I keep pumping endless tax dollars treating vagrants? It's not an Austin issue, it's a national issue. Until Congress and the President get behind a coherent plan to address homeless across the nation, the tax payers of Austin will continue to deal with all the bullshit that comes with these asshat vagrants and continue to spend tens and hundreds of millions trying to fix an unfixable situation, unfixable for Austin's scope. Again if we were able to succeed, guess what's going to happen. Even more homeless will come to Austin because hey, we're giving free hand outs. It's fucking endless.

1 hour ago, Orange&White said:

That is what happens when every homeless person in the state moves to the place that is dumping money on them and refusing to impose a modicum of laws against them, and we, the regular citizens of Austin are the ones that have to face the fucking brunt of it.

It's a state issue, not a national issue, and no Presidential candidate is going to run on a platform of solving it.  Not going to get CR-ey about it, but right now, there are certain groups/leaders/etc. in Texas that are more than happy this is happening to Austin, and they aren't going to do anything about it that doesn't benefit them.  In fact, if they can, they will rub it in our faces, as we've seen them already do.  Not helped by who we elected.

 

[atomheartbevo 90116]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

The thing that really bothers me about the way the city has handled it is that they've done a great job of destroying sympathy for the homeless. I have talked to many, many people who might not be bleeding hearts but understand that the homeless problem is largely that of mental health and addiction, and understand the need for resources and effort to help them. But having these guys out in public trashing everything and creating general nuisance and safety issues for the community at large has turned the sentiment into "get these people the hell out of here". 

1234.  My wife's church, a Baptist church, does a bunch of homeless outreach, "under the bridge ministries" or whatever their slogan is.   They provide food, clothing (especially underwear and socks), toiletries, some limited counseling, etc.  Pretty conservative group to start with, but also pretty religious, and they do a lot for the homeless, but plenty of them are tired of where things are going.  

One even told me that he feels like everything the city is doing is geared towards giving them enough rope to hang themselves, and create a situation where the majority of Austin is fully turned against the homeless.

[BradInATX 9208]

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I keep bringing up Community First Village for a reason.

I guess I just am looking for a solution to the "gap". People that will go and utilize something like that - great on them and Mobile Loaves and Fishes. But there are going to be people who can't follow the rules there or don't want to or whatever, and they're going to camp so that they can do whatever they want to do. You can't just throw a bunch of tiny homes at the problem. What do we do with the addicts and the folks who won't utilize something like CFV? I don't know the answer myself, but I know it's not to let them camp and do meth 30 feet from Joslin Elementary School. And there's just not really anywhere in the city that makes sense to me, where they'll be adequately spaced from schools, day cares, sidewalks and roads, etc.

Edited August 4, 2020 by BradInATX

[crash_davis 23162]

10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's a state issue, not a national issue, and no Presidential candidate is going to run on a platform of solving it.  Not going to get CR-ey about it, but right now, there are certain groups/leaders/etc. in Texas that are more than happy this is happening to Austin, and they aren't going to do anything about it that doesn't benefit them.  In fact, if they can, they will rub it in our faces, as we've seen them already do.  Not helped by who we elected.

 

It's a national issue. Vagrants travel all over the nation. You have churches and cities shipping vagrants to other states and cities. Austin cannot hope to defeat any of this alone. It's foolish that it does because it will only reward in more cities and churches sending Austin their homeless. My money and good will is not limitless. 

[Orange&White 5557]

Why doesn't someone go and look at how much the COA has spent on homelessness for the past 5 years that Adler has been in office. Get the total number of all programs.

Now, stop and think, every fucking nickel of that was completely wasted and we are far, far, FAR worse off than we were ten years ago and heading in an even worse direction. So the takeaway is that whatever the fucking plan was has failed miserably and we need to go in a different direction rather than continually shoveling money into the same hole.

As someone mentioned up thread today, this problem is so overwhelming that there is NO possible fix that the COA can implement to make it better and continuing to give them money thinking that they will is asinine. The citizens are fed the fuck up with the trash, the massive homeless camps and the harassment and the violence and the drugs, and the sympathy is waning rapidly.

 

[atomheartbevo 90116]

1 minute ago, crash_davis said:

It's a national issue. Vagrants travel all over the nation. You have churches and cities shipping vagrants to other states and cities. Austin cannot hope to defeat any of this alone. It's foolish that it does because it will only reward in more cities and churches sending Austin their homeless. My money and good will is not limitless. 

No candidate from the major parties is going to run on an issue that doesn't affect many of their voters or that is not tangible to many of their voters, outside of pushing for some larger-scale mental health funding (like we used to have, before it was dismantled in the '80s or whatever), and even that falls apart when they get in office.   They either don't give a fuck, or they'd rather focus social spending elsewhere at that level.  Think about all of the mass shootings we've had in the last 10 years, and do we have a national mental health plan focused on catching those people slipping through the cracks (a lot of those shooters were in and out of various mental health programs)?  Nope.

The reality is that this has to be treated at a state level.  So start there.   Our governor wanted Texans to take photos of the homeless and put them on blast on social media.  That's a huge fucking disconnect right there, and it invites ridicule, and even anger, towards the homeless.   He could have easily shown some compassion, and directed resources towards helping those folks, rather than bragging that he was going to take over Austin and clean up the underpasses.

Hell, he even started off by saying "as the Governor of Texas, I have the responsibility to protect the health and safety of all Texans, including Austin residents."  But then he starts talking about getting Texas Commission on Environmental Quality involved, as if overnight the homeless were shitting more because they were out in the open, and talking about the state taking some kind of control over Austin.

With all of his grandiose potshots at Austin, ultimately, his focus seemed to be on forcing the homeless back into hiding.  That's not solving the problem.  It was bash, bash, bash Austin, not "okay, there's a problem, we surveyed and questioned the homeless, many of them are from elsewhere here in Texas, or even out-of-state, and we recognize that this cannot be handled by any one city."

 

[dcar00 14619]

37 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

1234.  My wife's church, a Baptist church, does a bunch of homeless outreach, "under the bridge ministries" or whatever their slogan is.   They provide food, clothing (especially underwear and socks), toiletries, some limited counseling, etc.  Pretty conservative group to start with, but also pretty religious, and they do a lot for the homeless, but plenty of them are tired of where things are going.  

One even told me that he feels like everything the city is doing is geared towards giving them enough rope to hang themselves, and create a situation where the majority of Austin is fully turned against the homeless.

thats back to the point that Austin is seen as the "come on in, we'll let you do whatever" solution.  every other large city in Texas is laughing.  we can't take the entire state's homeless population.

[atomheartbevo 90116]

2 hours ago, dcar00 said:

not all homeless people are mentally ill.  I do have a problem with just saying they are mentally ill to put them in a "they all deserve help" bucket.

If they aren't busting their asses and taking advantage of what little resources are out there to get themselves out of being homeless, then there's a very good chance they are mentally ill.  Even the ones that people talk about as just being lazy - to accept living under such conditions requires some kind of break in rational thought.  It's not healthy - it requires you to accept a dangerous, unhealthy situation.

I have an in-law that works very little, lives off of her dad and step-mom,  has mostly lived out of her car (her parents cover the costs of it) over the past decade or so.  We were always told that "she's just trying to find herself, she's different, she's trying to sort her life out, she just needs a little help, etc." She will occasionally work menial/entry-level jobs to raise some cash when she want something big, but otherwise, she's content to hang out at various places where she can use their wifi posting on reddit and Voat.co, etc., and she sleeps in parking lots and rest stops.   She is capable of having a rational conversation, she takes care of her hygienic and nutritional needs, she is capable of working once in a blue moon, but she "just doesn't want to work".  She is capable of attending and passing college-level classes, and had a free offer of free tuition/fees/books from a relative if she'd work on a degree, even at a community college.   But she has no gameplan for when the money runs out.  She has no savings.  This 40-something woman has accepted that living in her car without an income other than the money provided by her parents is acceptable.    She has accepted brushing her teeth and washing her hair in rest stop sinks, and folding the back seats down and sleeping in her car is okay.  Absolutely 100% mentally ill.  

There's a shit-ton of people who may have been functioning at some point, but they've checked out, and that has to be treated.

 

 

[Deej 77240]

"Well, you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin: he's broke, don't do shit."

 

[Wally Pryor 5315]

1 hour ago, Orange&White said:

The citizens are fed the fuck up with the trash, the massive homeless camps and the harassment and the violence and the drugs, and the sympathy is waning rapidly.

 

Can't wait to see how that ballot language looks in November.  I assume the SAN people contemplated this before spending all that time gathering signatures.  But that's an effort that will just prove to be a futile one.  See earlier note regarding ballot language. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Wally Pryor

[Orange&White 5557]

Ballot language in this city is borderline criminal.

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

2 hours ago, dcar00 said:

so where do you allow camping?  you were the one that said you didn't want a law making camping illegal.  where would it be legal?  

Tons of room on airport blvd east of I35.  Good camping grounds

[dcar00 14619]

24 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Tons of room on airport blvd east of I35.  Good camping grounds

good point.  seriously, maybe we shut down Mo-Willie and just relocate them all there.

[dcar00 14619]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

If they aren't busting their asses and taking advantage of what little resources are out there to get themselves out of being homeless, then there's a very good chance they are mentally ill.  Even the ones that people talk about as just being lazy - to accept living under such conditions requires some kind of break in rational thought.  It's not healthy - it requires you to accept a dangerous, unhealthy situation.

I have an in-law that works very little, lives off of her dad and step-mom,  has mostly lived out of her car (her parents cover the costs of it) over the past decade or so.  We were always told that "she's just trying to find herself, she's different, she's trying to sort her life out, she just needs a little help, etc." She will occasionally work menial/entry-level jobs to raise some cash when she want something big, but otherwise, she's content to hang out at various places where she can use their wifi posting on reddit and Voat.co, etc., and she sleeps in parking lots and rest stops.   She is capable of having a rational conversation, she takes care of her hygienic and nutritional needs, she is capable of working once in a blue moon, but she "just doesn't want to work".  She is capable of attending and passing college-level classes, and had a free offer of free tuition/fees/books from a relative if she'd work on a degree, even at a community college.   But she has no gameplan for when the money runs out.  She has no savings.  This 40-something woman has accepted that living in her car without an income other than the money provided by her parents is acceptable.    She has accepted brushing her teeth and washing her hair in rest stop sinks, and folding the back seats down and sleeping in her car is okay.  Absolutely 100% mentally ill.  

There's a shit-ton of people who may have been functioning at some point, but they've checked out, and that has to be treated.

 

 

well we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes mentally ill.  while I am certainly sorry for her predicament, this right here is why I am opposed to lumping folks into the mentally ill bucket such that 99% of the homeless somehow someway "fit" into that bucket.  Its a cop out catchall IMO. A ton of it is drug related/induced mental illness

  we can't take care of everyone so we need to pick the really mentally ill and get them into a hospital/care environment.   

[dcar00 14619]

46 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Ballot language in this city is borderline criminal.

it isn't if you just vote no on anything that allows them to spend money.

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

2 hours ago, BradInATX said:

But there are going to be people who can't follow the rules there or don't want to or whatever, and they're going to camp so that they can do whatever they want to do. 

Of course they will. There's no panacea. And we also more and better rehabilitation programs with a temporary housing component. But without a mental healthcare system it's probably about as much as you can do.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

5 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

well we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes mentally ill.

This is the funniest thing on this thread. 

 

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

1234.  My wife's church, a Baptist church, does a bunch of homeless outreach, "under the bridge ministries" or whatever their slogan is.   They provide food, clothing (especially underwear and socks), toiletries, some limited counseling, etc.  Pretty conservative group to start with, but also pretty religious, and they do a lot for the homeless, but plenty of them are tired of where things are going.  

One even told me that he feels like everything the city is doing is geared towards giving them enough rope to hang themselves, and create a situation where the majority of Austin is fully turned against the homeless.

My wife is involved in something similar and I completely agree with this take. 

[Texas_Rocks 347]

I believe there is a plan for the homeless. imo it involves using them to purchase soon to be remodeled and then soon to be condemned hotels. There’s going to be a lot of dark money to be had from the start to finish on those projects.

[atomheartbevo 90116]

1 hour ago, dcar00 said:

well we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes mentally ill.  while I am certainly sorry for her predicament, this right here is why I am opposed to lumping folks into the mentally ill bucket such that 99% of the homeless somehow someway "fit" into that bucket.  Its a cop out catchall IMO. A ton of it is drug related/induced mental illness

  we can't take care of everyone so we need to pick the really mentally ill and get them into a hospital/care environment.   

It has to be a multi-pronged effort - drug rehab and counseling - there are plenty who have gone down the proverbial path of drugs destroying their life, who, if clean and sober and given a chance, could become functioning members of society once again.  By the time they are under the bridge though, they are going to have a helluva lot of barriers to regaining that functioning life - police records, physical ailments, even PTSD or other mental issues.  Those barriers will keep many from even trying.

It's for another thread, but as mentioned we need to have a serious discussion in this country about the drug war, because it's put a lot of people on that downward spiral.  I keep thinking it'll be my generation that gets its shit about the drug war, but while we may bitch about it,  we have plenty of power, yet Generation X ain't doing a lot about it.

On the mental health thing, I'm a bit of an asshole about it, no arguments there, but I just think if you reach a point where you just accept living in unsafe/dangerous conditions, and aren't trying to climb out of that even when resources are available, that something has happened to you mentally.  It doesn't have to be a pre-existing condition, nor does it have to be drug-related.  You make a series of bad decisions, or life shits on you, and you find yourself unable to keep your head above water and/or you've just accepted that your life is shit and there is no point in trying to fix things.  Something has gone wrong and Tony Robbins ain't going to get your ass out of that situation.

I don't think we should go back to the days when Uncle John was easily locked away for wearing Aunt Edna's dress, but as somebody who tried to have another person committed, we've made it incredibly difficult.  I guess we should be thankful we have cops that are actually specializing in mentally ill types.

We also have to be willing to accept that there are people that simply...for lack of a better term, can't be fixed.

[atomheartbevo 90116]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My wife is involved in something similar and I completely agree with this take. 

It would appear to be a long-ish game - give them enough rope to hang themselves and turn most people and businesses against them, but I would not put it past our leaders or their donors.

[Armybrat 41022]

1 hour ago, Texas_Rocks said:

I believe there is a plan for the homeless. imo it involves using them to purchase soon to be remodeled and then soon to be condemned hotels. There’s going to be a lot of dark money to be had from the start to finish on those projects.

Really? No way that could happen in good ol’ ATX!

[dcar00 14619]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 with a temporary housing component. 

No, this is the funniest thing on this thread..

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

No, this is the funniest thing on this thread..

You're basically saying that transitional housing doesn't exist. That's nonsense. It's widely used. The people who live in it are typically people who are homeless because of misfortune or financial hardship. injuries, illness, domestic violence, weather disasters, etc. That's why clarity about what homeless we';re talking about is important. You're lumping them together. There's the marginal types, who aren't really full time homeless people at all, the unlucky, and the permanent homeless. The permanent homeless are broken people. Some started that way, but many started in the "unlucky group" and the streets broke them. transitional housing is THE crucial tool from preventing that from happening. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Poe It Up 126]

I lived in transitional housing during college, but back then we just called it Jester. 

[dcar00 14619]

28 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You're basically saying that transitional housing doesn't exist. That's nonsense. It's widely used. The people who live in it are typically people who are homeless because of misfortune or financial hardship. injuries, illness, domestic violence, weather disasters, etc. That's why clarity about what homeless we';re talking about is important. You're lumping them together. There's the marginal types, who aren't really full time homeless people at all, the unlucky, and the permanent homeless. The permanent homeless are broken people. Some started that way, but many started in the "unlucky group" and the streets broke them. transitional housing is THE crucial tool from preventing that from happening. 

its widely used but we still have all these homeless.  I bet a ton of them have already been through transitional housing and they are on the street again.  I'm actually not lumping them all together.  my discussion with atomheart was me actually saying that IMO a good portion are not mentally ill to such a level we have to take care of them.  he thinks anyone who is homeless has to have some mental illness.  I'm saying find out who actually really is severely mentally ill and help them.  the others need to GTFO.  We don't have fucking endless resources and even if we did someone would STILL claim it isn't enough.    Life comes at you hard.

I also think we should improve the VA big time because some of these folks are vets who we owe much more to than some guy who decided to start using drugs, lost his job, said woe is me and checked out.  If that makes me an uncaring surly 1% then so be it.

 where do you think camping should be legal in COA?

 

[atomheartbevo 90116]

18 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

my discussion with atomheart was me actually saying that IMO a good portion are not mentally ill to such a level we have to take care of them.  he thinks anyone who is homeless has to have some mental illness.  I'm saying find out who actually really is severely mentally ill and help them.

I want to clarify I don't think they all are - plenty are there for drug-related issues, which is why I said we need to separate them out.  There's plenty of folks that, if you could get them sober, and somehow clean up their arrest record and get them a job somewhere, even if it's just day labor or whatever, would probably be able to make it in society.

Like I said, it's for a separate thread, but right now, we have a system that will take somebody who screws up once or twice, give them a record that knocks out much in the way of employment choices, and boom, it's off the races, or rather, off to living under the proverbial bridge.   Our system is not setup to get people back on their feet, it's setup to permanently punish many of them.

We are slowly making progress - the decriminalization of marijuana in many areas is a start.

Edited August 4, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[dcar00 14619]

13 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I want to clarify I don't think they all are - plenty are there for drug-related issues, which is why I said we need to separate them out.  There's plenty of folks that, if you could get them sober, and somehow clean up their arrest record and get them a job somewhere, even if it's just day labor or whatever, would probably be able to make it in society.

Like I said, it's for a separate thread, but right now, we have a system that will take somebody who screws up once or twice, give them a record that knocks out much in the way of employment choices, and boom, it's off the races, or rather, off to living under the proverbial bridge.   Our system is not setup to get people back on their feet, it's setup to permanently punish many of them.

We are slowly making progress - the decriminalization of marijuana in many areas is a start.

I wish we would end the war on drugs so that people can quit blaming everything on the war on drugs.   there are a ton of people that just like doing drugs and the harder the better.

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

20 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

its widely used but we still have all these homeless.  I bet a ton of them have already been through transitional housing and they are on the street again.  I'm actually not lumping them all together.  my discussion with atomheart was me actually saying that IMO a good portion are not mentally ill to such a level we have to take care of them.  he thinks anyone who is homeless has to have some mental illness.  I'm saying find out who actually really is severely mentally ill and help them.  the others need to GTFO.  We don't have fucking endless resources and even if we did someone would STILL claim it isn't enough.    Life comes at you hard.

I also think we should improve the VA big time because some of these folks are vets who we owe much more to than some guy who decided to start using drugs, lost his job, said woe is me and checked out.  If that makes me an uncaring surly 1% then so be it. 

 where do you think camping should be legal in COA?

 

1) About 7000-8000 people experience homelessness over the course of the year. in Austin. Of those, about 2000 are permanently or chronically homeless. Of those, about 1000 are unsheltered on any given day. Again, virtually the entire permanent homeless population is mentally ill . Transitional housing in the absence of a range of supportive services doesn't work for that population. It works for the other ~5K. 
2) Veteran homelessness in Austin was virtually eliminated in 2016.

3) I don't think camping should be allowed in most places as I said, and I'm not sure what would be left. But I don't think the act of camping should be illegal. It's an important distinction. The first is about where the behavior should be permitted, the second is about whether the behavior is permissable.

[dcar00 14619]

13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

1) About 7000-8000 people experience homelessness over the course of the year. in Austin. Of those, about 2000 are permanently or chronically homeless. Of those, about 1000 are unsheltered on any given day. Again, virtually the entire permanent homeless population is mentally ill . Transitional housing in the absence of a range of supportive services doesn't work for that population. It works for the other ~5K. 
2) Veteran homelessness in Austin was virtually eliminated in 2016.

3) I don't think camping should be allowed in most places as I said, and I'm not sure what would be left. But I don't think the act of camping should be illegal. It's an important distinction. The first is about where the behavior should be permitted, the second is about whether the behavior is permissable.

so your issue is you don't want it to be illegal so people can't be cited or arrested for it?  so someone can put a tent down somewhere and then find out later that its a "not allowed" spot.  how would they know? do you need signs everywhere?  do we need signs near a greenbelt in North or South Austin saying no camping?

[Orange&White 5557]

In 2019 in Dallas and Collin Counties combined there were 4500 homeless. 
 

https://dallascityhall.com/departments/homeless-solutions/Pages/State-of-Homelessness.aspx

That is 4500 homeless in 3.7 million population vs 8000 homeless in 1.3 million population. 43% less homeless in 3x the population. The decisions of this city are basically inviting more homeless here every day and coddling and enabling their behavior which brings more and more. There is not enough money available to Adler and this council to buy hotels and apartments for all of them forever. That is not sustainable and the citizens of Austin should be livid that we are subsidizing the homeless problem for the entire State. At some point Austin has to place the value of the regular, working, participating citizens above that of the homeless and that can only be achieved by making it as uncomfortable to be here as it is in the other cities in this State.

if we gave Adler a blank fucking check and let him spend $10B a year in the same manner he is doing it now, it was just create more homeless and more problems here unless some real change occurs in how the issue is handled. The system has failed and people like bozo just want to throw more money at it thinking it will eventually work.

 

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

so your issue is you don't want it to be illegal so people can't be cited or arrested for it?  so someone can put a tent down somewhere and then find out later that its a "not allowed" spot.  how would they know? do you need signs everywhere?  do we need signs near a greenbelt in North or South Austin saying no camping?

He's just saying that he's okay with camping as long as it's not near any of the off-limits line-items he mentioned. It makes sense. I'm curious where that leaves in Austin but I'm genuinely curious, not necessarily trying to score points. I do understand the concept that they have to go somewhere, so I agree with making camping legal, if not done near schools, day cares, private property, roadways, sidewalks, etc. I think camping should be legal in a lot more places like they do over in Europe, but generally speaking, not just for homeless.

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by BradInATX

[dcar00 14619]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

He's just saying that he's okay with camping as long as it's not near any of the off-limits line-items he mentioned. It makes sense. I'm curious where that leaves in Austin but I'm genuinely curious, not necessarily trying to score points. I do understand the concept that they have to go somewhere, so I agree with making camping legal, if not done near schools, day cares, private property, roadways, sidewalks, etc.

 

so how would a person know where they can "allowably" camp?  It doesn't make sense at all.  property is either public or private.  so for the sake of argument eliminate private.  can I camp on public land?  if so, where?

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

so how would a person know where they can "allowably" camp?  It doesn't make sense at all.  property is either public or private.  so for the sake of argument eliminate private.  can I camp on public land?  if so, where?

Anywhere where you're not within X (whatever they decide) feet of any of the off-limit items. It's pretty simple. And the key is in a scenario where the homeless don't know they rules, the city can at least enforce them and move them along to somewhere else. I mean we sort of had this unofficially prior to the camping red carpet. They still camped, they just did it away from the public. It wasn't perfect but we didn't have the majority of these issues.

In a perfect world where cops weren't "cops", there would be officers trained to work with these folks and find acceptable places to camp and provide a contact for services, access, medical, etc. But we probably won't get there until there is no dog un-murdered in city limits. Priorities.

Edited August 4, 2020 by BradInATX

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

19 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

so your issue is you don't want it to be illegal so people can't be cited or arrested for it?  so someone can put a tent down somewhere and then find out later that its a "not allowed" spot.  how would they know? do you need signs everywhere?  do we need signs near a greenbelt in North or South Austin saying no camping?

Nope, just tell them and move them along. 

[dcar00 14619]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Nope, just tell them and move them along. 

how would you suggest to move them along?

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

22 hours ago, Deej said:

Send them to Pemberton and Tarrytown. Shit would get fixed real quick.

Actually, I suggested that pretty much - ASH and Austin State School. That's Hyde Park and T-Town

 

19 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

 

if we gave Adler a blank fucking check and let him spend $10B a year in the same manner he is doing it now, it was just create more homeless and more problems here unless some real change occurs in how the issue is handled. The system has failed and people like bozo just want to throw more money at it thinking it will eventually work.

 

8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It's not a money problem. We don't spend the money well.  It's a zoning and program design problem combined with a culture problem. Your post is a good example. I'm literally talking about cost effective, self-sustaining programs that work and get people off the street, and you guys are like RAGERAGERAGERAGE. Why not bitch about all the money we spend jailing people for being ill?

Do you not understand that a high quality residential community programming for thew permanent homeless population is the literal opposite of a roving meth camp? 

 

No offense, but it's always the people who complain the most about the homeless problem who oppose solutions that work most strongly. 

7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I've never defended the city's approach. I think it's a disaster. That being said, I don't think camping should be a crime. I do think it should be highly restricted and that alternatives should be available. 

Lolz