Is there a "right" to be homeless and live on the sidewalk?

[Mac-7]

No SassyIrishLass may disagree but to have tens of thousands living on the streets creates a Public Health Emergency. No bathrooms, no showers etc. So they go in the woods or many times in the streets or peoples yards nearby. Once in Nancy Piglousy driveway LOL!

But you can't have that going on for decades. They have to be removed. Many of them probably forcibly. Yes it may mean to a Desert Tent city surrounded by armed guards but with porta potties, showers whatever it takes. Save the good, Jail the bad if (when) they act up on the camps. Somehow release them back to jobs and decent living quarters? how? I don't know. Some of them are good....down on their luck. Were working but ended up laid off or living in cars whatever. I've seen it first-hand too often.

First pick them up for camping in the street

Then drug test them

If they fail send them to rehab for a minimum 6 months

If they kick the habit let them transition back to civilian life by helping them to find jobs and a place to live

The same goes for the rare street bum who is not a druggie but merely insane

Keep them in a hospital till they get their mind right

 

[Captain Caveman]

Facts say differently in many places where homeless gather.

Facts? What about laws.

Some choose to be homeless, many don't.

 

[progressive hunter]

Facts? What about laws.

Some choose to be homeless, many don't.

what do paying taxs have to do with anything??

 

[eagle1462010]

Facts? What about laws.

Some choose to be homeless, many don't.

Soo. It can be caused by many issues

 

[SassyIrishLass]

SassyIrishLass may disagree but to have tens of thousands living on the streets creates a Public Health Emergency. No bathrooms, no showers etc. So they go in the woods or many times in the streets or peoples yards nearby. Once in Nancy Piglousy driveway, once in the aisle at Safeway in SF.

But you can't have this going on for 4 decades. They have to be removed. Many of them probably forcibly? Yes it may mean to a Desert Tent city surrounded by armed guards but with porta potties, showers whatever it takes. Save the good, Jail the bad if (when) they act up in the camps. Somehow release them back to jobs and decent living quarters? how? I don't know. Some of them are good....down on their luck. Were working but ended up laid off or living in cars whatever. I've seen it first-hand too often.

They don't even let your dogs take a dump in public without cleaning it up. Then there is the mountains of trash they pile up......they don't have a "Thurs pickup" like Orange county suburb homes. That costs money.

I understand how DEMS and communists would abuse this "forced" roundup into tent cities. But I don't know what else to do at this time?

It's a slippery slope. Indianapolis has done a fantastic job at getting housing for the homeless. Unfortunately they usually regress back what led them to homeless to begin with.

I don't have the answer and I doubt anyone else does

 

[justoffal]

I thought we were talking about why they are homeless,,

unless youve talked to every single one you couldnt know why all of them are homeless,,

I've always had a large house.
Since the kids were little I can't remember a time when we didn't have extra people living with us who needed a place to stay.

Didn't always work out well but we did it nevertheless. I took in children for three four and five years until they had a place to go or they were independent.

These were kids who knew my kids and had lousy parents or terrible living situations. I didn't mind one bit. Not only was it good for the kids It was good for the family as a whole and now my grown children do the same thing.

When it comes to taking in illegal immigrants though that's where I draw the line because I don't know who the hell is coming into the house.
If I'm going to go work a night shift and leave my wife by herself I want to make goddamn good and sure she's not going to get beat up raped or otherwise bullied while I'm gone.

I've heard about some things happening to people who took in South American migrants that turned out to be a nightmare. Don't need that shit.

 

[justoffal]

Facts? What about laws.

Some choose to be homeless, many don't.

There are people who actually prefer the homeless lifestyle. I can't imagine why but I have met a few. I have to say I admire them to some extent.

 

[White 6]

Yet it's being allowed:
Allowing homeless camping almost everywhere in Seattle is a bad idea

Nobody asked if it was happening. They asked if it was a right. I find nothing in the Constitution giving that as a right. I admit, I am not familiar with the State Constitutions of every one of the 50 states.

 

[leftwinger]

If you separated out the addicts, drunken bums, non-citizens, and criminals from the herd....maybe you could then use the shelters more as intended for the mothers with children, single women and those men truly down on their luck. Those that are most easily salvageable first. It is such a mess.....from the 80s' onwards to today.

 

[Lord-Humungus]

I’m going in the no category. Sidewalks are designed and intended to be used as means of public travel, not a source of lodging. Any benches along those sidewalks are intended for temporary use and not for overnight use as a bed. For that reason there is a decent argument to be made that there is a danger to the public using a sidewalk or bench for something other than its intended purpose.

 

[Captain Caveman]

There are people who actually prefer the homeless lifestyle. I can't imagine why but I have met a few. I have to say I admire them to some extent.

They just don't want to be part of the slave "system"

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

I'm not talking about whether it's good or bad for people to live like that, or what can be done about it. Well, not as the main point, anyway.

Is there a right to use public tax-funded sidewalks as a campground, no matter how dirty, unsightly, and dangerous the "camping equipment" may be? I'm talking about a person pushing a grocery cart full of dirty and often wet belongings, or carrying a trashbag full of stuff and stopping to rest whenevery they get tired, meanwhile often asking passers-by for money, or otherwise engaging them.

Would any sane and non-addicted person choose to live like that? If there is no way for a peson to exercise a choice, can they really be said to have a "right to choose?"

A humane society's solution for these obviously mentally ill, and/or addicted people is to take them off the sidewalks and bring them to where they can get help. If they refuse the help, I can see a libertarian case for not forcing them. But why bring them back to dangerous city streets that they will both make more dangerous and be endangered on? Take them to the woods near a water source and drop them off.

I look at the issue as a Christian and American. …our taxpayer dollars go towards various things. We’re talking huge sums of money. There was one source which said it would cost a fraction of taxpayer dollar to end the homelessness issue.

In a civilized society It’s in my opinion the responsibility of responsible adults to address the issue of homeless children or hungry or impoverished children. Children who often have drug addicted, parents or some way shape or form irresponsible parents. This is specifically about children and so that’s different topic compared to homeless adults. I just wanted to make my side point there about kids who are homeless or impoverished.


We’ve given hundreds of billions of dollars to countries like Ukraine, Egypt and Israel. We don’t get anything back for it. We’re not getting dividends from that.

Taxpayer dollars go to funding the military. We can argue we get a dividend for that it’s called protection. And having that secure feeling knowing how great and strong our military is. I personally think it is a good idea to have lots of our taxpayer dollars go toward funding the military.

And so taxpayer dollars should go toward funding things like a national healthcare and free public colleges. We are the strongest and wealthiest country in the world. We should have the most educated citizens in the world, but we don’t. We also are not the healthiest country in the world… we are the most obese country in the world.

And part of taxpayer dollars should go toward homes or psychiatric centers for homeless people. And they shouldn’t be on the street as you point out. I think that’s what you’re saying. It is a dangerous situation. Homeless folks can also have mental disorders and they can pose a violent situation to themselves or others. So that’s a problem. The solution is tax payer funded homes for homeless people. And I’m not talking about mansions it’s really going to be a tough situation, and the hope is that they will also have programs that help them get mentally and physically fit for the real world.

No honest Christian would say homeless people should be abused in any manner… we’ve had a lot of military veterans go homeless. So this is an issue for conservatives and liberals to look at.

 

[Crepitus]

Odd you should argue in favor of a right to life.

Are you sure you want to pull on that thread?

I've never said there wasn't.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

They don't even let your dogs take a dump in public without cleaning it up.

Correct...

 

[ScorpioRising007]

I'm not talking about whether it's good or bad for people to live like that, or what can be done about it. Well, not as the main point, anyway.

Is there a right to use public tax-funded sidewalks as a campground, no matter how dirty, unsightly, and dangerous the "camping equipment" may be? I'm talking about a person pushing a grocery cart full of dirty and often wet belongings, or carrying a trashbag full of stuff and stopping to rest whenevery they get tired, meanwhile often asking passers-by for money, or otherwise engaging them.

Would any sane and non-addicted person choose to live like that? If there is no way for a peson to exercise a choice, can they really be said to have a "right to choose?"

A humane society's solution for these obviously mentally ill, and/or addicted people is to take them off the sidewalks and bring them to where they can get help. If they refuse the help, I can see a libertarian case for not forcing them. But why bring them back to dangerous city streets that they will both make more dangerous and be endangered on? Take them to the woods near a water source and drop them off.

I think they have a right to be there. If the government doesn't want them there then should give them free housing.

I often have thought about living homeless in California myself for a while just because it is the only affordable way I could ever live in California and experience California. With how expensive housing and rent is there is no way I could afford rent. Just have a full time job and live out of a tent.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm not talking about whether it's good or bad for people to live like that, or what can be done about it. Well, not as the main point, anyway.

Is there a right to use public tax-funded sidewalks as a campground, no matter how dirty, unsightly, and dangerous the "camping equipment" may be? I'm talking about a person pushing a grocery cart full of dirty and often wet belongings, or carrying a trashbag full of stuff and stopping to rest whenevery they get tired, meanwhile often asking passers-by for money, or otherwise engaging them.

Would any sane and non-addicted person choose to live like that? If there is no way for a peson to exercise a choice, can they really be said to have a "right to choose?"

A humane society's solution for these obviously mentally ill, and/or addicted people is to take them off the sidewalks and bring them to where they can get help. If they refuse the help, I can see a libertarian case for not forcing them. But why bring them back to dangerous city streets that they will both make more dangerous and be endangered on? Take them to the woods near a water source and drop them off.

Being homeless is against the law in 48 states and they call this a Christian nation.

 

[there4eyeM]

Do you have a right to life?

That is hardly the question.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think they have a right to be there. If the government doesn't want them there then should give them free housing.

I often have thought about living homeless in California myself for a while just because it is the only affordable way I could ever live in California and experience California. With how expensive housing and rent is there is no way I could afford rent. Just have a full time job and live out of a tent.

There are plenty of shelters available to homeless people. They don't want to go. Should they be forced?

You want to "experience California," I wish you well in that quest. Just don't ask me to pay for it. You want wide-open spaces, beautiful women and/or manly men, whatever you're into, come on to Texas. You can afford a home if you're willing to work.

Surfing in Texas sucks, though. The water is brown and waveless compared to California. But if you want to live on the beach in a tent in California, go ahead. I feel no urge to support you financially, any more than I would have supported my own kids financially if they wanted to be surf bums instead of college students.

 

[petro]

I sure feel like an idiot these days paying the government to use campgrounds.

Really am sick of the street intersection beggars who leave piles of trash on the corner.

Another homeless camp burned in Mpls after propane heaters started the whole camp on fire.
A whole city block in a residential area, filled with tents, trash, human excrement, that took several dump trucks to remove. Homeless people sure have a lot of crap.



Homeowners next to these squatters camps have to deal with drug use, crime, and a complete eyesore of accumulated garbage reducing their property values.