Are the governments responsible for manslaughter of the homeless ?

[MikeF]

They will have alcohol supplied , we will supply cigarettes , marijuana and methadone etc . Often the drug problem in the homeless person is because of the cold and because they have lost all hope . When we set up these communities there will be people who want to be clean and they will become site trustees .
Society thinks these people can't work etc but I am confident that even the most hardened drug user could plant a few seeds or feed the chickens even while they are high .

Consider these site in been liking to a rehab camp but also consider they will be working and helping society too .

I'd estimate that at least 75% of the homeless would come good . Yes there will still be some fruit loops on the streets but the majority will love having hope and probably be in tears when we hand them keys to their new home with a bed etc .

And what if the remaining 25% you label "fruitloops" are where the 1300 homeless deaths come from. You have spent all that money and not prevented the very thing that has you so concerned and angry at government inaction.

Your Shangri-La also has a high possibility of enticing folks to drop out of the workforce. They may see the services you provide as more than adequate to meet their needs and wants. Many dream of having their needs met and not having to work for it and to share that care-free lifestyle with other like-minded folks.

I don't think your scheme will work the way you anticipate it should.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is hardly rocket science , we can make small homes for about £1000 in Britain made of wood , plaster fire board and insulation . Some people might call it a garden shed but If I was homeless , I'd call it luxury . This version is only £1600 for example , We could even use recycled plastic and make like Wendy houses . All we need is common land and place loads of these .

They did that in California and the left wing jackbooted government smashed them to smithereens.

Charity Builds Dozens Of Tiny Homes For Homeless On Private Property – Cops & Government Destroy It All (Video)

In 2020, The Free Thought Project reported on the work of two groups, Food Not Bombs and the Sidewalk Project, who raised $16,000 and built 26 tiny homes in Las

thewashingtonstandard.com

 

[MikeF]

They did that in California and the left wing jackbooted government smashed them to smithereens.

Charity Builds Dozens Of Tiny Homes For Homeless On Private Property – Cops & Government Destroy It All (Video)

In 2020, The Free Thought Project reported on the work of two groups, Food Not Bombs and the Sidewalk Project, who raised $16,000 and built 26 tiny homes in Las

thewashingtonstandard.com

Do you advocate building habitation without regard to building ordinances as is often seen in developing countries? What happens when an earthquake hits and these structures collapse, killing the occupants? Will folks simply stand by and say, oh well, so sad, or will they sue the government for improper oversight?

 

[jes-us]

And what if the remaining 25% you label "fruitloops" are where the 1300 homeless deaths come from. You have spent all that money and not prevented the very thing that has you so concerned and angry at government inaction.

Your Shangri-La also has a high possibility of enticing folks to drop out of the workforce. They may see the services you provide as more than adequate to meet their needs and wants. Many dream of having their needs met and not having to work for it and to share that care-free lifestyle with other like-minded folks.

I don't think your scheme will work the way you anticipate it should.

If people don't want to comply and have hope , then these peoples deaths are not manslaughter .,that is the difference . The gov needs to make the offer then they are not liable for prosecution .

I think you under estimate how ''tight'' a community can become and how helpful people can be to other people etc . If you was homeless and had the chance of a home , hope and help , would you comply ? I know I would for sure and knowmany homeless would too .

Even if we only saved 50% of the wretches , it would be morally better than the manslaughter of them , seriously ask God , I did and God said

 

[jes-us]

Do you advocate building habitation without regard to building ordinances as is often seen in developing countries? What happens when an earthquake hits and these structures collapse, killing the occupants? Will folks simply stand by and say, oh well, so sad, or will they sue the government for improper oversight?

An Earth quake isn't going to affect a garden type shed too much and your link suggest manslaughter .

 

[MikeF]

An Earth quake isn't going to affect a garden type shed too much and your link suggest manslaughter .

It wasn't my link, it was simply quoted from other post. The link seemed to indicate that the shelters were torn down for zoning and code violations. My question would be whether there is still an expectation to comply with zoning and construction codes in the creation of homeless housing, and if not, who is responsible if things go wrong?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's just the everyday poison of greed and stupidity which controls the minds of those in government, in business....

Business isn't the party that destroys their homes,
prevents them from sharing homes, & then arrests
them for vagrancy. That's government.

 

[jes-us]

It wasn't my link, it was simply quoted from other post. The link seemed to indicate that the shelters were torn down for zoning and code violations. My question would be whether there is still an expectation to comply with zoning and construction codes in the creation of homeless housing, and if not, who is responsible if things go wrong?

I see your point but it is ironic that the police etc worry about the building safety before the health of the homelessness.

Using garden type sheds , summer house conversions , aren't exactly classed as a building . A sheds a shed all said and done . The health and safety is simply to use fire boards dry walling to prevent fires . Other than that the ''sheds'' are safer than a house because there won't be a need for a gas supply and they will have solar powered lights , so there is no worry of carbon monoxide etc .

 

[MikeF]

I see your point but it is ironic that the police etc worry about the building safety before the health of the homelessness.

Using garden type sheds , summer house conversions , aren't exactly classed as a building . A sheds a shed all said and done . The health and safety is simply to use fire boards dry walling to prevent fires . Other than that the ''sheds'' are safer than a house because there won't be a need for a gas supply and they will have solar powered lights , so there is no worry of carbon monoxide etc .

Then I suggest you write a grant proposal or secure private funding for a test site. Get it up and running, and if you show proof of concept, you can scale it up to meet demand.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you advocate building habitation without regard to building ordinances as is often seen in developing countries? What happens when an earthquake hits and these structures collapse, killing the occupants? Will folks simply stand by and say, oh well, so sad, or will they sue the government for improper oversight?

Obviously the government isn't eager for building. They sure are destroying though..

These structures won't collapse. They are basically small sheds that are portable and pose no risk of death.

Good people provide some dignity with small shelters, the left wing goverment can't stand it.

 

[jes-us]

Then I suggest you write a grant proposal or secure private funding for a test site. Get it up and running, and if you show proof of concept, you can scale it up to meet demand.

Oddly enough I have asked the British Gov and the Royal family many times via Facebook but they fail to even acknowledge my existence . I have also even propositioned it has a charity or a successful business based on the UK's housing benefit system . However , I also suspect my Facebook isn't actually live for the world to see , locked down by the government because I mentioned suspected manslaughter amongst other things .

 

[jes-us]

Obviously the government isn't eager for building. They sure are destroying though..

These structures won't collapse. They are basically small sheds that are portable and pose no risk of death.

Good people provide some dignity with small shelters, the left wing can't stand it.

Yes that is a good home what I can see of it for a homeless person as long as it is fire proofed .

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes that is a good home what I can see of it for a homeless person as long as it is fire proofed .

It's like a portable hunting/fishing shelter. You can be warm and protected from the elements and give a person a little dignity from a terrible situation.

 

[MikeF]

Obviously the government isn't eager for building. They sure are destroying though..

These structures won't collapse. They are basically small sheds that are portable and pose no risk of death.

Good people provide some dignity with small shelters, the left wing goverment can't stand it.

Government is a double-edged sword, so to speak. Managing large populations of unique individuals with their own specific needs and wants is not easy nor for the faint of heart.

You say they won't collapse, that's great. Does it mean they pass building code? If so, what is the impediment? Zoning issues? People petition for zoning changes all the time, or find property with the proper zoning in the first place. Is your argument that anyone should be able to do whatever they want with whatever piece of land they choose? Not the kind of community I wish to live in, no I suspect would many others.

 

[jes-us]

It's like a portable hunting shelter. You can be warm and protected from the elements and give a person a little dignity from a terrible situation.

A few of these in a row would also look a whole lot cosmetic better in a city or elsewhere than cardboard boxes for sure . Over here in the UK we have similar on some of our beaches but not for the homeless . The problem in cities is a communal building , that is why these sites need to be created out of cities . Land with an existing building in the middle of nowhere , which has power and water is the ideal location to create these sites . A communal building could be made off the main building quite easily .

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes that is a good home what I can see of it for a homeless person as long as it is fire proofed .

Ordinary big homes aren't fireproofed.
Building codes don't require it.

 

[The Hammer]

Business isn't the party that destroys their homes,
prevents them from sharing homes, & then arrests
them for vagrancy. That's government.

Government is business in the US. Nad business is the government. Too entertained these days to differentiate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Government is business in the US. Nad business is the government. Too entertained these days to differentiate.

Whuh?

 

[jes-us]

Ordinary big homes aren't fireproofed.
Building codes don't require it.

Ordinary homes in the UK are made of brick generally , a wooden cabin with a homeless person in would require fire boarding over the insulation for safety reasons . We'd have to make sure the cabins were not smoked in , providing communal smoking areas . A lot of people would respect the cabins because they'd be luxury to them .

 

[Revoltingest]

Ordinary homes in the UK are made of brick generally , a wooden cabin with a homeless person in would require fire boarding over the insulation for safety reasons . We'd have to make sure the cabins were not smoked in , providing communal smoking areas . A lot of people would respect the cabins because they'd be luxury to them .

Brick homes aren't fireproof.
Sure, bricks won't burn, but the wood
frame, furniture, floor, & carpeting will.