CDZ Homelessness in the United States

[martybegan]

This has been on my mind a lot lately as it was a problem before but with covid it will be increasing substantially.

It is not just a matter of people unable to pay rents but a range of cost that even landlords face today. A friend is losing her home due to the cost of repairs and insurance her landlord is facing so its been on my mind all day; what are cities and states going to do with all of the misplaced people? A person who is disabled or on limited Social Security only gets about $800.00 a month to live off of. My friend's rent is $500.00 a month and that is cheap when compared to rent in her SC area and would be even if she were here in this poverty stricken area of Iowa. I know some may think just move into some subsidized housing but most of those do not allow pets and she has two well trained dogs that are her constant companions. I know I would not give up my dog if we had a landlord letting us know he was kicking us out after we just paid the rent. Thankfully we own our own place even if it is a shithole tin shed with a leaky roof; it is ours as long as we can keep the property taxes paid.

Why can't cities and counties provide some of their land in areas not in use for people in need to have a tiny house? A place people can call her own while they get through the days here not clumped together like sardines. There are many like her who do not want to live like robots in apartment type complexes and who can blame them. They'd rather live in and fix up a piece at a time a place where they can just be their own person without a lot of hassle without a neighbor within a 100 feet of them. Lots of undeveloped land out there in the states throughout that could house retirees and even a family if they want to live out of the city interiors. Instead our government is spending trillions to develop what??? Vaccines and shit the average human doesn't want and needs no part of???

the conservative plan for homeless people


1. sell off all public lands to private enterprises so they can post "keep out!" signs
2. call homeless people "lazy" and "worthless" people who "refuse to work"
3. teach their kids to hate homeless people
4. train their dogs to attack homeless people
5. make "homeless" a crime

point A
6. arrest and incarcerate homeless people
7. whine about "our tax dollars being used to house lazy, worthless criminals"
8. save money by executing all homeless people
9. automate and computerize and roboticize as many jobs as you can forcing more people to lose their jobs
10. these jobless people will soon lose their homes and become homeless
11 goto point A

Reported for a troll attempt in the CDZ.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This has been on my mind a lot lately as it was a problem before but with covid it will be increasing substantially.

It is not just a matter of people unable to pay rents but a range of cost that even landlords face today. A friend is losing her home due to the cost of repairs and insurance her landlord is facing so its been on my mind all day; what are cities and states going to do with all of the misplaced people? A person who is disabled or on limited Social Security only gets about $800.00 a month to live off of. My friend's rent is $500.00 a month and that is cheap when compared to rent in her SC area and would be even if she were here in this poverty stricken area of Iowa. I know some may think just move into some subsidized housing but most of those do not allow pets and she has two well trained dogs that are her constant companions. I know I would not give up my dog if we had a landlord letting us know he was kicking us out after we just paid the rent. Thankfully we own our own place even if it is a shithole tin shed with a leaky roof; it is ours as long as we can keep the property taxes paid.

Why can't cities and counties provide some of their land in areas not in use for people in need to have a tiny house? A place people can call her own while they get through the days here not clumped together like sardines. There are many like her who do not want to live like robots in apartment type complexes and who can blame them. They'd rather live in and fix up a piece at a time a place where they can just be their own person without a lot of hassle without a neighbor within a 100 feet of them. Lots of undeveloped land out there in the states throughout that could house retirees and even a family if they want to live out of the city interiors. Instead our government is spending trillions to develop what??? Vaccines and shit the average human doesn't want and needs no part of???

the conservative plan for homeless people


1. sell off all public lands to private enterprises so they can post "keep out!" signs
2. call homeless people "lazy" and "worthless" people who "refuse to work"
3. teach their kids to hate homeless people
4. train their dogs to attack homeless people
5. make "homeless" a crime

point A
6. arrest and incarcerate homeless people
7. whine about "our tax dollars being used to house lazy, worthless criminals"
8. save money by executing all homeless people
9. automate and computerize and roboticize as many jobs as you can forcing more people to lose their jobs
10. these jobless people will soon lose their homes and become homeless
11 goto point A

That's not true.

 

[RodISHI]

A huge problem is federal and state governments throw literally millions into the problem...but to agencies where the funds don't reach the intended target.

A local one is a prime example, the admins live in high end neighborhoods, drive past their facility and the employee lot is filled with high end vehicles.

There is no accountabity and these people are profiting off the backs of the vulnerable.

I agree. I wrote my senator a lengthy letter on cd some years back with photos of an older lady I know who is homeless due to the redevelopment grants in Kansas City. The only ones who made out were a few inside developers and a lot of people were displaced. It is shameful what goes on in their so called helping people out who need a helping hand.

 

[jwoodie]

This country needs to get the fuck over its hangup with the mentally ill.
Instead, these sick, homeless people often treat their illness with street drugs, and alcohol. This exacerbates symptoms, and they end up in jails that lack the infrastructure to house, or treat them.
This cycle continues for years. Nobody gives a shit...nobody cares.

Homelessness is a symptom of mental illness (including substance abuse), not its cause. These people need treatment, but "liberal" policies prevent that unless they are imminent physical threats to themselves or others. Isn't it paradoxical that well people are forced to comply with restrictions on their activities, but mentally ill people are not?

 

[Syriusly]

This has been on my mind a lot lately as it was a problem before but with covid it will be increasing substantially.

It is not just a matter of people unable to pay rents but a range of cost that even landlords face today. A friend is losing her home due to the cost of repairs and insurance her landlord is facing so its been on my mind all day; what are cities and states going to do with all of the misplaced people? A person who is disabled or on limited Social Security only gets about $800.00 a month to live off of. My friend's rent is $500.00 a month and that is cheap when compared to rent in her SC area and would be even if she were here in this poverty stricken area of Iowa. I know some may think just move into some subsidized housing but most of those do not allow pets and she has two well trained dogs that are her constant companions. I know I would not give up my dog if we had a landlord letting us know he was kicking us out after we just paid the rent. Thankfully we own our own place even if it is a shithole tin shed with a leaky roof; it is ours as long as we can keep the property taxes paid.

Why can't cities and counties provide some of their land in areas not in use for people in need to have a tiny house? A place people can call her own while they get through the days here not clumped together like sardines. There are many like her who do not want to live like robots in apartment type complexes and who can blame them. They'd rather live in and fix up a piece at a time a place where they can just be their own person without a lot of hassle without a neighbor within a 100 feet of them. Lots of undeveloped land out there in the states throughout that could house retirees and even a family if they want to live out of the city interiors. Instead our government is spending trillions to develop what??? Vaccines and shit the average human doesn't want and needs no part of???

I agree that there is a real homeless and housing problem in the United States.
Parsing through your post your solution to one problem: responsible people who have pets but not much income- is to allow them to set up 'tiny homes' on some land without a neighbor within 100 feet. What you seem to be suggesting seems to me to be is that cities or states build or subsidize less crowded Mobile Home Parks.
And I really don't have any objection that big government idea. Cities and states do all sorts of subsidized housing and Mobile Home Parks seem like a reasonable solution- including spaces for 'Tiny Homes' or RV's.
Have you spoke to your local representatives about the idea? It certainly is worth pursuing.

There are many aspects to homelessness- and I think you kind of glossed over a big one- the big discrepancy between income and housing costs. As you mentioned someone who is disabled only gets an income of about $800 from the government and that clearly isn't enough. A bigger solution is to somehow raise the income of those at the bottom, and somehow bring the costs of housing within the realm of those who have reasonable incomes.

But that only addresses one specific subset of the homeless- there are also those who are mentally ill, and those who are alcoholics or addicts(or both)- and often all three. How do we deal with those? Personally I don't think any city or state does anyone a favor by allowing the mentally ill and addicts to live on the street. We need to find some system of support and housing for them- and get them off the streets.

And there are those who only need a helping hand to get past some personal misfortune - people who given a chance can hold down jobs and pay rent- short term assistance for those.

Finally there are what I call the bums- not too many of them are not really mentally ill or addicts- but for those who just refuse help but are mentally intact- don't let them live on the streets, arrest them if need be- put them in some cheap facility far from where they think they want to be or offer them a ticket back to whatever place they came from.

 

[Syriusly]

The problem with how to deal with homelessness in the US is a problem we have with anything we try to "fix". We want a nice one size fits all solution to a given problem that is really a mix of different problems with the same symptom.

Homeless people can be

1. Mentally Ill people
2. Drug Addicts
3. People that figure panhandling is better than working
4. People down on their luck with no families to help them
5. People from 4 who don't want to be part of the existing shelter and recovery systems
6. People who choose to live outside societal norms

So trying one set of fixes for the above sometimes vastly different underlying causes is doomed for failure, because you are trying to address a symptom, not a cause.

Excellent post.
I would add under age runaways too.

 

[Syriusly]

This country needs to get the fuck over its hangup with the mentally ill.
Instead, these sick, homeless people often treat their illness with street drugs, and alcohol. This exacerbates symptoms, and they end up in jails that lack the infrastructure to house, or treat them.
This cycle continues for years. Nobody gives a shit...nobody cares.

Homelessness is a symptom of mental illness (including substance abuse), not its cause. These people need treatment, but "liberal" policies prevent that unless they are imminent physical threats to themselves or others. Isn't it paradoxical that well people are forced to comply with restrictions on their activities, but mentally ill people are not?

Some homelessness, especially the most intractable certainly are a symptom of mental illness.
But there are others- such as the woman mentioned in the OP which are people down on their luck.
As far as the 'liberal policies'- I would think you are glad that it isn't easy for your family to go to some judge and have them declare you mentally incompetent to take care of yourself.
As a liberal I am absolutely in favor of the government not allowing a mentally ill person to live on the street. But conservatives- and liberals- have gutted our mental health system- there are no beds available in most except for those who are a danger to others.
I absolutely think we need the systems and support for the mentally ill and should get them off the streets and into treatment.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

This country needs to get the fuck over its hangup with the mentally ill.
Instead, these sick, homeless people often treat their illness with street drugs, and alcohol. This exacerbates symptoms, and they end up in jails that lack the infrastructure to house, or treat them.
This cycle continues for years. Nobody gives a shit...nobody cares.

Homelessness is a symptom of mental illness (including substance abuse), not its cause. These people need treatment, but "liberal" policies prevent that unless they are imminent physical threats to themselves or others. Isn't it paradoxical that well people are forced to comply with restrictions on their activities, but mentally ill people are not?

There are innumerable paradoxes in our country.

 

[RodISHI]

This has been on my mind a lot lately as it was a problem before but with covid it will be increasing substantially.

It is not just a matter of people unable to pay rents but a range of cost that even landlords face today. A friend is losing her home due to the cost of repairs and insurance her landlord is facing so its been on my mind all day; what are cities and states going to do with all of the misplaced people? A person who is disabled or on limited Social Security only gets about $800.00 a month to live off of. My friend's rent is $500.00 a month and that is cheap when compared to rent in her SC area and would be even if she were here in this poverty stricken area of Iowa. I know some may think just move into some subsidized housing but most of those do not allow pets and she has two well trained dogs that are her constant companions. I know I would not give up my dog if we had a landlord letting us know he was kicking us out after we just paid the rent. Thankfully we own our own place even if it is a shithole tin shed with a leaky roof; it is ours as long as we can keep the property taxes paid.

Why can't cities and counties provide some of their land in areas not in use for people in need to have a tiny house? A place people can call her own while they get through the days here not clumped together like sardines. There are many like her who do not want to live like robots in apartment type complexes and who can blame them. They'd rather live in and fix up a piece at a time a place where they can just be their own person without a lot of hassle without a neighbor within a 100 feet of them. Lots of undeveloped land out there in the states throughout that could house retirees and even a family if they want to live out of the city interiors. Instead our government is spending trillions to develop what??? Vaccines and shit the average human doesn't want and needs no part of???

I agree that there is a real homeless and housing problem in the United States.
Parsing through your post your solution to one problem: responsible people who have pets but not much income- is to allow them to set up 'tiny homes' on some land without a neighbor within 100 feet. What you seem to be suggesting seems to me to be is that cities or states build or subsidize less crowded Mobile Home Parks.
And I really don't have any objection that big government idea. Cities and states do all sorts of subsidized housing and Mobile Home Parks seem like a reasonable solution- including spaces for 'Tiny Homes' or RV's.
Have you spoke to your local representatives about the idea? It certainly is worth pursuing.

There are many aspects to homelessness- and I think you kind of glossed over a big one- the big discrepancy between income and housing costs. As you mentioned someone who is disabled only gets an income of about $800 from the government and that clearly isn't enough. A bigger solution is to somehow raise the income of those at the bottom, and somehow bring the costs of housing within the realm of those who have reasonable incomes.

But that only addresses one specific subset of the homeless- there are also those who are mentally ill, and those who are alcoholics or addicts(or both)- and often all three. How do we deal with those? Personally I don't think any city or state does anyone a favor by allowing the mentally ill and addicts to live on the street. We need to find some system of support and housing for them- and get them off the streets.

And there are those who only need a helping hand to get past some personal misfortune - people who given a chance can hold down jobs and pay rent- short term assistance for those.

Finally there are what I call the bums- not too many of them are not really mentally ill or addicts- but for those who just refuse help but are mentally intact- don't let them live on the streets, arrest them if need be- put them in some cheap facility far from where they think they want to be or offer them a ticket back to whatever place they came from.

I disagree with just arresting people because someone thinks they are bums.

Per housing states could offer property tax relief and limit that to how many properties one person or business can get poverty grants, relief or assistance on if they participate in the program to help others get homes of their own. Trailer parks? Not really what I had in mind but even that would be better than no home at all. Parks where even some could reside in travel trailers even could help alleviate some homelessness. A lot of the homeless retired had been living in the park systems in small rv's and some even out of their cars and that is better than them being on the streets or committing suicide out of desperation.

Part of the problem I have seen in the last 45 years banks and investors have driven the cost of affordable housing out of sight. In many cities onerous regulations put building a or fixing a small house or housing unit that are not wall to wall totally out of the affordability range too. General if one looks back in those meetings where onerous regulations were applied someone was getting screwed out of their property for someone in the know could make a tidy sum.

With limits on grants and property tax relief more people could become owners and sell properties holding contracts on them. It used to be that away until banks started getting so many subsidies. People like my grandmother would invest in houses, spend to fix them and sell them on contract (a couple of those she never collected fully on because she was compassionate towards the large families that had a tough time making all their bills).

^Just a few thoughts that come to mind in a quick post^

 

[jwoodie]

Some homelessness, especially the most intractable certainly are a symptom of mental illness. But most are.
But there are others- such as the woman mentioned in the OP which are people down on their luck. She refuses subsidized housing? Many allow comfort animals.
As far as the 'liberal policies'- I would think you are glad that it isn't easy for your family to go to some judge and have them declare you mentally incompetent to take care of yourself. Even if I was incompetent?
As a liberal I am absolutely in favor of the government not allowing a mentally ill person to live on the street. But conservatives- and liberals- have gutted our mental health system- there are no beds available in most except for those who are a danger to others.
I absolutely think we need the systems and support for the mentally ill and should get them off the streets and into treatment. The only way to do that is to enforce vagrancy laws and make probation contingent on enrolling in a treatment program. But most liberals prefer letting them live on the streets.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

.....Shame doesn't mean not helping, shame means helping while still judging, and hoping this will motivate the person to get out of the situation in question.

*****SMILE*****

 

[martybegan]

The problem with how to deal with homelessness in the US is a problem we have with anything we try to "fix". We want a nice one size fits all solution to a given problem that is really a mix of different problems with the same symptom.

Homeless people can be

1. Mentally Ill people
2. Drug Addicts
3. People that figure panhandling is better than working
4. People down on their luck with no families to help them
5. People from 4 who don't want to be part of the existing shelter and recovery systems
6. People who choose to live outside societal norms

So trying one set of fixes for the above sometimes vastly different underlying causes is doomed for failure, because you are trying to address a symptom, not a cause.

Excellent post.
I would add under age runaways too.

Thanks, that is #7. Usually unfortunately they can end up in one of the other categories.

7. Underage Runaways.

 

[martybegan]

.....Shame doesn't mean not helping, shame means helping while still judging, and hoping this will motivate the person to get out of the situation in question.

View attachment 375153

*****SMILE*****

I guess growing up Catholic made me value the power of shame when it comes to motivation.

Only Jewish parents and authority figures wield equally.

 

[jwoodie]

I disagree with just arresting people because someone thinks they are bums.

What if these "bums" are defecating on the side walks, leaving needles in public parks, accosting others and obstructing the use of public places and commercial establishments? Should they be immune from arrest?

Misguided sympathy enables unlawful conduct and impairs corrective treatment programs.

 

[HenryBHough]

Young reporter who worked for me some 50 or so years ago was raised in a "project". His family never could afford "market rate" rents and had no hope of ever owning a home. Circumstances were beyond their control - the "project" at least gave them shelter. He also had scars to prove why he felt the way he did about the "project". Physical; not just emotional. When he talked about it he pondered whether the degree of authoritarian control - and rigid enforcement - it would take to make it functional was something that should be allowed to exist in America. These days he's an "internet journalist" - unable to find work in conventional media because his "bias" keeps creeping into his reporting.

 

[RodISHI]

I disagree with just arresting people because someone thinks they are bums.

What if these "bums" are defecating on the side walks, leaving needles in public parks, accosting others and obstructing the use of public places and commercial establishments? Should they be immune from arrest?

Misguided sympathy enables unlawful conduct and impairs corrective treatment programs.

There are many levels of homelessness. Wanting to provide a place for people who are homeless and not law breakers is not "Misguided sympathy".

 

[jwoodie]

I disagree with just arresting people because someone thinks they are bums.

What if these "bums" are defecating on the side walks, leaving needles in public parks, accosting others and obstructing the use of public places and commercial establishments? Should they be immune from arrest?

Misguided sympathy enables unlawful conduct and impairs corrective treatment programs.

There are many levels of homelessness. Wanting to provide a place for people who are homeless and not law breakers is not "Misguided sympathy".

The behavior I referred to is breaking the law, and your refusal to enforce it is misguided sympathy at best.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

My friend's husband also committed suicide several years back. She says her city has a really nice facility for meth heads to stay in. What happens to those who are not druggies but have never just given themselves over to the only money matters scheme? She's the type of person that is always there to lend a helping hand to those in need. When everything was flooding she was working to help match people with animals in flooded areas with people who could care for them until their home were flood free; babysitting for others out helping flood victims and anything else she could do; always helping with meals to people in need and such too. Does the new age peeps out tearing crap down think she doesn't count.

Many retirees are living in small vans or rv's and they stayed in parks so they could survive on their meager pensions. Where are they now as they could not afford homes or apartments either.

Nice post. The Genesis. Starting in the 50's, civil rights groups wanted to deinstitutinalize publicaly run mental hospitals. OBVIOUSLY, mental health treatment was so Draconian back then, so the activism was somewhat justified. But medical science is medical science, and treatment back then.

In the early 60's the government was on board only because of a tremendous cost savings in closing all these places down. So they let these people out in the public with very little support. Funds for the mentally ill dried up.

Fast forward 50 yrs and about 80% of that mistake is what you see today..............imho

 

[RodISHI]

I disagree with just arresting people because someone thinks they are bums.

What if these "bums" are defecating on the side walks, leaving needles in public parks, accosting others and obstructing the use of public places and commercial establishments? Should they be immune from arrest?

Misguided sympathy enables unlawful conduct and impairs corrective treatment programs.

There are many levels of homelessness. Wanting to provide a place for people who are homeless and not law breakers is not "Misguided sympathy".

The behavior I referred to is breaking the law, and your refusal to enforce it is misguided sympathy at best.

You are barking up the wrong tree concerning refusal to enforce the law. I'd have a lot of white collar thieves and thugs directly in jail if it were up to me and druggies who are destructive too for that matter all doing time together.

Per druggies and crap you are referencing that is not what I am talking about and think you damn well know that.

 

[jwoodie]

Per druggies and crap you are referencing that is not what I am talking about and think you damn well know that.

So are you in favor of enforcing vagrancy and public nuisance laws or not?