Austin Homeless Free for All Ordinance

[wd40 1976]

simply a PR move leading up to the vote.

[McFly 606]

7 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't even regard this as a homeless problem.  That's a policing problem.

It really doesn't matter whether the perpetrator has a home or not. For all we know, he does have a permanent or semi-permanent place to live.  But that's not really germane to the issue.

The issue is that he committed a violent assault.  And the cops did absolutely nothing because . . . I don't know, paperwork?

And it's not like this is a rare occurrence.  We've seen at least a dozen of these stories on this thread, and I've heard a dozen more offline.  This is APD's modus operandi.  It's an absolutely broken fucking agency.  It can't be categorized as a "law-enforcement" agency because, fundamentally, it's not in the business of enforcing the law.

It's hard to solely blame the police when the DA will not prosecute and the council doesn't want them arrested.

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

You’re right, it’s about paperwork, they arrest him take him to booking, put him through a psych eval, comes back that he is mentally ill, the DA/judge will drop all charges and release him with a pamphlet on mental illness and a referral (which will likely never be used).  The process of arresting and charging him takes 2-3 hours so that time they are away from their post and other officers (who are already stretched thin) have to cover which make for long response times and more pissed off citizens.

I’m not advocating for giving homeless a free pass, but with already limited resources now stretched thin due to budget cuts and canceling two cadet classes, APD has to make choices that will ultimately piss of someone.  It’s just not a simple issue to solve without throwing more more at it.

Still not arresting someone for violence is beyond stupid.

There is a lot of truth here.  These charges are dropped constantly for the homeless. 

5 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Don't give me this "it's-all-because-Defund-the-Police-cut-our-budget" nonsense.  This refusal to actually enforce the law has been going on for a very long time with APD.  It's actually part of the impetus behind cutting their budget.  If they're not going to enforce the law on the basis that "they're mentally ill, so they're going to get cut loose anyway," then it makes sense to transfer some of their budget to agencies that will deal with the mental-illness problem.

I understand the calculation that goes into the exercise of discretion as to whether to arrest.  In particular, I think it makes some sense when talking about petty property crime.  But that's not we're talking about in a lot of these instances.  We're talking about actual or threatened violent crime.

The refusal to arrest a guy who just threatened or committed a violent crime isn't a matter of expedience or efficiency.  It's just laziness and give-up.  Don't tell me that cops can't make time to arrest a violent criminal because he may get cut loose by a judge later on when I see plenty of cops making all the time in the world to chat amongst themselves, pull over drivers for minor traffic infractions, and harass black people who happen to find themselves in the wrong neighborhood.  It's not that they can't find the time to arrest the mentally-ill violent criminal.  It's that it's the shitty part of the job that they'd rather not do.

We can pass Prop B all day long.  We almost certainly will.  But you're point is completely correct--it won't make a shit.  And that's entirely because we have a completely broken and incapable police force.

Give the broken and incapable police force more money?  Yeah, I don't think so.

Bolded for emphasis.  I've actually been in booking when they brought in what looked to be a homeless person that shit themselves.  But you can't put all the blame on the police when they watch these guys walk right back out of jail. 

4 hours ago, Hate said:

Let all of the “criminals” in jail on drug charges out and replace them with the homeless/mentally ill. Win win for everyone.

The new DA is basically doing this for drug charges.  He won't prosecute <1 gram controlled substance anymore, amongst others.  So the police arrest and the DA refuses to prosecute and they walk out go right back to what they were doing. 

4 hours ago, dcar00 said:

sure but the city leaders attitudes and priorities have something to do with that as well...so don't give me that its "all the police force's" issue.

Very true. With the push to stop criminalizing homelessness, they've demanded that they do not hold them in jail and release on their own recognizance.

[dcar00 14971]

44 minutes ago, McFly said:

 

Very true. With the push to stop criminalizing homelessness, they've demanded that they do not hold them in jail and release on their own recognizance.

to be fair, part of the discussion was around a homeless guy who physically assaulted someone(hit someone in the back of the head and ran off)but the attitude in general is homeless people aren't really mentally there, hard to find anyway, and so if they do something illegal and you can catch them right away great but if not who cares. their attitude might depend on how hurt the person was, if there was a weapon, and if they would plan to press charges.  It was an anecdotal story(not saying it wasn't true) so there wasn't a ton of detail.

it wouldn't surprise me that even if they found him, arrested him for misdemeanor assault(non sexual) that he isn't let out the next day on his own recognizance. 

[Hate 20249]

10 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Nothing to see here according to their advocates.

Hopefully the State will get the current expansion of the State Hospital & the other facilities done so those violent nutcases can be taken off the streets via involuntary commitment for treatment. Then the legislature should pass statewide camping laws and ban panhandling everywhere. That would be a good start.

You don't have to rely on anecdotal evidence.  Wasn't it a homeless dude that stabbed that girl to death on campus a few years ago?  Anyone who votes for that proposition should have to shelter a homeless person in their own homes. 

[InkaUtexas 26891]

3 minutes ago, Hate said:

You don't have to rely on anecdotal evidence.  Wasn't it a homeless dude that stabbed that girl to death on campus a few years ago?  Anyone who votes for that proposition should have to shelter a homeless person in their own homes. 

Good idea. Let the city provide people with a tax break if they house the homeless. 

[dcar00 14971]

2 hours ago, wd40 said:

simply a PR move leading up to the vote.

bingo.

[CDAK 216]

5 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

And, I'm sorry to say, it's not something that Prop B is going to fix.

I think proponents of Prop B believe that it will improve their and their neighbors' quality of life. They don't think it will solve homelessness.

Mitigating homelessness will have to be some indeterminate step 2. 

[McFly 606]

The only thing allowing them to camp anywhere they want in tents did was give Steve an excuse to buy hotels as a solution. 

[Deej 77827]

2 minutes ago, McFly said:

The only thing allowing them to camp anywhere they want in tents did was give Steve an excuse to buy hotels as a solution. 

[Deej 77827]

Every person who voted for Adler should be forced to let a homeless person live with them. 

[David Dennison 19542]

I can't wait for this proposition to pass so homelessness will end.

Austin needs this.

[bschoolprof 6342]

26 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I can't wait for this proposition to pass so homelessness will end.

Austin needs this. I'm going to make an argument that no one is making because I'm fucking retarded.  

FIFY.  

[David Dennison 19542]

Some of the people in this thread start with the premise that homeless people can camp wherever they want, so I just assumed we were making retarded arguments.

[Hagbard Celine 11254]

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+attach+a+live+skunk+to+a+drone&client=firefox-b-1-d&hl=en-US&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiv59SV9aTwAhVJHzQIHXdDAUIQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1536&bih=722

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 hours ago, CDAK said:

I think proponents of Prop B believe that it will improve their and their neighbors' quality of life. They don't think it will solve homelessness.

Mitigating homelessness will have to be some indeterminate step 2. 

People think this is cruel. 

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it sure is a fun fight to watch, like watching Kimbo Slice fight in those backyard bum fights that could be downloaded on Kazaa back in the day.

[Armybrat 41408]

5 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+attach+a+live+skunk+to+a+drone&client=firefox-b-1-d&hl=en-US&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiv59SV9aTwAhVJHzQIHXdDAUIQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1536&bih=722

They wouldn’t smell that.

[dcar00 14971]

31 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Some of the people in this thread start with the premise that homeless people can camp wherever they want, so I just assumed we were making retarded arguments.

and who would that be?  quit blaming your retarded arguments on others.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Houston doesn’t have the issues Austin does.  I feel we have better private-public partnerships.  Am I wrong?

Because last time I was in Austin, it was a complete shithole.  

[Steel Shank 9556]

Simple question: What efforts by opponents of Prop. B have been successful? What have they done that has proven to work? Show me how the money spent has worked. Show me why their argument is valid and true. Show me.

[Your Mom 4972]

Why do all the No voters keep reminding us it won't end homelessness?  It's not going to bring world peace, cure cancer, or help the Horns win a national championship either.   That's some strawman bullshit you throw out when you're grasping at straws trying to defend complete idiocy.  Ending homelessness isn't the goal of the Proposition.  I'm all ears about ideas to end homelessness and I'm a liberal willing to fund some of those ideas with my taxes.  But this particular idea of letting them shit all over our city isn't helping to end homelessness either.   My yes vote has absolutely nothing to do with ending homelessness.  

 

[crash_davis 23470]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Houston doesn’t have the issues Austin does.  I feel we have better private-public partnerships.  Am I wrong?

Because last time I was in Austin, it was a complete shithole.  

Because Austin is has special idiots for Mayor and city council. Houston didn't post a giant HOMELESS WELCOME sign by getting rid of the camping ban. 

Imagine being homeless and hearing of a city 2.5 hours away which lets you do whatever the fuck you want. That's why Houston isn't a shitshow.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, crash_davis said:

Because Austin is has special idiots for Mayor and city council. Houston didn't post a giant HOMELESS WELCOME sign by getting rid of the camping ban. 

Imagine being homeless and hearing of a city 2.5 hours away which lets you do whatever the fuck you want. That's why Houston isn't a shitshow.

But they can't do whatever the fuck they want no matter how many times you say it. 

Anyway, after the camping ban is reinstated, Austin will still have a sizable homeless population. Hopefully we can find those folks shelter and health care.

[dcar00 14971]

1 minute ago, Your Mom said:

Why do all the No voters keep reminding us it won't end homelessness?  It's not going to bring world peace, cure cancer, or help the Horns win a national championship either.   That's some strawman bullshit you throw out when you're grasping at straws trying to defend complete idiocy.  Ending homelessness isn't the goal of the Proposition.  I'm all ears about ideas to end homelessness and I'm a liberal willing to fund some of those ideas with my taxes.  But this particular idea of letting them shit all over our city isn't helping to end homelessness either.   My yes vote has absolutely nothing to do with ending homelessness.  

 

you are going to need to turn in your liberal "just one life" card.

[crash_davis 23470]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Anyway, after the camping ban is reinstated, Austin will still have a sizable homeless population. 

Then all the more reasons to pass Prob B. The camping free for all has nothing to do with solving homelessness. The only thing it did was letting these assholes trash a once beautiful city.

[Your Mom 4972]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

you are going to need to turn in your liberal "just one life" card.

No, I was just talking about this to my son last night actually.  You can't let a few outlier shitbrained ideas cloud the big picture.  There's liberals and then there's Portland/SanFran/Austin liberals.    Kind of like how there's conservatives and then there's proud boy conservatives.   The latter makes the former look bad in both cases.

[David Dennison 19542]

4 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Then all the more reasons to pass Prob B. The camping free for all has nothing to do with solving homelessness. The only thing it did was letting these assholes trash a once beautiful city.

Let's just move 'em all back to the Drag where they belong.

[TKthunder2 5059]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

But they can't do whatever the fuck they want no matter how many times you say it. 

Anyway, after the camping ban is reinstated, Austin will still have a sizable homeless population. Hopefully we can find those folks shelter and health care.

Yeah, it’s not like they can cold cock and woman on the street, chase a coed in her dorm hallway, try to break into a house at 4am or drop a loaded 9mm on a family’s door step all without any consequences...o wait nevermind those were all direct examples provided just in one week on this thread.

Homeless need some semblance of order, just like frat boys and investment bankers.  Let them camp in designated camping spots, not where they make public amenities like Town Lake Trail unusable.  If the city really cared about their well-being they would have designated safer camping areas within the city and spent some of that sweet sweet hotel money on bringing the services that they need to them.

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, TKthunder2 said:

Yeah, it’s not like they can cold cock and woman on the street, chase a coed in her dorm hallway, try to break into a house at 4am or drop a loaded 9mm on a family’s door step all without any consequences...o wait nevermind those were all direct examples provided just in one week on this thread.

Homeless need some semblance of order, just like frat boys and investment bankers.  Let them camp in designated camping spots, not where they make public amenities like Town Lake Trail unusable.  If the city really cared about their well-being they would have designated safer camping areas within the city and spent some of that sweet sweet hotel money on bringing the services that they need to them.

Sadly, things like that will still happen, even after the ban is reinstated.

[Hate 20249]

Open up your doors DD. How many spare rooms you got?

[crash_davis 23470]

Fuck putting people into boxes thinking that if you are liberal you have to be support x, y, z and if you are conservative you are for a, b, c. This is why shit like the camping free for all and Trump happen. So you have to root for your "team" no matter how stupid the policy? 

We tried the camping free for all. Nothing fucking substantially good came of it. All it did was sour a lot of people on the plight of homelessness. I used to feel compassion for them, now I just see them as fucking cockroaches that the city government won't let you get rid of. They've way overstayed and overplayed their welcome. Time to GET THEM THE FUCK OUT. I'm tired of millions of our tax paying dollars going towards a bottomless pit.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, crash_davis said:

Fuck putting people into boxes thinking that if you are liberal you have to be support x, y, z and if you are conservative you are for a, b, c. This is why shit like the camping free for all and Trump happen. So you have to root for your "team" no matter how stupid the policy? 

We tried the camping free for all. Nothing fucking substantially good came of it. All it did was sour a lot of people on the plight of homelessness. I used to feel compassion for them, now I just see them as fucking cockroaches that the city government won't let you get rid of. They've way overstayed and overplayed their welcome. Time to GET THEM THE FUCK OUT. I'm tired of millions of our tax paying dollars going towards a bottomless pit.

This won't get them the fuck out.

[crash_davis 23470]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

This won't get them the fuck out.

Nope, You can never kill all the cockroaches. But you can drive them back to the dark places where you don't have to see them every day.

If they leave great. If they are driven back to the woods, great too. Either way, fuck them.

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, crash_davis said:

Nope, You can never kill all the cockroaches. But you can drive them back to the dark places where you don't have to see them every day.

If they leave great. If they are driven back to the woods, great too. Either way, fuck them.

You'll still see them every day. Just like before. You might not see tent cities, but you'll see plenty of homeless folks.

[crash_davis 23470]

Just now, David Dennison said:

You'll still see them every day. Just like before. You might not see tent cities, but you'll see plenty of homeless folks.

Agreed. that's why you should open your house and yard to them. Let them shit all over your house and yard. Be the change you want to see. 

[Steel Shank 9556]

48 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

Simple question: What efforts by opponents of Prop. B have been successful? What have they done that has proven to work? Show me how the money spent has worked. Show me why their argument is valid and true. Show me.

Anybody?

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Steel Shank said:

Anybody?

Every successful solution to homelessness seems to involve moving those experiencing homelessness into a form of permanent housing and providing them access to health and child care.

Some people want no part of that because it involves taxpayer money.

[Steel Shank 9556]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Every successful solution to homelessness seems to involve moving those experiencing homelessness into a form of permanent housing and providing them access to health and child care.

Some people want no part of that because it involves taxpayer money.

Have we not spent money (a lot) ? Results?

[dcar00 14971]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You'll still see them every day. Just like before. You might not see tent cities, but you'll see plenty of homeless folks.

yes, there have been and always will be homeless.  the amount depends on the willingness to enforce the law and/or keep them moving(or their willingness to take advantage of the services that are already available.  we used to call them transients/hobos

[dcar00 14971]

3 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

Have we not spent money (a lot) ? Results?

yes millions upon millions but it is never enough and when they knew they couldn't just loiter in almost  any public area or go to jail, it made it more difficult to just stay in one spot/city.  but of course that "solution" doesn't allow for grifting taxpayers over even more money to buy hotels which your political class can make money from.

[Steel Shank 9556]

4 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

yes millions upon millions but it is never enough and when they knew they couldn't just loiter in almost  any public area or go to jail, it made it more difficult to just stay in one spot/city.  but of course that "solution" doesn't allow for grifting taxpayers over even more money to buy hotels which your political class can make money from.

Damn, son. It's called "Shift" for caps.

[David Dennison 19542]

10 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

yes millions upon millions but it is never enough and when they knew they couldn't just loiter in almost  any public area or go to jail, it made it more difficult to just stay in one spot/city.  but of course that "solution" doesn't allow for grifting taxpayers over even more money to buy hotels which your political class can make money from.

What do you suggest?

[dcar00 14971]

9 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

Damn, son. It's called "Shift" for caps.

capitalization is just an attempt by the bourgeoisie to keep the proletariat down.

[Steel Shank 9556]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What do you suggest?

Wait - let's spend more money without thinking where it goes or what it does! That's the answer!

 

[Hate 20249]

44 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

Anybody?

They've made DD sleep better at night knowing those homeless people are homeless in Austin instead of some other city?

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Steel Shank said:

Wait - let's spend more money without thinking where it goes or what it does! That's the answer!

Pretty sure the answer is housing and health care.

[TKthunder2 5059]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Every successful solution to homelessness seems to involve moving those experiencing homelessness into a form of permanent housing and providing them access to health and child care.

Some people want no part of that because it involves taxpayer money.

lol jeez you’re a special one.  People aren’t against spending tax payer money on homeless.  The vast majority of this thread was celebrating when the city finally expanded its partnership with the Community First village just 2 weeks ago.  People don’t like spending stupid amount of money on hotels that do little to solve the problem.  9.5 million dollars for 80 rooms in the Candlewood is about $120,000.00 per room, and while I know Austin real estate is getting pricey, that’s still ridiculous.  I could buy an actual condo and market price for that amount of money.

The city could easily build a facility on the land it already owns in South or East Austin or even perhaps that empty Home Depot that could house hundreds for far less than 10 million.  Either way people are not opposed to spending money to provide support in order to solve this problem...however we also need to provide enforcement.

This should not be a completely free house where homeless can come home to after panhandling all day for drug money.  Mental health treatments including psych or addiction treatment should be mandatory, along with drug tests, plus a job/education requirement; simply giving free housing is just enablement not a solution.  If you break a law and are homeless you should have to choose, enroll in this free housing program under “probation” or go to court and see what happens.

This would house those that want/need to be housed, those down on their luck, runaways, abused, etc and hopefully treat those will mental/addiction issues and put them on a path to self sufficiency, leaving only the vagabond, conmen, predators, hard core drug addicts, and other homeless by choice types which likely should be incarcerated for the good of society.

[CooterBrown 18288]

Because Austin is has special idiots for Mayor and city council. Houston didn't post a giant HOMELESS WELCOME sign by getting rid of the camping ban. 
Imagine being homeless and hearing of a city 2.5 hours away which lets you do whatever the fuck you want. That's why Houston isn't a shitshow.

To be fair, Houston is a shit show because of the people in homes not the homeless.

[dcar00 14971]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

Then all the more reasons to pass Prob B. The camping free for all has nothing to do with solving homelessness. The only thing it did was letting these assholes trash a once beautiful city.

to be fair, some folks made some money on hotel purchases and the ability of the mayor to ask for 500M+ dollars to "fix it" without being run out of town on a rail.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, TKthunder2 said:

lol jeez you’re a special one.  People aren’t against spending tax payer money on homeless.  The vast majority of this thread was celebrating when the city finally expanded its partnership with the Community First village just 2 weeks ago.  People don’t like spending stupid amount of money on hotels that do little to solve the problem.  9.5 million dollars for 80 rooms in the Candlewood is about $120,000.00 per room, and while I know Austin real estate is getting pricey, that’s still ridiculous.  I could buy an actual condo and market price for that amount of money.

The city could easily build a facility on the land it already owns in South or East Austin or even perhaps that empty Home Depot that could house hundreds for far less than 10 million.  Either way people are not opposed to spending money to provide support in order to solve this problem...however we also need to provide enforcement.

This should not be a completely free house where homeless can come home to after panhandling all day for drug money.  Mental health treatments including psych or addiction treatment should be mandatory, along with drug tests, plus a job/education requirement; simply giving free housing is just enablement not a solution.  If you break a law and are homeless you should have to choose, enroll in this free housing program under “probation” or go to court and see what happens.

This would house those that want/need to be housed, those down on their luck, runaways, abused, etc and hopefully treat those will mental/addiction issues and put them on a path to self sufficiency, leaving only the vagabond, conmen, predators, hard core drug addicts, and other homeless by choice types which likely should be incarcerated for the good of society.

So what you're saying is, we should concentrate the homeless into designated areas.

Novel approach.

[TKthunder2 5059]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So what you're saying is, we should concentrate the homeless into designated areas.

Novel approach.

So you’re just a troll.  You’re literally coming in here and shitting on every idea and providing nothing of actual substance.  Yes, you “concentrate “ the homeless in one or multiple areas where they can receive the support and services that EVERY HOMELESS ADVOCATE says they need.  You provide housing, medical care, education/training and make your fucking best attempt to help them as a fellow human being to reclaim some dignity and once again become a contributing member to their community.  I’ve been preaching this for years and doing what I can to support it where I can.  What have you done?

On 6/6/2019 at 9:04 PM, TKthunder2 said:

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 provide these people a real chance to end their homelessness.  Do this in concert with passing very strict anti panhandling, trespassing, vagrancy, loitering laws and allowed trained officers to routinely patrol popular locations where homeless gather and transport them to this new facility.  Those with drug/alcohol problems or mental disorders will be put into a program (also located on site) while the others are monitored then moved into a halfway house type of situation and given food/clothing.  Once they’ve hit the minimum required stay they can be placed into an optional vocational training program and put on a path to gain employment with a city/community partner and moved into an additional halfway house outside of the intake facility.  Have a three strikes policy and then assign those that violate it real jail time as a deterrent for those who are picked up on their third time.  This would give those that want a path out of homelessness a real chance to turn their lives around and remove the homeless by choice from our streets.