I assume nothing. That segment of the homeless population are the ones we can most easily help. Those with mental illness or other similar issues are a much more difficult task. Especially if they don’t want help.
This is the Republican Party
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
Seems like their isn't a stick which has any effect, or which we are willing to wield. The carrot is likely the only effective method here. That will cost the cities money, but it's the only effective method.
I remember several years ago they started employing spikes and other barriers like that, in areas they didn't want them sleeping. I don't think that was effective, cost effective, or pretty. The only immediate thing they can do is force them to relocate with police officers, tasers, tear gas, etc. But that is a constant battle. They need a carrot at the place where they relocate.
I would be fine with a carrot if the same works. I just spent a week in Seattle due to soccer. The homeless problem downtown is significant. Adding to the issue is over half the homeless there are drug addicts. Trash, sanitation issues and drug use dominate these encampments. Not sure what the answer is but it is next to impossible to operate a business next to an encampment. Living next to one would also be a challenge. Not sure what the answer is other than the importance of a city having a say in where these encampments are located.
I think the most valid argument is public sanitation and safety. You want to make sure water quality is maintained and human waste and other toxic waste is taken care of properly. You also want to make sure people can navigate cities without the risk of encountering noxious drugs or used paraphernalia.
I was in Seattle last summer at right around this time after having not been there for a few years, and my observation was that, while the homeless problem was still a thing, it wasn't as bad as it had been around 2015-16 and I felt like the downtown actually had more stores than I expected in thriving operation, thought the high-end ones tended to have security.
Portland on the other hand (just visited a few months ago) was a total writeoff. I visit SLC quite often and it's another place really taken over by homelessness. On the other hand, in Des Moines or Tulsa where there is no effective public transit, you see much fewer homeless, probably because it's just harder move around the city.
What I've noticed most is that places with the best public transit where rules, fees, and standards are not well enforced have the worst homeless problems because it makes the homeless more mobile, and also ruins public transit for normal folks. I think that's one of the things I would crack down on first. Just because I don't want the homeless to be forcibly removed in all cases, doesn't mean I think they should get free public transit where they tend to cause a lot of problems. I think NYC improved quite a bit when they started to get the subway under control.
Last edited:
I think with the segment of the homeless population you're talking about (non-drug addicted, non-mentally ill) you also have to deal with the fact that many of those people have past lives.... meaning they probably have debts they've run from and horrible credit, also they may have alimony / child support debts that they may not have an easy time discharging in bankruptcy court. Getting them a job might simply not be enough. I think some of these people really could use a life counselor that can help them navigate what needs to be done to get them back in the fold of society..
Some might need debt reduction services, some might need job training. Many will need mental health services or expensive drug rehabilitation services. Others might need help dealing with PTSD related symptoms caused by America's military conflicts and a piss-poor VA system. I think very few of them need to be preached to, which is what we always seem to try first. Kicking them around in the country or imposing punitive civil / criminal fees probably won't work.
Last edited:
Seattle’s mayor conducted a study last year to find out some of the reasons people in his city were homeless. The study showed 60% of them were drug addicts. I thought that number was awful high but those were the results. We did see a lot of drug use on the streets while there. The downtown Target had practically everything other than food under lock and key.
LA and San Diego are still the worst two cities I’ve been too as far as the homeless. I’ve never been to Portland. It’s a complex issue with no easy answers. Especially since the reasons for homelessness are so diverse. Not sure I completely buy the debt reason at least in California due to the limited amount a judgment creditor can take as it relates to low income earners.
In an effort to be fair and balanced, I do think that the S.C’s decision today regarding immunity was the reasonable and correct one.
Seems to codify what the DOJs has done for over a hundred years. I do wish they would have narrowed or further explained what would qualify as an “official act”. Barrett addressed the question a bit in her concurrence. Seems fairly reasonable. I personally would favor a narrow interpretation due to my ongoing desire to limit the power of the Executive branch.
They took a pass with this 'decision'. Really cheap of them to avoid making a real decision. They just passed it off to future court decisions. No real definition, of what shouldn't be allowed.
Last edited:
