What to do for the unhoused?

[southernhybrid]

I don't know enough about the solutions to the problem of homelessness, so I did a little research to see what the government is at least trying to do. There are many good websites that have lots of information, but it's still confusing to me as to how we literally get people into decent, affordable housing. Due to the extreme inflation that is currently taking place in the rental housing market, I fear that we will see a lot more people unable to afford their rents.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been much if any discussion here of the high number of veterans who are without housing. It seems to me that considering that they were willing to put their lives on the line for the country, usually in unnecessary wars, we should do a lot better to help them find housing. Why not build veterans homes to help out these folks who are often suffering from PTSD or depression? Anyway. I'm going to post a link that explains the president's budget for 2023 regarding homelessness. Will it be passed by Congress?

https://www.usich.gov/resources/upl..._Proposed_Federal_Budget_for_Homelessness.pdf

On Monday, March 28, 2022, President Biden proposed a $5.8 trillion budget for Fiscal Year 2023
that would target $8.732 billion in federal funding for homelessness assistance programs. This
proposal, if enacted, would represent an overall increase from FY 2022 of 10.2% and an increase of
11.3% for HUD’s Homeless Assistance Grants, 13.2% for Head Start, 23.7% for USICH, 84.8% for
VA’s Supportive Services for Veteran Families, and 132.6% for DOJ’s Transitional Housing Assistance Grants to Victims of Sexual Assault. The following table summarizes targeted homelessness funding in the president’s FY 2023 budget request, as well as enacted funding for Fiscal Years 2020-2022.

I fear that all of the solutions I've read about are easier said than done. I tried to help a former patient of mine find some affordable. housing a few years ago. At that time, there were some efficiency apartments in my area that rented for about 400 per month. Her total income was 1050 per month, so she probably could have afforded that rent, assuming she was very careful with her money.

But, in the last year, rents have risen as much as 30 or 40%. A friend of mine has a sister who was paying 650 a month for rent. Her only income is SS. Her rent was raised to 900 per month this year. If she didn't have a son who was willing to have her move in with him, she would probably be homeless, assuming no other relative would help her. The problem of homelessness is huge and it will be extremely difficult to solve. Its disappointing to see so many harsh negative comments from some of my fellow posters. How does that solve this problem?

The first thing we need to do is to understand that people who live on the street should be treated humanely, regardless if some of the current conditions they are living in are an inconvenience to those of us who have the privilege of living in secure, affordable housing. Most people don't have enough savings to make it very long, if they lose a job and can't immediately find one that pays them enough to afford their housing costs. I find that heartbreaking, but I'm not generous enough to bring a homeless stranger into my home, and I doubt many people are. The solution must be one that is funded by government as well as by charitable institutions, both faith based and secular.

We have failed those who suffer from mental illnesses, especially the most serious, difficult to treat diseases. I had a few patients in the facility where I worked who were seriously mentally ill. They were fortunate to at least have a safe place to live, despite it not always being their first choice. But, we don't have enough Medicaid beds in assisted living facilities to help all of those who are mentally ill. The country made a huge mistake by shutting down so many of our long term care mental hospitals. In many cases, assuming the care was decent, these places were refuges for the extremely ill. I think that is one reason why we have so many seriously mentally ill folks living on the streets. I'm not sure how we solve this problem but I do believe that our healthcare system needs to do much better for those who suffer from these brain disorders.

I could say a lot more but this post is already too long, so I'll end here and perhaps add some more links later.

 

[Bronzeage]

I once had a comfortable life in the suburbs and I traded it all to become an urban pioneer. My wife and I had a business on a busy street in the middle of a commercial district. We sold the house and moved into the store. This was right after Hurricane Katrina and Baton Rouge was the command center for the New Orleans relief. It made our commute 90 minutes, one way.
I soon met the local homeless population and got to know a few of them quite well. None of them were "down on their luck", which means a victim of circumstances. None of them were homeless because they were laid off from a well paying job. All of them had mental issues. As far as drugs were concerned, it was a lack of drugs, not excess of them. There were nearby shelters, but most would not go there because of the restrictions. No smoking and the like.
I soon realized, the solution to this particular kind of homelessness was some kind of supervised living arrangement, where their condition could be diagnosed and proper medication administered. This might mean involuntary commitment to a hospital at the beginning. There's one consistent thread in the history of treating mental illness. No one has yet created a pill which makes a person want to take their pills.
Any solution which treats homelessness as a condition and not a symptom is going to fail, either for practical reasons, or legal reasons. We can't afford it and we can't lock up non-criminal people, even if we are trying to help.
If there is a solution, it's probably in a healthcare system which does not lose people as they transition from children to adults. By the time they are sleeping in a sheltered corner, it's too late.

 

[TSwizzle]

I found the JFK adress on relgion for anoter thread. In it back then he comments that we were spending money sending rockets into space and ignoring poverty.

In California, Newsom (and Jerry Brown before him) spend billions and billions of dollars on a failed “high speed rail” project.

California gets what it voted for.

 

[Rhea]

People show up to get free housing are left disappointed and angry;

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) tried to stop the publication of a news story about Los Angeles’ homeless crisis this week, reportedly telling a Los Angeles Times scribe: “You’ll hurt yourself and the community trying to put this together.” The Wednesday story by investigative reporter Connor Sheets detailed a March 25 incident in South Los Angeles, where hundreds of homeless people tried to obtain Section 8 housing vouchers after being misled by social media rumors. The would-be applicants crashed an event held by nonprofit advocacy group Fathers and Mothers Who Care, which had been meant to help the unhoused obtain emergency shelter. The confusion reportedly overwhelmed the non-profit as well as Los Angeles Housing Services Authority (LAHSA) workers who told the unexpected arrivals that they would only be able to provide their information and enter an emergency housing database. At one point, Waters told the crowd: “I want everybody to go home,” triggering an angry response. When contacted by the LA Times Tuesday, Waters requested the story not be published, saying “it’s a bunch of rumors.” “You’ll hurt yourself and the community trying to put this together without background,” she told Sheets, according to the report. “I don’t want you to start trying to write it, you won’t understand it.”

NY Post

Wow, she really blew that one, it seems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been much if any discussion here of the high number of veterans who are without housing. It seems to me that considering that they were willing to put their lives on the line for the country, usually in unnecessary wars, we should do a lot better to help them find housing. Why not build veterans homes to help out these folks who are often suffering from PTSD or depression? Anyway. I'm going to post a link that explains the president's budget for 2023 regarding homelessness. Will it be passed by Congress?

But that would mean admitting that war leads to PTSD and that would make it combat disability. Can't go spending that much money!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I soon met the local homeless population and got to know a few of them quite well. None of them were "down on their luck", which means a victim of circumstances. None of them were homeless because they were laid off from a well paying job. All of them had mental issues. As far as drugs were concerned, it was a lack of drugs, not excess of them. There were nearby shelters, but most would not go there because of the restrictions. No smoking and the like.

Exactly. That's why the house-them answers don't work. House-them only works for the economic cases.

I soon realized, the solution to this particular kind of homelessness was some kind of supervised living arrangement, where their condition could be diagnosed and proper medication administered. This might mean involuntary commitment to a hospital at the beginning. There's one consistent thread in the history of treating mental illness. No one has yet created a pill which makes a person want to take their pills.

Except that's illegal. You can't force treatment unless they are a danger. And even if you find the right treatment there's the problem that they get better, decide they're better and don't like the side effects of their medicine (the drugs involved tend to have nasty side effect profiles) and go off their drugs. At that point they don't realize their meds would help. (And there are also those who consciously decide the mental illness isn't as bad as the side effects.)

 

[Bomb#20]

The problem is a significant number of the homeless here in Seattle simply do not want housing that has any restrictions. They are not starving and they can go to an ER for medical help along with clinics.

I ever give money to homeless people panhandling because I know there are resources for them.

They have no incentive to get into any kind of structured life.

Before police cleared out the 3rd and Pike area I could pick out regulars who hung out during the day. It was at my buss stop.

Look at the link on Seattle tiny houses. There are people who would rather sleep on the street or in a homeless camp that stay at a prison like style dormitory. There are places where they can sleep at night on cots with bathrooms.

Hotels are bing purchased for housing, but the problem remainns that there is no way to enforce rules and make people stay.

If you look at the homeless as just regular people who need a place to stay you will not get the nature of the prblem.

From what you are saying here, the nature of the problem is that the homeless people want to be treated like free, adult, human beings with the right to self determination; While you want to only provide any kind of assistance to them if they agree to be treated like retarded children who should do as they are told by their betters, ideally without asking questions, much less objecting.

Why ... should our charity come with 'restrictions'? Either you want to help, or you want to dictate how people should live. A moral person would choose the former, and I am wondering what's wrong with you, that makes you choose the latter, apparently without even noticing that you're making a choice at all.

How fortunate we are that when we have shameful unworthy immoral thoughts about teaching a man to fish, our betters are there to educate us about how the morally correct choice is to ourselves do however much extra fishing it takes in order to give the man a fish, so he can be treated like a free, adult, human being who has every right to not learn to fish if he doesn't want to and every right to just endlessly eat the fish other people catch while doing nothing himself either to reciprocate his benefactors' generosity to him or to minimize the cost his consumption imposes on them.

Free adult human beings have the right to make donations that are conditional on how the help they give others will be used, and to choose not to donate when they reasonably expect their charity to be used counterproductively. When you say there's something wrong with Steve and call him immoral for doing that, you are treating him like a retarded child who should do as he's told by his betters, ideally without asking questions, much less objecting. That would be obnoxious enough if you were talking only about his charity; but no, you're talking about "our charity", as though his donations are partly yours and you're entitled to a say in whether they're restricted. If you propose to make taxpayers help the needy but insist that there be no restrictions along with that charity, you are treating the taxpayers as a mere means to an end rather than as ends in ourselves.

You are treating us as beasts of burden who were put on this earth to serve your agenda. So to answer your question, "our charity" should come with restrictions because "we" are not beasts of burden.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been much if any discussion here of the high number of veterans who are without housing. It seems to me that considering that they were willing to put their lives on the line for the country, usually in unnecessary wars, we should do a lot better to help them find housing. Why not build veterans homes to help out these folks who are often suffering from PTSD or depression? Anyway. I'm going to post a link that explains the president's budget for 2023 regarding homelessness. Will it be passed by Congress?

But that would mean admitting that war leads to PTSD and that would make it combat disability. Can't go spending that much money!

I'm not exactly sure what your post meant. Was is sarcastic? Please clarify.

My late father was a vet who suffered from severe PTSD. After applying for disability numerous times, he was finally approved. That gave him a monthly income of 3K from the VA and about 1300 from SS. My mom always worked so they were able to live comfortably. He was about 50 when he was approved for disability. Prior to that he was able to work as a salesman, but he changed jobs frequently and complained of intense stress, had mood swings and bursts of anger.

I'm sure that there are vets with PTSD or depression who don't have the motivation to apply for help or don't know where to get help to apply for disability. But, nobody who is a vet should end up homeless due to a lack of income. We spend so much money on our military but so little by comparison on veterans.

To be honest, I can't imagine how my father would have managed without my mother. She was very supportive of him and was able to tolerate his outbursts and depression quite well.

Of course, there are many homeless people who have never been in the military.

About a year ago, I read about a couple who lived in a tent and both worked because they couldn't afford rent. She explained how she had to wash up in a public restroom. I can't remember all of the details but what a tough life that must be. I doubt that many people realize that some of the homeless people have jobs. They just don't make enough money to afford an apartment, especially if they live in a large city, like the woman in the article did. The waiting list for section 8 housing is extremely long. In fact, it's so long that in many if not most cities, one can't even get on a waiting list. We do need more subsidized housing. That would at least help the working poor who can't afford to pay the absurdly high rents.

I've seen older adults living on the streets. Maybe they slept in a shelter at night. I think it's wrong to make these folks leave the shelter all day. What is the purpose of that? If someone isn't able to work, why can't they at least have a place to stay during the day instead of roaming around, or going into stores etc to get out of the cold or rain? At least give them the option of staying sheltered if the weather is bad.

We have a small shelter in my town that forces people to leave in the early morning. Another reason people don't like to sleep in shelters is because they have pets. One of my dogs was living with a homeless man in Atlanta. I don't know the circumstances, other than the dog became pregnant and the man was no longer able to care for her. I wish I could have done something for the man who did the best he could to keep the dog well.

As a dog lover, it breaks my heart to know that both homeless dogs and homeless people are often discarded by society. I've seen two homeless people with dogs. Dogs give them comfort, love and protection that they can't get anywhere else. Okay. I digress. But, I am concerned for both homeless dogs, who are among the most loyal, loving creatures in the world imo, as well as their homeless human companions.

Faith based groups help some. We have a large apartment building in my town that was built by the Episcopal church for poor older adults. There is no religious test to be eligible for an apartment, which is how it should be. But, how many faith based agencies would be willing or able to afford to build apartments for low income older adults? And, how long is the waiting list for an apartment in that building?

 

[bilby]

You are treating us as beasts of burden who were put on this earth to serve your agenda.

No, I am not.

I am treating us as members of a society, which is our lot as social animals of high intelligence.

Ayn Rand was both completely wrong, and a total cunt. We should not seek to emulate her broken thinking, nor to persue her stupid and cruel policy and lifestyle recommendations.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been much if any discussion here of the high number of veterans who are without housing. It seems to me that considering that they were willing to put their lives on the line for the country, usually in unnecessary wars, we should do a lot better to help them find housing. Why not build veterans homes to help out these folks who are often suffering from PTSD or depression? Anyway. I'm going to post a link that explains the president's budget for 2023 regarding homelessness. Will it be passed by Congress?

But that would mean admitting that war leads to PTSD and that would make it combat disability. Can't go spending that much money!

I'm not exactly sure what your post meant. Was is sarcastic? Please clarify.

I believe it was sarcasm, saying that the government tries very hard to ensure that many problems vets encounter are purely coincidental to their service. This is why it is such an unholy nightmare to make claims against the VA for service-related problems. My coworker's father was one of the guys that boarded the ships at Bikini after the nuke went off. Washed off the decks in shorts and a t-shirt.
NO ONE but the VA was surprised when he developed cancer, they kept asking if he had a family history of cancer.

So, a national policy recognizing that the homeless vets are homeless in large part due to their service would be cata$trophic for $everal budget$, not to mention the congre$$men expected to fucking DO $omething about it.

 

[Bronzeage]

I soon met the local homeless population and got to know a few of them quite well. None of them were "down on their luck", which means a victim of circumstances. None of them were homeless because they were laid off from a well paying job. All of them had mental issues. As far as drugs were concerned, it was a lack of drugs, not excess of them. There were nearby shelters, but most would not go there because of the restrictions. No smoking and the like.

Exactly. That's why the house-them answers don't work. House-them only works for the economic cases.

I soon realized, the solution to this particular kind of homelessness was some kind of supervised living arrangement, where their condition could be diagnosed and proper medication administered. This might mean involuntary commitment to a hospital at the beginning. There's one consistent thread in the history of treating mental illness. No one has yet created a pill which makes a person want to take their pills.

Except that's illegal. You can't force treatment unless they are a danger. And even if you find the right treatment there's the problem that they get better, decide they're better and don't like the side effects of their medicine (the drugs involved tend to have nasty side effect profiles) and go off their drugs. At that point they don't realize their meds would help. (And there are also those who consciously decide the mental illness isn't as bad as the side effects.)

Yes, I made that point in the next paragraph of my post. The failure that creates a class of perpetually homeless people occurs long before they become homeless.

 

[Bomb#20]

I believe it was sarcasm, saying that the government tries very hard to ensure that many problems vets encounter are purely coincidental to their service. This is why it is such an unholy nightmare to make claims against the VA for service-related problems. My coworker's father was one of the guys that boarded the ships at Bikini after the nuke went off. Washed off the decks in shorts and a t-shirt.
NO ONE but the VA was surprised when he developed cancer, they kept asking if he had a family history of cancer.

What, no one? Have you checked if Bilby was surprised?

as Steve Bank pointed out, we've already experienced high levels of fallout from atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs

High levels?

We have experienced measurable levels. And these levels have done no measurable harm to anyone or anything.

 

[Bomb#20]

You are treating us as beasts of burden who were put on this earth to serve your agenda.

No, I am not.

I am treating us as members of a society, which is our lot as social animals of high intelligence.

Ayn Rand was both completely wrong, and a total... We should not seek to emulate her broken thinking, nor to persue her stupid and cruel policy and lifestyle recommendations.

You attacked Steve with an ad hominem in the last round. For me you apparently decided that wasn't enough so you combined your ad hominem with a strawman. Classy. As anyone with a passing familiarity with her ideology can verify by inspection, I said nothing Randian and nothing contrary to our being social animals.

The notion that being social animals and members of a society somehow magically implies that our mutual aid must necessarily come with no strings attached is logically absurd and empirically contrary to the entirety of human experience. Societies have been caring for those who can't fend for themselves throughout recorded history, and the donors have been concerning themselves with supervising the behavior of the recipients for just as long. The notion that people have a right to other people's earnings that doesn't come with reciprocal duties and social rules is a stupid modern invention of a stupid modern religion; it's nothing you'll find support for in behavioral studies of social animals of high intelligence. You are treating us not as members of a society but as members of two different societies: the needy as ingroup and the people you mean to exploit as outgroup.

 

[steve_bank]

You are treating us as beasts of burden who were put on this earth to serve your agenda.

No, I am not.

I am treating us as members of a society, which is our lot as social animals of high intelligence.

Ayn Rand was both completely wrong, and a total... We should not seek to emulate her broken thinking, nor to persue her stupid and cruel policy and lifestyle recommendations.

You attacked Steve with an ad hominem in the last round. For me you apparently decided that wasn't enough so you combined your ad hominem with a strawman. Classy. As anyone with a passing familiarity with her ideology can verify by inspection, I said nothing Randian and nothing contrary to our being social animals.

The notion that being social animals and members of a society somehow magically implies that our mutual aid must necessarily come with no strings attached is logically absurd and empirically contrary to the entirety of human experience. Societies have been caring for those who can't fend for themselves throughout recorded history, and the donors have been concerning themselves with supervising the behavior of the recipients for just as long. The notion that people have a right to other people's earnings that doesn't come with reciprocal duties and social rules is a stupid modern invention of a stupid modern religion; it's nothing you'll find support for in behavioral studies of social animals of high intelligence. You are treating us not as members of a society but as members of two different societies: the needy as ingroup and the people you mean to exploit as outgroup.

Thanks, but I have had him on ignore for years. He can b bloviate to his heart's content. Not worth responding to.

 

[Bomb#20]

The problem is a significant number of the homeless here in Seattle simply do not want housing that has any restrictions. They are not starving and they can go to an ER for medical help along with clinics.
...
They have no incentive to get into any kind of structured life.
...
Hotels are bing purchased for housing, but the problem remainns that there is no way to enforce rules and make people stay.

If you look at the homeless as just regular people who need a place to stay you will not get the nature of the prblem.

The mentality that's appalled by Steve's argument is the same mentality that's responsible for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal gaffe,

Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal offers ‘economic security’ for those ‘unwilling to work’.

Of course she walked it back and ducked responsibility for it when all the foreseeable pushback ensued; but it was only proposed in the first place because an awful lot of people on the left think public assistance should come with no obligations. And apparently in Bilby's mind, all that pushback came from the roughly 2% of the public that Randism appeals to. Wake up and smell the coffee, dudes. There's a word for those who don't want to give money to people who'll choose to spend it on liquor instead of rent: we're called "normal people". If the only people who didn't buy into the left's wacky new religious-meme-crippled moral sense were the lunatic fringe Randroid types, then Ms. Ocasio-Cortez would not have felt the need to walk back her trial balloon, and it would have become law.

 

[steve_bank]

It is a complicated scoial and economic problem with no straightforward solution.

IMO mental health begins when we are young. Family environment and positive self images.

Psychologists say our collective mental health is deteriorating. Teen suicide and addiction are obvious.

My immediate family situation was bad, but I got enough positiive feedback from my extended family. Along with that was the discipline in the Catholic schools. It gave me a sense of stability in retrospect. Had I gone to public schools I might not have graduated high school.

Homelessness is a symptom of a failing system.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been much if any discussion here of the high number of veterans who are without housing. It seems to me that considering that they were willing to put their lives on the line for the country, usually in unnecessary wars, we should do a lot better to help them find housing. Why not build veterans homes to help out these folks who are often suffering from PTSD or depression? Anyway. I'm going to post a link that explains the president's budget for 2023 regarding homelessness. Will it be passed by Congress?

But that would mean admitting that war leads to PTSD and that would make it combat disability. Can't go spending that much money!

I'm not exactly sure what your post meant. Was is sarcastic? Please clarify.

I believe it was sarcasm, saying that the government tries very hard to ensure that many problems vets encounter are purely coincidental to their service. This is why it is such an unholy nightmare to make claims against the VA for service-related problems. My coworker's father was one of the guys that boarded the ships at Bikini after the nuke went off. Washed off the decks in shorts and a t-shirt.
NO ONE but the VA was surprised when he developed cancer, they kept asking if he had a family history of cancer.

So, a national policy recognizing that the homeless vets are homeless in large part due to their service would be cata$trophic for $everal budget$, not to mention the congre$$men expected to fucking DO $omething about it.

It varies. Out in CA, they tended to my disabilities. Here in OH, yeah, it's what you said. I've thought about renting a place out west for a year just to have some issues addressed I've given up on here.

Fun fact: If your VA disability rating is under fifty percent, it's subtracted from your military retirement. So aside from the disability portion being nontaxable, it's a wash.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been much if any discussion here of the high number of veterans who are without housing. It seems to me that considering that they were willing to put their lives on the line for the country, usually in unnecessary wars, we should do a lot better to help them find housing. Why not build veterans homes to help out these folks who are often suffering from PTSD or depression? Anyway. I'm going to post a link that explains the president's budget for 2023 regarding homelessness. Will it be passed by Congress?

But that would mean admitting that war leads to PTSD and that would make it combat disability. Can't go spending that much money!

I'm not exactly sure what your post meant. Was is sarcastic? Please clarify.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. It doesn't provide a bogeyman and it's a big bill the government is responsible for. It's been called shell shock, it's been called other names that aren't coming to mind. It happens every war, every time the system only very slowly and grudgingly admits what's going on. It's a lot cheaper for the government to pretend it's something else.

About a year ago, I read about a couple who lived in a tent and both worked because they couldn't afford rent. She explained how she had to wash up in a public restroom. I can't remember all of the details but what a tough life that must be. I doubt that many people realize that some of the homeless people have jobs. They just don't make enough money to afford an apartment, especially if they live in a large city, like the woman in the article did. The waiting list for section 8 housing is extremely long. In fact, it's so long that in many if not most cities, one can't even get on a waiting list. We do need more subsidized housing. That would at least help the working poor who can't afford to pay the absurdly high rents.

Yeah, there should be no waiting list for such programs. Either it's not needed or it's needed now, in neither case does a waiting list make sense.

 

[steve_bank]

There are VA programs for housing. A VN vet in my building gets most or all of his rent payed by the VA. He has some problems. After all this time he is still plagued with trauma from his combat expreince. I talk with him, some pretty bad stuff he went through.

When I was in assisted living one of the people I sat with for meals was a Marine who had been homeless and on drugs, but he worked his way out of it.

 

[steve_bank]

The problem is a significant number of the homeless here in Seattle simply do not want housing that has any restrictions. They are not starving and they can go to an ER for medical help along with clinics.
...
They have no incentive to get into any kind of structured life.
...
Hotels are bing purchased for housing, but the problem remainns that there is no way to enforce rules and make people stay.

If you look at the homeless as just regular people who need a place to stay you will not get the nature of the prblem.

The mentality that's appalled by Steve's argument is the same mentality that's responsible for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal gaffe,

Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal offers ‘economic security’ for those ‘unwilling to work’.

Of course she walked it back and ducked responsibility for it when all the foreseeable pushback ensued; but it was only proposed in the first place because an awful lot of people on the left think public assistance should come with no obligations. And apparently in Bilby's mind, all that pushback came from the roughly 2% of the public that Randism appeals to. Wake up and smell the coffee, dudes. There's a word for those who don't want to give money to people who'll choose to spend it on liquor instead of rent: we're called "normal people". If the only people who didn't buy into the left's wacky new religious-meme-crippled moral sense were the lunatic fringe Randroid types, then Ms. Ocasio-Cortez would not have felt the need to walk back her trial balloon, and it would have become law.

What pray tell is that mentality you are referring to? If anything I am against the rose colored glasses of the progressives.

The police have said for a long time they have no authortyi under existing policy to take a homeless person and put them in housing and keep them there.

If you disagree with first line then you are arguing with human nature.