Rumor What's going on in Portland?

I have never proposed putting people who want no help into this kind of situation. I discussed that in an earlier post.

 

I never discussed not helping those who want help. Remember i made a post and you quoted it???
So whats your point? I see it as you like to argue. I already said i agree with most of what you said and disagree or draw the line at funding for those who dont want help. So what is your disagreement then that you keep coming at me with??

 

Actually, no. It worked just fine in SLC (and everywhere else it has been tried) when housing first was the first step. Educating parents takes far longer than 10 years, and is beyond the scope of this discussion.

The parenting issue is addressed by a Nordic style commitment to education, healthcare, and corrections system. I'm all for that as well.

 

You keep saying this fails. That's your claim. This system doesn't fund people who choose to leave or remain homeless. I never claimed it did. In fact, in my description and calculation above, I specifically kept those who didn't want help at the higher homeless level societal cost of around $50k.

I'm explaining why you're wrong in your claim that this has failed, or is failing. That's not the same as arguing.

 

I brought it up. Its my topic. Wtf. Lol. Who engaged with who first???

How about you stay on topic with my original posts. I have not swayed.

 

Fails at helping those who wont help themselves, which was the point of my posts you keep responding to and twisting it to your agenda.
This is the fix we need.

 

No. Those people are the vast minority of the people who need help. As SLC has already proven. Those people need a different kind of help. As I have stated over and over, every time this comes up. Housing first allows you to identify those people more easily by getting the vast majority in homes. Then you address those who refuse help, or even those who are criminals, on a case by case basis.

 

I believe I have addressed your every concern. If not, please let me know specifically and I'll do so.

 

One more time. The city is in the state it is largely because of youth who want anarchism to rule. I walked the streets and had these conversations with them.
This is what i said you responded to. If you would please stay on topic, we might get through this. I never brought up helping those who want help has or would fail. Im saying i don't want to fund the destructive life of those who refuse help. Period. Thats what i said you responded to.

Stay on topic please.

How do we clean up the destructive ones who refuse help? I disagree with treating them the same as other homeless and i dont care if it costs more to jail them. If they refuse the help and continue to be destructive they don't deserve more help.

i never once brought up helping those who want help fails.
Im separating things and i don't think you are.
How many times do i have to say i agree with most of what you say, but draw the line at helping those who don't want help and thst if we try, or continue to try , it will fail?

im not getting the disconnect here. Unless you are only reading a portion of my posts.

 

Portland is a mecca for youth who want anarchy. I fully believe the percent of homeless in portland who don't want help far exceeds most other cities. Real life events have cemented this opinion.
I should have not brought up slc because its a different city.
There are two fold problems.
One giving short term aid to those who want a better life and become productive. Im all for your proposals for this.
Two getting rid of the ones hellbent on destruction and do not want to change.

im saying portland has a high percentage of number two and pouring funding into programs will not fix this. how do we fix this?

 

I agree. And kind of my point. I have not seen a model or test that does this. All models can be taken advantage of by those who refuse from what ive seen and this is my point. Where is the model that helps distinguish this vs letting the destructive ones play innocent, use and abuse the system?

 

i have and i think we are closer to being on the same page.

 

well of course the easy answer is no. But i think this os more complicated than that. I think the alternative response would be, should we settle for a solution that only addresses a portion of the problems, or should we continue to work harder for a solution that helps all?

will a system actually work if a percentage of it is using and abusing it?

Again, i think Portland is an anomaly because i believe we have a far greater percentage of youth who want anarchy instead of help. So for Portland, because of this anomaly, I question the success of models that don't address this portion of the problem and i haven't seen a model that does.

 

With regards to Portland? I think so. Ive had too many direct discussions with youth on the streets wanting to burn it all down. With regards to Portland, if we do not address this first, I think the proposed system will be abused to the point of failure. When i say failure, meaning it would end up costing more than we are currently spending, because a large portion of the funds will be wasted on these types.

 

Anybody looking for a fantastic breakfast? This place is amazing. Great vibe up on Alberta.
https://www.yelp.com/biz/cheryl-s-on-12th-portland?osq=Alberta Street Restaurants breakfast