Breakdown In Civil Order

[Loren Pechtel]

Not everyone will. Some people simply are not suited to living within the confines of polite society, however you define polite and society. They don’t want to or cannot. For some, it simply is a matter of preferring to spend their time in a haze of ( substance). Plenty of people behind nice white picket fences soothe themselves with ( substances) or screens or buying things or ..whatever. We think of them as productive because they live behind those nice clean fences. They do not disturb our sense of order or challenge our way of thinking or at least not too much. Somebody dies, remaining family members come to clean out the house and ten there may be plenty of judgement. Or not.

It's not a matter of whether they are productive. The ones behind the white picket fences aren't causing problems for others. And, fundamentally, that's what most people care about: do the person's actions pose a problem for those around. And while the Karens of the world might go into a rage at unsightly, most people care far more about whether something poses a threat.

But some people struggle with various mental illnesses and do not know how to access treatment or treatment is not effective for them or is financially or geographically out of reach. Or more likely, they grew up watching family members soothe their pains with bottles and pills and they follow that pattern and too often, it swallows them up. That is a failure of society to reach people and to effectively help them deal with whatever their issues are more effectively and more safely.

The reality is that mental health treatment isn't easy. In some cases there might be true solutions, in many there's only drug regimes that restore a semblance of function. And drug treatment isn't easy, either. And in both cases the patient must truly want to get better, compelled treatment is all but useless.

We don’t necessarily want to deal with people like that, more than we have to. That is one very good reason to ensure that people who don’t have a stable place to sleep and wash up do have such places to go , where get can get a meal and a clean bed and a shower, get some medical care. Feel like there is a place in the world where they belong.

The problem is those places attract the problematic ones. The ones most able to be helped generally fear the shelters.

And of course there are those who find themselves without a home because of a job loss, a divorce, serious illness or injury, medical bills, a disaster of any kind. Or the landlord’s son or niece needs a place to live or died and the family is selling the building.

I think a decent society does its utmost to ensure that everybody has access to basic amenities of life: clean water and adequate food, appropriate clothing, a decent place to shelter from the weather, and to sleep at night, access to health care, including mental health care. A sense of community. A chance at more if they want it: job training and job coaching and placement, education.

Some people fall on hard times temporarily. Some struggle all their lives. Some struggle more than necessary because they do not have access to ( safety net) that helps them recover from setbacks and hardships.

The ones for whom the problems are economic are the easy cases. So long as you can identify them, put a roof over their head and things will probably get better. And note that they're typically not causing problems while living on the street, either. It's unsafe for them but not a big problem for society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of the subsidized housing around here is in actually quite nice areas outside the city limits in the more affluent suburbs. If you see an apartment complex or building with the little house symbol

View attachment 47140

Kinda like this, it's a subsidized complex. The phrase on the bottom is never included and the equal sign isn't included sometimes, just the house symbol.

And from what I've heard from relatives the management of these places are quite strict about making residents follow the rules. Getting busted for lawbreaking elsewhere can also threaten your subsidized housing access.

You might be surprised about the subsidized housing in your area.

Didn't know the symbol, but this is the way to handle the economic cases. Two problems, though: There's not enough and there have been problems with landlords not distinguishing problems at the place from problems with the person. People getting evicted because they're the target of a stalker. (Same reason as strip clubs tend to have a disproportionate number of police calls--they're open, they have phones. People in trouble go there to get help. It's less of an issue now with cell phones but still relevant if the mugger takes your phone.)

 

[Gospel]

I don't think that the "bug problem" is about poor execution though so much as just the existence of a hard problem in the space of "poorly washed people living rough lives in moderately dense concentrations".

What you're talking about can be addressed by a maintenance team employed by homeless people and a pest control service that could also employ them.

Edit: And as for concerns about hygiene, each apartment would include its own bathroom with a shower. If residents aren’t using these facilities, that’s something the medical or mental health team can help address. I forgot to mention that I think the facility should be a temporary stop with a 2 to 5 year stay (dependent on their success), not a permanent residence. It won’t work for every single case, and I don't believe perfect solutions exist.

The problem is that you can't force mental health treatment. It doesn't work. For some patients there are drug regimes that work but the ones you find on the streets are ones who dislike the side effects enough that they don't take them if not forced to.

I neither stated nor implied that any treatments would be forced. I also mentioned earlier that what I envision would likely be most helpful to those who have recently become homeless. I acknowledged that this approach won't work for everyone and that no single solution will fit every scenario. So, for those who just joined the discussion, please don't attribute what Loren implied to me.

 

[bilby]

The ones behind the white picket fences aren't causing problems for others.

Bullshit.

They just use cops, local government officials, courts, and security guards to inflict those problems at arm's length, so that they can preserve their self-image as decent and nice people who don't cause problems for others, and so that their victims can't readily identify their abusers.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Most of the subsidized housing around here is in actually quite nice areas outside the city limits in the more affluent suburbs. If you see an apartment complex or building with the little house symbol

View attachment 47140

Kinda like this, it's a subsidized complex. The phrase on the bottom is never included and the equal sign isn't included sometimes, just the house symbol.

And from what I've heard from relatives the management of these places are quite strict about making residents follow the rules. Getting busted for lawbreaking elsewhere can also threaten your subsidized housing access.

You might be surprised about the subsidized housing in your area.

Didn't know the symbol, but this is the way to handle the economic cases. Two problems, though: There's not enough and there have been problems with landlords not distinguishing problems at the place from problems with the person. People getting evicted because they're the target of a stalker. (Same reason as strip clubs tend to have a disproportionate number of police calls--they're open, they have phones. People in trouble go there to get help. It's less of an issue now with cell phones but still relevant if the mugger takes your phone.)

The problem is landlords claiming they have no vacancies whenever the housing authority/authorized nonprofit calls looking to place the homeless in one of these units. And before you give a why do you think landlords are avoiding these folks response, they are screened for suitability prior to placement. These are by and large families living on the edge pushed into homelessness by a single financial hardship who didn't have or didn't know of any resource that could help them from becoming homeless in the first place. The only issue is what the issue has always been, ignorance. No one wants those kind of people living next door to them. An assumption they are crazy, criminals, or drug fiends.

 

[TV and credit cards]

We don’t necessarily want to deal with people like that, more than we have to. That is one very good reason to ensure that people who don’t have a stable place to sleep and wash up do have such places to go , where get can get a meal and a clean bed and a shower, get some medical care. Feel like there is a place in the world where they belong.

The problem is those places attract the problematic ones. The ones most able to be helped generally fear the shelters.

You don't know this. You're guessing. Painting these people like they are some plague on society. Problematic ones are identified and no longer allowed in the shelters. The safety of their guests in the shelter is a paramount concern. Shelter workers go out in their passenger vans and reach out to those who need help. Those who do not want to come in are offered a ditty bag of essentials.
This in cities who do their best to care about their homeless.

 

[ZiprHead]

Most of the subsidized housing around here is in actually quite nice areas outside the city limits in the more affluent suburbs. If you see an apartment complex or building with the little house symbol

View attachment 47140

Kinda like this, it's a subsidized complex. The phrase on the bottom is never included and the equal sign isn't included sometimes, just the house symbol.

And from what I've heard from relatives the management of these places are quite strict about making residents follow the rules. Getting busted for lawbreaking elsewhere can also threaten your subsidized housing access.

You might be surprised about the subsidized housing in your area.

Didn't know the symbol, but this is the way to handle the economic cases. Two problems, though: There's not enough and there have been problems with landlords not distinguishing problems at the place from problems with the person. People getting evicted because they're the target of a stalker. (Same reason as strip clubs tend to have a disproportionate number of police calls--they're open, they have phones. People in trouble go there to get help. It's less of an issue now with cell phones but still relevant if the mugger takes your phone.)

The problem is landlords claiming they have no vacancies whenever the housing authority/authorized nonprofit calls looking to place the homeless in one of these units. And before you give a why do you think landlords are avoiding these folks response, they are screened for suitability prior to placement. These are by and large families living on the edge pushed into homelessness by a single financial hardship who didn't have or didn't know of any resource that could help them from becoming homeless in the first place. The only issue is what the issue has always been, ignorance. No one wants those kind of people living next door to them. An assumption they are crazy, criminals, or drug fiends.

I have two family members that live in such places. I've never heard of that. I do know that they all have long waiting lists for empty apartments.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think that the "bug problem" is about poor execution though so much as just the existence of a hard problem in the space of "poorly washed people living rough lives in moderately dense concentrations".

What you're talking about can be addressed by a maintenance team employed by homeless people and a pest control service that could also employ them.

Edit: And as for concerns about hygiene, each apartment would include its own bathroom with a shower. If residents aren’t using these facilities, that’s something the medical or mental health team can help address. I forgot to mention that I think the facility should be a temporary stop with a 2 to 5 year stay (dependent on their success), not a permanent residence. It won’t work for every single case, and I don't believe perfect solutions exist.

The problem is that you can't force mental health treatment. It doesn't work. For some patients there are drug regimes that work but the ones you find on the streets are ones who dislike the side effects enough that they don't take them if not forced to.

I neither stated nor implied that any treatments would be forced. I also mentioned earlier that what I envision would likely be most helpful to those who have recently become homeless. I acknowledged that this approach won't work for everyone and that no single solution will fit every scenario. So, for those who just joined the discussion, please don't attribute what Loren implied to me.

The thing is the economic ones are a fairly small part of the problem and the part that causes the least problems so the political will to deal with it doesn't exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The ones behind the white picket fences aren't causing problems for others.

Bullshit.

They just use cops, local government officials, courts, and security guards to inflict those problems at arm's length, so that they can preserve their self-image as decent and nice people who don't cause problems for others, and so that their victims can't readily identify their abusers.

I was talking more about the ones on drugs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of the subsidized housing around here is in actually quite nice areas outside the city limits in the more affluent suburbs. If you see an apartment complex or building with the little house symbol

View attachment 47140

Kinda like this, it's a subsidized complex. The phrase on the bottom is never included and the equal sign isn't included sometimes, just the house symbol.

And from what I've heard from relatives the management of these places are quite strict about making residents follow the rules. Getting busted for lawbreaking elsewhere can also threaten your subsidized housing access.

You might be surprised about the subsidized housing in your area.

Didn't know the symbol, but this is the way to handle the economic cases. Two problems, though: There's not enough and there have been problems with landlords not distinguishing problems at the place from problems with the person. People getting evicted because they're the target of a stalker. (Same reason as strip clubs tend to have a disproportionate number of police calls--they're open, they have phones. People in trouble go there to get help. It's less of an issue now with cell phones but still relevant if the mugger takes your phone.)

The problem is landlords claiming they have no vacancies whenever the housing authority/authorized nonprofit calls looking to place the homeless in one of these units. And before you give a why do you think landlords are avoiding these folks response, they are screened for suitability prior to placement. These are by and large families living on the edge pushed into homelessness by a single financial hardship who didn't have or didn't know of any resource that could help them from becoming homeless in the first place. The only issue is what the issue has always been, ignorance. No one wants those kind of people living next door to them. An assumption they are crazy, criminals, or drug fiends.

As usual, it comes down to the people declaring it discrimination taking a narrow view of qualifications and the people making the decisions taking a wider view.

Things like a stalker ex. That's not going to make someone unsuitable for placement but is going to be unwanted by a landlord.

And in general those who live on the edge tend not to be the cautious types. More things go wrong around them because of that.

 

[TSwizzle]

Insufferable prick Gavin Newsom has turned the screws on California cities to get the “homeless” encampments cleared off of public property. Failure to do so and Newsom will withhold funds. Long Beach is getting tough;

The city of Long Beach will begin citing and arresting unhoused residents who refuse to leave unsafe homeless encampments, the city’s deputy manager announced in a memo earlier this week. Long Beach Deputy City Manager Teresa Chandler sent a memo Monday that the city will focus on outreach efforts to inform unhoused residents of alternatives available as opposed to living on the street. If those efforts fail, individuals who remain in dangerous encampments could be fined as a last resort.

News

 

[Politesse]

But there are no alternatives. It was already state policy to recommend moves into safe facilities if spots were available. It just wasn't legal to destroy an encampment if there was no room at existing facilities. Since there are at least three times as many homeless people as available beds in Long Beach homeless shelters, and many of those beds are overnight-only, this made it impossible to "clear a camp" very often or for very long. There still isn't room, we're just handing people fines we know they can't and won't pay as a pretext for interning them in the jail system. Where there also isn't any room, so expect a bunch of early release parolees pouring back out on the street and re-entering the homeless population in a few years' time. This is not about solving the problem, Newsom just wants to look like he's "doing something", even if that something is pointless, circular, and heartlessly cruel.

 

[TSwizzle]

This is not about solving the problem, Newsom just wants to look like he's "doing something", even if that something is pointless, circular, and heartlessly cruel.

I'm sure Newsom I read somewhere that solving the "homeless" problem Newsom's number one priority several years ago. He was going to solve the "homeless" problem is San Francisco when he was mayor there. Just about everything he touches gets worse no matter how much tax payer money he throws at it.

The encampments still need to go no matter what.

 

[Politesse]

The encampments still need to go no matter what.

This is the essence of stupidity, distilled into three words. "No matter what", indeed! In the real world, it matters greatly whether you do something well, or do it poorly. There is no point in reaching one objective if in doing so you create a worse problem than the one you are solving. "No matter what"... it does matter what. Of course it matters what. How could it not matter what?

 

[TSwizzle]

The encampments still need to go no matter what.

This is the essence of stupidity, distilled into three words. "No matter what", indeed! In the real world, it matters greatly whether you do something well, or do it poorly. There is no point in reaching one objective if in doing so you create a worse problem than the one you are solving. "No matter what"... it does matter what. Of course it matters what. How could it not matter what?

They should never have been allowed to develop into encampments in the first place but now that they do exist (in some cases for years), time for them to be dismantled and the people to make other arrangements. Do these people think this is their permanent abode?

 

[Politesse]

. Do these people think this is their permanent abode?

You know, there's a way to find out what people think. A lot of ways.

Many of your dumbass political opinions would dissolve if you went out and met other people from time to time.

 

[TomC]

The encampments still need to go no matter what.

This is the essence of stupidity, distilled into three words. "No matter what", indeed! In the real world, it matters greatly whether you do something well, or do it poorly. There is no point in reaching one objective if in doing so you create a worse problem than the one you are solving. "No matter what"... it does matter what. Of course it matters what. How could it not matter what?

I'd bet a lot that "no matter what" doesn't go as far as a big tax increase.

Imagine putting a $5/gallon tax on gas and diesel to fund the efforts to eliminate homelessness. How far do you suppose that would get with people like TSwizzle?
Tom

 

[robnisch]

The encampments still need to go no matter what.

This is the essence of stupidity, distilled into three words. "No matter what", indeed! In the real world, it matters greatly whether you do something well, or do it poorly. There is no point in reaching one objective if in doing so you create a worse problem than the one you are solving. "No matter what"... it does matter what. Of course it matters what. How could it not matter what?

They should never have been allowed to develop into encampments in the first place but now that they do exist (in some cases for years), time for them to be dismantled and the people to make other arrangements. Do these people think this is their permanent abode?

And, what are these "other arrangements"?
It's not like they booked the wrong hotel.
There will have to be an investment by the community.
Find a space that can be controlled and maintained.
Water, sewer, and security.
But, it is easier to make them someone else's problem.

 

[TSwizzle]

. Do these people think this is their permanent abode?

You know, there's a way to find out what people think. A lot of ways.

It was a rhetorical question but it gives you an in for your snark.

For some, that is their permanent abode. Until the coroner comes collect their corpse.

 

[TSwizzle]

And, what are these "other arrangements"?

Go use the shelters and figure it out for themselves.

There will have to be an investment by the community.

Have you any idea how many millions (possibly billions) of tax payer money has been thrown at this "homeless" problem by insufferable prick Newsom? Well it's a lot and things are much worse than they were even a few years ago. I'm not sure how much more investment is needed and California tax payers just approved to borrow even more billions for Newsom to make things worse.