With homelessness on the rise, the Supreme Court weighs bans on sleeping outdoors

[Stevicus]

First of all homeless people are scary. They scare the hell out of other people.

When you are homeless act like you are not homeless, because people are scared of homeless people. Shave and shower and don't stink, and people will ignore you. Brush your hair and teeth, and wear clothes which look and smell as neat and clean as possible. But if you don't, and if you walk about stinking and unshaven then people will be afraid. They will also be angry or annoyed or various other things. Sometimes they'll presume you are evil, proud, lazy and all sorts of other evil. Don't be surprised. Nobody can see into your mind whether you are safe to talk to.

I see quite a number of homeless people here and there, along with panhandlers who might claim to be homeless but really aren't (and a few I know it for a fact). Some are scammers, some are addicted, some are mentally ill, and some are just plain mean and nasty. Some never got a break in life; some may have been abused/traumatized. Some are veterans who should be entitled to care from the VA, but I don't know what's going on with that.

I once gave a ride to a hitch hiker, who then pulled a gun on me. Since then I have been very cold towards hitch hikers. When someone approaches me in a parking lot I give them the cold shoulder, and I hate myself for doing so. I also hate this new 'Anti homeless' architecture in cities. It is cruel and ugly and terrible, but I also wouldn't want homeless people near to my business or near to my door. The fact is, they are often crazy and dangerous.

I've picked up hitchhikers once in a while, but not in decades. I don't think I would do it now.

I think cities could at least set up some showers and toilet facilities and areas designated for homeless, if not shelters.

If nothing else, at least it would solve the problems faced by local residents and businesses having homeless people by their doors. Because they're not going away that easily, and most cities can't afford to round them up and lock them away (because if they could do that, they could afford to buy shelters).

They can try to kick them all out of town, but they'll just come back - or move on to another town. (Some cities were giving homeless people one-way tickets to Hawaii, but the Hawaiians started complaining about that.)

A girl in an enormous truck drove next to me as I was walking in a walmart parking lot. She began to talk to me about her problems. She had to leave her boyfriend, and she had no gas. I thought about it, then I quickly escaped. No telling what this girl would do. Would she scream like I had tried to attack her? Would she pull a gun out of her glove compartment? Would she take my money and laugh all the way home? Maybe she was trying to sell me sex? Maybe she really was having a hard time and just needed a little gas. I had no idea what this was about. I simply got the hell away as fast as I could.

Is it normal to walk up to a stranger to ask for rides? For gas money? I don't think it is. I think its a mark of someone who doesn't consider the feelings of others. Since having a gun pulled on me I will never risk my life again to give a ride to a stranger, and I in turn may one day be homeless, and I will understand when other people don't want to help me. I, in turn, may one day have no one to help me. That is cruel and horrible and true.

I'm reminded of this scene from the movie Falling Down (1993)

Spoiler: Panhandler in "Falling Down"

 

[The Hammer]

I suppose if people choose to be homeless, that may be different, but they'd still have to sleep somewhere. I don't know how many people actually choose to be homeless

It's pretty low. 1 in 10? And even then. Criminalizing it doesn't do anything but give people the illusion that there aren't any homeless. It's just sweeping the real issue under the rug.

 

[The Hammer]

Everything about this case makes my skin crawl.

The human species has slept outdoors for the vast majority of its evolutionary history.

If civilization cannot handle something that is so basic and fundamentally human, it needs to step aside.

Yup. This absolutely baffles me. Like what? The human species isn't designed for housing anyways.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Its hard to employ a homeless person. I suppose you can give them contract work, but you are risking liability and property damage. The job market requires employers to work with zero knowledge. To prevent discrimination on the basis of: religion...etc they aren't allowed to know anything about you. They can't ask things. Also, they can't give you a 2 week tryout just for the price of your wages. Its all paperwork and no support. Its all risk.

What would be *great* is to help homeless people who are willing to work, even if they are on drugs, even if they have a bad work history, even if they are incompetent, even if they are convicts; but who can afford to under current legislation? Its too risky. You have to break the law. You have to pay people under the table in a way that can never be traced. Who is willing to do that?

 

[Revoltingest]

Its hard to employ a homeless person.

I've tried multiple times.
Results are usually disappointing.
Problems I've seen with them....
- Don't get along well with others.
- Inattention to work.
- Personal conduct that bothers customers.

I have one such worker now. He requires
a lot of accommodation because of personal
problems. I'll not list all his problems but one
is suffering from grandiosity, believing that
government agents follow him around because
he's an important political figure who made
enemies.

I suppose you can give them contract work, but you are risking liability and property damage. The job market requires employers to work with zero knowledge. To prevent discrimination on the basis of: religion...etc they aren't allowed to know anything about you. They can't ask things. Also, they can't give you a 2 week tryout just for the price of your wages. Its all paperwork and no support. Its all risk.

We also can't get references from other employers.
Some will give out positive references, but never
negative ones because of the risk of being sued.
So I've hired a private investigator to check out
new workers.

What would be *great* is to help homeless people who are willing to work, even if they are on drugs, even if they have a bad work history, even if they are incompetent, even if they are convicts; but who can afford to under current legislation? Its too risky. You have to break the law. You have to pay people under the table in a way that can never be traced. Who is willing to do that?

Essentially, government makes it dang near illegal
to be homeless, & illegal to help them in meaningful
ways. Helping other shouldn't be a crime.

 

[Stevicus]

Are you channeling Stalin?

Who?

This kind of scorched
Earth policy regarding vacant units wouldn't
work well. There are complexities....
Buying & selling
Rehabbing properties
Flagging markets
Economic obsolescence
Lengthy legal disputes
Some of these things take over a year to resolve.
Confiscating all of an owner's property, & driving
them into bankruptcy with your proposal would
do far far more harm than good.

Without punishing anyone, why not do things
that don't punish anyone.....
- More reasonable zoning laws.
- More reasonable building codes.
- Lower government fees to build & remodel.
- More reasonable housing codes.
- Faster court hearings.

It wouldn't affect or punish anyone living in their homes. But I can also see supporting changes in zoning laws and building codes, provided that they're reasonable and don't compromise public safety. As for government, I know there are problems in governments and the way they operate.

I wonder about your link.
Excerpted...

• Investing in real estate just got a whole lot simpler. With as little as $100, average investors are becoming landlords thanks to this Jeff Bezos-backed startup.

That smacks of someone trying to get real estate newbies
to buy a course on how to get rich without money or work.
And the link doesn't work.

It could be that. I was just trying to find stats on the status of vacant housing (mainly because there was an earlier question of how much of it was snowbird housing). The article said that 17% of it was housing which was occupied part-time, which could include but not be limited to snowbirds. My point was that, at least in my proposal, snowbirds would be exempt.

If housing is a right, why not have government
provide it, or the money to rent it? This doesn't
punish any individuals, & the burden is spread
among the taxpayers.

Sure, why not? I agree with that. In fact, I think it's a government duty in the name of public service, for some of the reasons pointed out in @Brickjectivity's post above. I don't think anyone is ignoring or denying the public health concerns, the petty crime, and general nuisance caused by having tents on public easements and in front of businesses. It's not just a matter of government providing "free stuff" for ne'er-do-wells, but it's providing a needed service to the community to provide housing for all.

 

[PureX]

The wealthy capitalists and their cronies in government and media don't want the idea getting out there that capitalism is a failed economic system that drives extreme economic disparity and rewards greed and exploitation at every turn. So they've all been promoting the idea that poverty is voluntary, and that we should blame the poor for being poor and lazy and crazy and stupid instead of blaming the rich for being so greedy and selfish that they're driving everyone else into poverty. And sadly, a lot of those being exploited by the rich believe this BS too, because it helps them to imagine that poverty won't happen to them; that they are not lazy and that they are smarter and wiser then those poor homeless, jobless, losers, so they need not fear falling into such abject poverty, themselves.

But of course the dramatically rising numbers of homelessness, joblessness, addiction, and abject poverty prove that this is not the case. Yet comforting fantasies tend to win out against the very frightening and dis-empowering reality of capitalist greed running amok. So, unfortunately, both the rich and their loyal servants really would like the poor to just GO AWAY. Go somewhere out of sight and mind, and die, so they can be ignored and forgotten. And back to business as usual.

 

[Stevicus]

“Whose Streets? Our Streets!”: Grants Pass v. The People

It’s past time for us to declare as a nation that our people are not disposable.

www.thenation.com

This article goes into greater detail about the issues of homelessness in Grants Pass and throughout the country, as well as some historical background as to how the Federal government dealt with homelessness in the past, and why the problem has resurged.

he federal government knows what it would truly look like to solve homelessness because we’ve done it before—most notably after the Great Depression. In response to the economic crisis of the 1930s, the federal government invested in housing programs to end homelessness. From the 1930s to the 1970s, the federal government played a critical role in improving housing security for millions of households. By the 1980s, a precipitous federal disinvestment in affordable housing protections for working individuals and families led to a proliferation of homelessness. From the 1980s through today, the federal government has continued its path of housing program disinvestment, with one notable exception.

In 2020 and 2021, as a response to our Covid-19 crisis, our legislatures once more tested the noble solution to a public health threat posed by homelessness during a pandemic. Congress took bold action to support low-income renters: the Child-Tax Credit, Emergency Rental Assistance, Emergency Housing Vouchers, and a nationwide moratorium on evictions led to a significant decrease in homelessness, despite the pandemic’s negative impact on the economy. The CARES Act and American Rescue Plan Act brought the US poverty rate to a new record low of 7.8 percent in 2021, its lowest level since 1967. These gains might have lasted, with ongoing investment from the government. Instead, Congress allowed these resources and protections to expire, while renters faced a brutal housing market with skyrocketing rents and high inflation. This led to a resurgence in homelessness nationwide over the past two years.

 

[Wirey]

I'm not really sure what a win-win solution would even look like. I suppose the government could appropriate some vacant properties and refurbish them for low-cost housing. Perhaps abandoned warehouses and office buildings could be converted into makeshift dormitories for the homeless.

I don't want this to come across as me picking on @Stevicus because a lot of people have similar ideas, but this is not a thing. An abandoned warehouse or office building won't have the infrastructure needed to provide water, sewer, and electrical in the volumes required to allow people to live in them. Think of the size of the mall in your home town. Cut the washroom space in half so you have enough water for showers/baths. How many people could it support? And that's a mall, with an adequate electrical supply. A warehouse is wired for lighting, HVAC, and about a 20% expansion capability, as larger services get spendy. To upgrade the water and sewer alone would be an astronomical cost. Also, the design of said buildings would mitigate against their use. Reasonable layouts for shelving or cubicles are not translatable to habitation. I worked with a planning guy once who had worked for the city of Toronto, and we had exactly this conversation way back then.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't want this to come across as me picking on @Stevicus because a lot of people have similar ideas, but this is not a thing. An abandoned warehouse or office building won't have the infrastructure needed to provide water, sewer, and electrical in the volumes required to allow people to live in them. Think of the size of the mall in your home town. Cut the washroom space in half so you have enough water for showers/baths. How many people could it support? And that's a mall, with an adequate electrical supply. A warehouse is wired for lighting, HVAC, and about a 20% expansion capability, as larger services get spendy. To upgrade the water and sewer alone would be an astronomical cost. Also, the design of said buildings would mitigate against their use. Reasonable layouts for shelving or cubicles are not translatable to habitation. I worked with a planning guy once who had worked for the city of Toronto, and we had exactly this conversation way back then.

When you are the voice of reason & knowledge,
this just shows how far humanity has fallen.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't want this to come across as me picking on @Stevicus because a lot of people have similar ideas, but this is not a thing. An abandoned warehouse or office building won't have the infrastructure needed to provide water, sewer, and electrical in the volumes required to allow people to live in them. Think of the size of the mall in your home town. Cut the washroom space in half so you have enough water for showers/baths. How many people could it support? And that's a mall, with an adequate electrical supply. A warehouse is wired for lighting, HVAC, and about a 20% expansion capability, as larger services get spendy. To upgrade the water and sewer alone would be an astronomical cost. Also, the design of said buildings would mitigate against their use. Reasonable layouts for shelving or cubicles are not translatable to habitation. I worked with a planning guy once who had worked for the city of Toronto, and we had exactly this conversation way back then.

I have also been reading about these micro communities which are cropping up. Housing made from shipping containers.

Micro communities for the homeless sprout in US cities eager for small, quick and cheap solutions

In downtown Atlanta, shipping containers have been transformed into an oasis for dozens of previously unsheltered people who now proudly call a former parking lot home.

apnews.com

 

[Wirey]

I have also been reading about these micro communities which are cropping up. Housing made from shipping containers.

Micro communities for the homeless sprout in US cities eager for small, quick and cheap solutions

In downtown Atlanta, shipping containers have been transformed into an oasis for dozens of previously unsheltered people who now proudly call a former parking lot home.

apnews.com

There's quite a bit of talk about them here as well. Funding is the issue. Getting the containers is cheap, but maintenance, power, water, etc. get expensive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's pretty low. 1 in 10? And even then. Criminalizing it doesn't do anything but give people the illusion that there aren't any homeless. It's just sweeping the real issue under the rug.

No, we should make it illegal. Hear me out, just as making drugs illegal solved our drug problem, making the homeless illegal will solve our homeless problem. There is no point in trying to provide them with housing, drug counseling (that is not a problem remember) and education so that they can work their way back into being contributing members of society. That would be a total waste of time and not pay off in the long run and ultimately work out much better than making being homeless illegal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not really sure what a win-win solution would even look like.

Some no-tax-money-spent approaches....
Ease government regulation against tiny homes, denser occupancy, non-related co-tenants.
End the crime of homelessness.
Ease zoning, housing, & building code regulations where safety isn't an issue.
Allow higher density housing, which also enables public transport.

Some low cost approaches....
End excessive building permit & inspection fees.

I suppose the government could appropriate some vacant properties....

Taking property with or without compensation?
Government lacks the expertise & skill to re-purpose such properties anyway.
Wirey spelled it out for you.

 

[Wirey]

No, we should make it illegal. Hear me out, just as making drugs illegal solved our drug problem, making the homeless illegal will solve our homeless problem. There is no point in trying to provide them with housing, drug counseling (that is not a problem remember) and education so that they can work their way back into being contributing members of society. That would be a total waste of time and not pay off in the long run and ultimately work out much better than making being homeless illegal.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's quite a bit of talk about them here as well. Funding is the issue. Getting the containers is cheap, but maintenance, power, water, etc. get expensive.

A useful approach is what "dry camping" RV parks do,
ie, they have central facilities. Sure, it's not the most
convenient place to shower & do other things, but
they're cheaper to build & maintain than distrubuted
facilities.

 

[Vinayaka]

When you are the voice of reason & knowledge,
this just shows how far humanity has fallen.

Somebody or something triggered him.

 

[Revoltingest]

Somebody or something triggered him.

He just gets that way now & then.

 

[Viker]

Thoughts?

The cruelty in the current mindset of many Americans.

 

[Stevicus]

There's quite a bit of talk about them here as well. Funding is the issue. Getting the containers is cheap, but maintenance, power, water, etc. get expensive.

Well, there's going to be costs either way. These cities are complaining about the costs homeless people are incurring already, in terms of quality of life, loss of business in areas where homeless congregate - as well as the costs of incarceration and enforcement for petty violations associated with homelessness. So, if it's simply a matter of dollars and cents, society has to decide where it wants to spend its money (and what it values).