Jump to content

Austin Homeless Free for All Ordinance

rage-a-holic

By rage-a-holic
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

House Park BBQ & Job Training Center:  "Need no TOOF to be so ALOOF" (that one's aimed at City Council).  "Need no TOOF to work on the ROOF" 

  Is that anything?  Yeah, I can't believe that acronym made it past the planning phase given the population's oral hygiene regiment).  I think there was some intentionality in there because of all the alphabet soup around the city to deal with homelessness in an incredibly in effective way...this one has a funny name and appears to at least be trying to get some of those folks a job.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TKthunder2
TKthunder2

Do what San Antonio did.  Spend a couple million on a facility in Far East Austin that is equipped to receive the homeless and parter with local charities, church, community colleges and hospitals to

crash_davis
crash_davis

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/austins-homeless-residents-fear-whats-next-once-camping-ban-takes-effect/ Abigail Wilson is among those who just found out about the Prop B ban. She said sh

Red Five
Red Five

I realize hindsight is 20/20, but perhaps building a gigantic homeless shelter in the middle of downtown Austin wasn't the greatest idea ever. 

Posted Images

Gardner Barnes

Gardner Barnes 1579

Posted
Posted
That’s not the question. The question is whether 24000 signed that petition. Based on where they collected sigs and the results, they seem not to have. 
 
what seems more likely: the city clerk committing  a felony or Matt Mackowiak and Mackenzie Kelly fucking up?
 
oh and another thing- if you think that the city clerks office has good relations with the mayors office right now I’ve got a housing/rail/art bond to sell you. 

As much as I dislike this ballot initiative being thrown out, these are all really good points.

Fitlump doesn't have a sterling history of truthfullness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gardner Barnes

Gardner Barnes 1579

Posted
Posted
Windsor Park getting cleaned up a bit.
https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/homeless-austinites-work-to-pick-up-trash-at-encampment-that-sparked-recent-complaints/
An area near a homeless encampment in Windsor Park received a great deal of attention this week after a video made by a man who lives in a nearby home was shared widely online. 
While the video seemed to fuel yet another polarizing flash point in the ongoing debate in Austin on how best to address homelessness, the situation at that Windsor Park creek bed — like homelessness itself — is complex and nuanced. Thursday, KXAN learned people experiencing homelessness in Austin are now on the front lines of the effort to clean up that creek bed and to help to offer a solution to managing trash in the area.
Local nonprofit The Other Ones Foundation (TOOF) offers low-barrier employment for people experiencing homelessness and also has existing contracts with the City of Austin. Monday, the city reached out to TOOF, and since Tuesday the nonprofit has been at the creek bed, hauling out bags of trash. So far, the crew of 18 people experiencing homelessness have hauled around 3,000 pounds of trash from that location, TOOF said.
They hauled out 3,000 pounds of trash since Tuesday.  damn.

That's great and all. But the people that caused the situation in the first place are just going to move to some other creek and make the same fucking mess.

I liked it better when these dudes had to hide from the police and I didn't see their shit everywhere.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ABSR

ABSR 5370

Posted
Posted
On 8/6/2020 at 9:49 PM, BradInATX said:


 

 


Lots. On 24,000 data points you can get to 90+% confidence with less than a thousand.
Problem is, they should have shot for better than the 95% confidence they did. This is governance, not horseshoes.

 

Lot’s?   Uh, no.  I’m sure you can find some, but 25% seems like someone going through inputs until they reach a point they can defend whatever answer they were looking for.

http://www.tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-choose-a-sample-size/

A good maximum sample size is usually 10% as long as it does not exceed 1000

A good maximum sample size is usually around 10% of the population, as long as this does not exceed 1000. For example, in a population of 5000, 10% would be 500. In a population of 200,000, 10% would be 20,000. This exceeds 1000, so in this case the maximum would be 1000.

Even in a population of 200,000, sampling 1000 people will normally give a fairly accurate result. Sampling more than 1000 people won’t add much to the accuracy given the extra time and money it would cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange&White

Orange&White 5573

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Gardner Barnes said:


As much as I dislike this ballot initiative being thrown out, these are all really good points.

Fitlump doesn't have a sterling history of truthfullness.

That was just bozo being bozo. She had literally nothing to do with the petition except that she associates as a republican and that she probably signed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Bozo Casanovo is a Female Republican?  Really?  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  Just did not see that coming.  Y'all have a sixth sense for this shit, knowing who is a what and remembering their entire posting profile.  All I can remember is Hugo is a Democrat, i know there's a few posters I can count on to be funny, Rex Kramer hates me and posts information about my family on here, something about the black guy and the old corvette, and I know now that immamac went to A&M.  How do people remember this shit about other anonymous people?  I barely remember information about my own extended family.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
Lot’s?   Uh, no.  I’m sure you can find some, but 25% seems like someone going through inputs until they reach a point they can defend whatever answer they were looking for.
http://www.tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-choose-a-sample-size/

A good maximum sample size is usually 10% as long as it does not exceed 1000

A good maximum sample size is usually around 10% of the population, as long as this does not exceed 1000. For example, in a population of 5000, 10% would be 500. In a population of 200,000, 10% would be 20,000. This exceeds 1000, so in this case the maximum would be 1000.

Even in a population of 200,000, sampling 1000 people will normally give a fairly accurate result. Sampling more than 1000 people won’t add much to the accuracy given the extra time and money it would cost.

That article actually proves my point. Unless you were saying that 25% is too much, which is a bit odd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

O&W was referring to fitlump’s alleged gender & affiliations.

Well, I need help with reading then.  I dunno, I just found out Fitlump was a poster here who is now running for city council.  this place is a fountain of information.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26888

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The real issue is that it wasn’t on the ballot and voted on by citizens before implementation. 

Funny, I don’t recall the camping ban being on the ballot when it was passed in 1996. Was the council wrong to pass it, too?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26888

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I doubt the situations being addressed were comparable nearly 25 years ago but yes. Two wrongs and all of that. 

I was here and if anything, it was worse. That was the golden age of dragworms. There were 35-40 people living in Hemphill park. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ignatius

Ignatius 4148

Posted
Posted
On 8/8/2020 at 10:16 AM, ABSR said:

Lot’s?   Uh, no.  I’m sure you can find some, but 25% seems like someone going through inputs until they reach a point they can defend whatever answer they were looking for.

http://www.tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-choose-a-sample-size/

A good maximum sample size is usually 10% as long as it does not exceed 1000

A good maximum sample size is usually around 10% of the population, as long as this does not exceed 1000. For example, in a population of 5000, 10% would be 500. In a population of 200,000, 10% would be 20,000. This exceeds 1000, so in this case the maximum would be 1000.

Even in a population of 200,000, sampling 1000 people will normally give a fairly accurate result. Sampling more than 1000 people won’t add much to the accuracy given the extra time and money it would cost.

Yep; 25% isn’t a ‘sample’, that’s fitting data....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90664

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/fresh-plus-store-vandalized-after-reported-argument-with-customer-over-wearing-a-mask/

Homeless guy apparently went nuts and started throwing Topo Chico bottles through the windows.  Asshole.

I’ve  wanted to throw people who drink Topo Chico through windows so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14984

Posted
Posted

have this huge park downtown where we could take the 2000 chronically homeless and sick and set up a tent city right in the middle of an urban area with all the facilities they'd need within walking distance.   tell the other 5000 to get packing. 

not sure why the city doesn't just go with that. easy peasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11778

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 8/8/2020 at 5:23 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

I was here and if anything, it was worse. That was the golden age of dragworms. There were 35-40 people living in Hemphill park. 

It was not worse.  Not even close.

Lord.

I get the wanting to do good for people down on their luck, but c'mon Bozo.  You're better than this kind of thing.

Edited by Cajun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26888

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, dcar00 said:

was camping legal in 1995?

It was a grey area, but it was common and it wasn't banned until 1996. The ban itself was pretty controversial; all the libertarians of the time came out against it, because in those days libertarians weren't just straight ticket Republican voters playing dress up. 

1 hour ago, Cajun said:

It was not worse.  Not even close.

Lord.

I get the wanting to do good for people down on their luck, but c'mon Bozo.  You're better than this kind of thing.

We're going to have to disagree about this. The dragworms were here as a matter of choice. They were fewer, but they were often both violent and criminal, and concentrated in high foot traffic areas to an even greater degree than what we have today. By contrast, today's chronic homeless population is comprised largely of broken people abandoned by a sick society and people are mad because they are being forced to see them. 

I've made it clear above that we should restrict camping from most locations to such a high degree that I'm not sure what would be left. But criminalizing the act of homelessness for people who cannot mend themselves without help is just cruelty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11778

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It was a grey area, but it was common and it wasn't banned until 1996. The ban itself was pretty controversial; all the libertarians of the time came out against it, because in those days libertarians weren't just straight ticket Republican voters playing dress up. 

We're going to have to disagree about this. The dragworms were here as a matter of choice. They were fewer, but they were often both violent and criminal, and concentrated in high foot traffic areas to an even greater degree than what we have today. By contrast, today's chronic homeless population is comprised largely of broken people abandoned by a sick society and people are mad because they are being forced to see them. 

I've made it clear above that we should restrict camping from most locations to such a high degree that I'm not sure what would be left. But criminalizing the act of homelessness for people who cannot mend themselves without help is just cruelty. 

Yep, agree to disagree.  There are shitloads of these homeless folks here today in high foot traffic areas, they are plenty violent, aggressive, criminal, etc.   More than significant percentage of them choose to be in the position they are in too.  A significant percentage also didn't choose as well.  This is not some well kept secret.

Laid side by side and looking at ATX as a whole, however, the homeless situation is an order of magnitude worse than it was back in the Dragworm days, and that's being kind.

 

Edited by Cajun
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11778

Posted
Posted

Always Dragworms.   Always.

I still remember passing a couple straining aftershave (Aqua Velva or someshit) through a loaf of bread into their cups on my way to class through the Alright Parking behind Castilian.

I mean I've drunk old Black Label out of plastic cups with dead crickets floating it, but ho-lee-FUK!

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14984

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It was a grey area, but it was common and it wasn't banned until 1996. The ban itself was pretty controversial; all the libertarians of the time came out against it, because in those days libertarians weren't just straight ticket Republican voters playing dress up. 

 

thats what I don't get.  there had to be a loitering city ordinance that covered "camping".  the term camping is just dress up for loitering to try to make is sound cleaner. "we aren't loitering, we're CAMPING!(George Carlin voice)". my guess is the loitering ordinance was not grey but it wasn't being enforced.  there was no reason to ban camping just enforce existing ordinances/laws.  that is the problem.  just go back to whatever the law(which I am sure is still on the books) was pre "camping" ban and enforce it.

the problem is creating new laws/ordinances because existing aren't being enforced.  this how we get into stupid debates over when we did or didn't vote on a ban, etc. but Austin gonna Austin.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26888

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, dcar00 said:

thats what I don't get.  there had to be a loitering city ordinance that covered "camping".  the term camping is just dress up for loitering to try to make is sound cleaner. "we aren't loitering, we're CAMPING!(George Carlin voice)". my guess is the loitering ordinance was not grey but it wasn't being enforced.  there was no reason to ban camping just enforce existing ordinances/laws.  that is the problem.  just go back to whatever the law(which I am sure is still on the books) was pre "camping" ban and enforce it.

the problem is creating new laws/ordinances because existing aren't being enforced.  this how we get into stupid debates over when we did or didn't vote on a ban, etc. but Austin gonna Austin.

I can’t remember if there was a loitering ordinance or not, but at one point in the early-mid 90s there were around 100 people living on the drag between 21st and 24th alone, and around 30 camped in Adams-Hemphill Park. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wally Pryor

Wally Pryor 5410

Posted
Posted

Oldie (somewhat) but goodie from a few weeks back. This homeless guy just set up up shop in an apartment.   Makes sense - no one was in it for a couple days. 

 

Dirty dishes, flood damage, and clothing and furniture scattered throughout the apartment are just some of the horrifying images David cannot shake from his head.

"It's not the same going back into my own apartment," he said.

After two days out of town, the University of Texas grad student returned to his West Campus apartment on Monday. He was with his girlfriend, Emily, when they realized someone was inside his apartment.

"We tried to open the door, it wouldn't open. Initially, I thought probably maintenance or housing went in there," said David. "Seconds later the door opened and this stranger peaked through the door."

David added, "And then we kind of immediately recognized that it was a homeless man that showed up around 2 weeks ago in front of my street because I gave him water and food before."

In that moment, David says the suspect declared the home was his own.

"He came out the door and kind of marched at us, so we backed off," he said. "We had to cross the street to the other side of the road."

"I called the police, but before they showed up, the homeless man began to charge at us," said Emily. "I grabbed my pepper spray that I had then I sprayed him and it was at that point that he ran into David's apartment and locked the door."

Austin Police arrived and arrested 46-year old Michael Waite for criminal trespassing. After that is when David and Emily finally got to see the damage done inside.

"The door leading to the bathroom had been absolutely obliterated," said Emily. "We actually discovered later as we were cleaning that he took some of David's kitchen knives and hid them around the apartment in different areas."

Waite did not stay in custody for long. David says he saw him the very next day walking in his neighborhood.

"This is not the first time I hear about these issues, but I was very surprised that he was out in less than 12 hours actually," said David.

CBS Austin obtained an affidavit of a different incident involving Waite that happened on Wednesday. He was once again arrested for criminal trespassing, this time at a home less than four miles north of campus.

 

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/ut-student-speaks-out-after-stranger-trespasses-into-his-apartment

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14984

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Home invasion, attempted assault. Gets free breakfast and a ride back to the neighborhood. They will refer to this as another “victimless” crime. 

the capper is "Emily's" comment about more policing around campus will affect people of color more. and then the standard we need to spend more money on mental health.  good luck "Emily" godspeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26888

Posted
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

the capper is "Emily's" comment about more policing around campus will affect people of color more. and then the standard we need to spend more money on mental health.  good luck "Emily" godspeed.

Yeah we should keep doing what we are doing because it works super well. Good job man. As long as you want cops to be the primary homelessness and mental illness management agency this will be the result. Maybe when you have one in your house you'll get it. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
B00M

B00M 6735

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yeah we should keep doing what we are doing because it works super well. Good job man. As long as you want cops to be the primary homelessness and mental illness management agency this will be the result. Maybe when you have one in your house you'll get it. 

A cop or a vagrant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...