I see punishing people seems high on your list of things to do. So if 1 "program-homed person" takes advantage of the system and sleeps til noon for 7 months (or even indefinitely) you would prefer to end the program and pay thousands more per year for each (at least double the price of homing them) to either jail every one of them or pay as much as jailing them in emergency services, police overtime, public maintenance, etc. As well as have fewer get their lives back on track and rejoin the workforce as the price of punishing them? This costs the public at least double and gives us fewer healthy people contributing to the economy, but it does punish more people who would take advantage of the system. Is this what you would prefer?
A family from the suburbs is not equipped to effectively deal with a teen once it has gotten to the point of drugs and running away. That teen is now a societal problem to solve. My question is, are you willing to pay at least double to help fewer of those people and have smelly trashed cities and public spaces as we do now. Living this way is a form of punishment, as you well know. Or just as much to jail them all. This is also obviously a form of punishment. Or would you prefer to spend half as much by putting them in homes and giving them a caseworker (they likely already have a case worker in one form or another), which gets the highest number of people out of the system and back to contributing to the economy, but admittedly punishes people much less harshly than the first two options.
One thing that is not being mentioned is that 3 of the largest flop houses in downtown Portland have been turned into boutique hotels over the last 10 years. Those flop houses were centralized locations to provide services like drug treatment and mental health counseling. As the residents of those have scattered to the streets it's become much harder to provide services to those that want them. While it was easy for churches and non-profits to go to a flop house, it's not easy for them to go to the scattered camps throughout the city. Portland residents did vote to increase funding for new homeless shelters, and some of those are coming along slowly but they have not replaced what was taken out of inventory or have matched the growing population of the city.
no. I see you like to project and assume. I asked questions. I didnt define what i would do. Who said end the program? Why end the program? Why not end that specific persons gifts? you think im a punisher? Lol. Okay. Because i expect able individuals to pull thier own weight in society so we can all band together to help those who need help? Not just want it? not sure why you are making this out as an wither or. There are several reasons for those who are homeless. Giving free room and board will only help some of them. Others it will hurt by enabling thier unhealthy(drugs) and criminal lifestyle. its not all black Nd white as, give them all shelter and it will be a cleaner safer city and cost less. thats a simpleton way of looking at it. lets just throw money at the homeless and they will spend it right and all will be well. Thats lunacy type of thinking.
I stopped at the first sentence. Why are they not equipped to deal with it any less than anyone else in the city? to answer your question? Littering is illegal. If you break the law, pay the penalty. Homeless or not. back to your first sentence. It makes zero sense to me. Please explain why they arent equipped to deal?
I'm curious as what you think the penalty should be for when a homeless person litters? They can't pay a fine. They're homeless. No income. That leaves jail.
It doesn't work unless you're housing all of them. The program fails because benefits and savings are reduced. If they break the law you punish them. You do not punish them by making them homeless. I've seen no evidence that giving anybody a shelter, heat, and sanitary services is more harmful than taking those services away and forcing them to be homeless. That's simply a false statement.
most homeless get government gifts like welfare, foodstamps etc. defuct the fine for littering from thier handout. Im curious why so much push back on homeless illegal activity instead of even attempting to say it that some homeless are good people and some just want to skate Nd take advantage? do you think those types dont exist? those people dont deserve help in my opinion. My issue woth the current system is it doesnt weed these people out. One of the many reasons im not for universal anything. Just just keep pumping money onto the war on drugs instead of rehab. Where has it got us since Nancy started just say No? Some problems you cant just toss money at And expect it to right itself. Some things need independent and specific scenario investigations to define legitimacy of the help wanted. And/or to figure out other methods to try to solve the issue. i believe the homeless issue is one of these we cant just toss money at and expect it to just be okay like it has been implied by several posters in several posts.
Where did i state it would hurt some MORE? nothing false about my statement just an inaccurate deduction on your part.
I've seen no evidence that would suggest they are. A teenager who doesn't want to be home will not be home. What would you suggest?
okay now you are completely sidestepping my point. Suburbs in general have better schools, financially stable parents etc. So why would they be unable to handle but the city is? point is teens are becoming snowflakes and think suburban homelife is soooo bad they run. when in reality that home-life was the best they had it. this goes back to my statement about ignorance about world history Nd how we actually are much better off than many think we are.
Lol. Again thats all you got from that??? I thought you were above this type of game playing... Public schools aren't universal. Neither are police and fire. They are independent from state to state..... last legit answer you get until you stop asking questions that disregard the bulk of the post.[/QUOTE]
@Phatguysrule i cant quote your quote of my quote. Please point out in my post where i said MORE???????
Universal means access by all, not run by the feds. Everyone has access to education, police and fire protection in this country regardless of ability to pay.
There are a % of people who take advantage of every situation. You are implying that homing these people will cost more money than letting them be homeless. This is the opposite of reality. We spend more to keep them homeless. Literally the only reason not to home them is to make them suffer and keep them down.
Yes but people also want a federally mandated bill. When talking Bout universal care. Each state handles it differently. It is not universally the same from state to state, so therefor no. The people in Washington dont get the same education as those in Florida. You know this. Why you keep bringing up strawman questions on the heels of calling me strawman is boggling my mind.
lol. Okay. Ill let you have your stance that if we just helped all homeless they would all be a positive contributor to society. Ive said its not a black and white thing and there are several factors to take into account with each case, but you keep pressing this all or nothing mantra. Makes me feel like you really arent even reading my posts....
