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

[Wirey]

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.

Most are used in the summer, though. In an Edmonton winter, asking someone who is 'homeless', and therefore probably has a few health issues to boot, to jump out of a shower and walk 500 meters in -35 C weather isn't feasible. They would have to be enclosed structures, for us anyway.

There's a tendency to forget the cost, because no one should go through the shame of that lifestyle, but costs are real. And even if you spend the money, you're not going to solve the problem. There will be people who will remain homeless no matter what you offer them. Mental illness, drug use, there are a plethora of reasons why you'll see some people stay homeless. And that brings me to a worse point, that makes me seem heartless. I call it the Cowboy story.

I live in western Canada, and there are real, honest-to-God, rodeo loving, horseback riding, tobacco chewing, secretly loving Judy Garland (I assume) cowboys out here. I had the genuine pleasure of working with an electrician who had spent several years as a working cowboy before he became a tradesman, and he was an interesting guy. Some of you may get this reference, but I swear, his name was Ted, can you believe that? We were working in a place called Fort McMurray, in Alberta, which is an oil field town. It is rough. Lots of drugs, lots of guys away from home, and for such an inhospitable part of the planet, a lot of homeless people. He and I, and a few other guys, were going into a bar called the Padolin (Fort Mac people in the house, let me hear you!), where a homeless guy was asking for money by the front door. One of the guys gave him a few bucks. When we got inside, Ted told the guy "You know, you didn't do that guy any favours there." When we asked what he meant, he said "I've been on cattle drives, big ones, with thousands of head of cattle. If we left a place with 2000 head, no one expected to get them all to the other end. No matter how hard you try, sure as Hell one of them will drop a leg in a gopher hole, or lose it's mind and run off a cliff, or just plain old get sick and drop. You can't save them all, and if you spend all your time chasing the oddballs, you'll lose your herd."

I understood what he meant, easily. While I'm not saying abandon all hope of helping these people, I'm not comfortable with the volume of cash it would take, especially at a time when Alberta hospitals and schools could really use the money. And Alberta is rich! Not Texas rich, but we'd pee on Arizona! I think it would be best to temper expectations, and try strategies that save the cows we can save. Health care expansion, job creation, things like that. Free shelter merely moves them off the sidewalk.

 

[Balthazzar]

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

The case is considered the most significant to come before the high court in decades on homelessness, which is reaching record levels in the United States.

apnews.com

It's a valid question. If they can't afford housing, and if they're not allowed to sleep outside, where are they supposed to sleep?

Advocacy groups argue that such ordinances will criminalize homelessness and make the problem even worse.





There are 16 million vacant homes in the U.S.: Vacant Homes vs. Homelessness In the U.S. - United Way NCA

The lawyer representing the city of Grants Pass said "This is a complicated policy question." I don't think it's all that complicated, although before I go into a long rant about this, I wanted to get other thoughts.

Thoughts?

Property value has been on the rise for the last 10 years and at rapid pace. Many affected families have been introduced into the great wide open since. Employing homeless people can be difficult, due to the lack of security in their day to days, making it extremely difficult for them to be "dependable", even when many may be more dependable than even the supervisors in some franchises. Some do work still, and the money made is typically spent on motel rooms are other luxuries, which is both good and not so good, given the need for economic stimulation.

Win wins are difficult due to lack of homeless shelters or facilities able to create effectively operated communities. The laws that forbid sleeping outside in our cities are both welcomed and unwelcomed, due to availability of shelters. The shelters themselves don't typically offer education or work for pay positions for the residents, so they are funded by private sector or by federal funds. Education would seem a worth wile effort at these places, but this would mean able people would need to volunteer and teach in an effort to increase private enterprise among the homeless people, but this would certainly look great on a portfolio.

Just some thoughts

 

[Subduction Zone]

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).

And that an investment now may pay off in the future as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most are used in the summer, though.

Heat'm in cold weather.

In an Edmonton winter, asking someone who is 'homeless', and therefore probably has a few health issues to boot, to jump out of a shower and walk 500 meters in -35 C weather isn't feasible. They would have to be enclosed structures, for us anyway.

It's not a solution for all circumstances.
Merely an improvement over the status quo.
Let not perfection be the enemy of good.

There's a tendency to forget the cost, because no one should go through the shame of that lifestyle, but costs are real. And even if you spend the money, you're not going to solve the problem. There will be people who will remain homeless no matter what you offer them. Mental illness, drug use, there are a plethora of reasons why you'll see some people stay homeless. And that brings me to a worse point, that makes me seem heartless. I call it the Cowboy story.

I live in western Canada, and there are real, honest-to-God, rodeo loving, horseback riding, tobacco chewing, secretly loving Judy Garland (I assume) cowboys out here. I had the genuine pleasure of working with an electrician who had spent several years as a working cowboy before he became a tradesman, and he was an interesting guy. Some of you may get this reference, but I swear, his name was Ted, can you believe that? We were working in a place called Fort McMurray, in Alberta, which is an oil field town. It is rough. Lots of drugs, lots of guys away from home, and for such an inhospitable part of the planet, a lot of homeless people. He and I, and a few other guys, were going into a bar called the Padolin (Fort Mac people in the house, let me hear you!), where a homeless guy was asking for money by the front door. One of the guys gave him a few bucks. When we got inside, Ted told the guy "You know, you didn't do that guy any favours there." When we asked what he meant, he said "I've been on cattle drives, big ones, with thousands of head of cattle. If we left a place with 2000 head, no one expected to get them all to the other end. No matter how hard you try, sure as Hell one of them will drop a leg in a gopher hole, or lose it's mind and run off a cliff, or just plain old get sick and drop. You can't save them all, and if you spend all your time chasing the oddballs, you'll lose your herd."

I understood what he meant, easily. While I'm not saying abandon all hope of helping these people, I'm not comfortable with the volume of cash it would take, especially at a time when Alberta hospitals and schools could really use the money. And Alberta is rich! Not Texas rich, but we'd pee on Arizona! I think it would be best to temper expectations, and try strategies that save the cows we can save. Health care expansion, job creation, things like that. Free shelter merely moves them off the sidewalk.

Can't save'm all.
But can save many in a cost effective manner.

 

[Stevicus]

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).

Also, I would point out the article in post #48, where it details how the problem of homelessness was dealt with before. It was a problem that was resolvable back then, and it's resolvable now.


The 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.