That settles that now, doesn’t it.
Comments
-
It's a major infringement - but why is it ok to infringe on some constitutional rights but somehow homeless people are off limits? We've kinda been infringed as fuck the last year on our ability to move around, express and gather for religious reasons, etc. My pursuit of happiness has been a real buzz kill for the last 12 months.creepycoug said:My $0.02 is that this is an area where I'm willing to send some tax dollars, or embrace some public/private partnership, to get people off the streets and cleaned up.
There will always be an irredeemable % of the population. They need to go somewhere too.
We should also be chasing at whatever problem is causing such a rash of this shit. I guess opioids are the whipping post now. I'm generally more libertarian when it comes to allow people to kill themselves, whether slowly or quickly; but I'm also tired of stepping over shit in the streets.
This is what we call an intractable issue. I know this: throwing $$ at it and nothing more won't do shit. I've lost the last count, but the city of Seattle has burned through hundreds of millions (or more) and the problem has only gotten worse.
The idea of collecting folks and getting them to one place to clean them up appeals to me. It's also an infringement on civil liberties. There will always be that tension.
If "they" are going to play fast and loose with the Constitution for a year, why not burn a year on the dregs of society and see if maybe we could clean up a good chunk of them up.
Otherwise, just place pallets of meth out in the middle of Central Washington and lets the dregs kill themselves - because that's essentially the slow death that's going on in major cities up and down the west coast right now by spending 'compassionate' taxpayer money on them.
-
I agree with a fair amount. In essence, the human waste - and I don't mean to be harsh and insensitive; it's a fucking travesty to see anyone wind up that way - at some point interferes with my ability to freely enjoy outdoor space. Sure, I can go somewhere else, but I like the city and cities weren't built so that they could be occupied by campers. And when you don't manage your shit - literally shit as in feces - it's a public health hazard.PurpleThrobber said:
It's a major infringement - but why is it ok to infringe on some constitutional rights but somehow homeless people are off limits? We've kinda been infringed as fuck the last year on our ability to move around, express and gather for religious reasons, etc. My pursuit of happiness has been a real buzz kill for the last 12 months.creepycoug said:My $0.02 is that this is an area where I'm willing to send some tax dollars, or embrace some public/private partnership, to get people off the streets and cleaned up.
There will always be an irredeemable % of the population. They need to go somewhere too.
We should also be chasing at whatever problem is causing such a rash of this shit. I guess opioids are the whipping post now. I'm generally more libertarian when it comes to allow people to kill themselves, whether slowly or quickly; but I'm also tired of stepping over shit in the streets.
This is what we call an intractable issue. I know this: throwing $$ at it and nothing more won't do shit. I've lost the last count, but the city of Seattle has burned through hundreds of millions (or more) and the problem has only gotten worse.
The idea of collecting folks and getting them to one place to clean them up appeals to me. It's also an infringement on civil liberties. There will always be that tension.
If "they" are going to play fast and loose with the Constitution for a year, why not burn a year on the dregs of society and see if maybe we could clean up a good chunk of them up.
Otherwise, just place pallets of meth out in the middle of Central Washington and lets the dregs kill themselves - because that's essentially the slow death that's going on in major cities up and down the west coast right now by spending 'compassionate' taxpayer money on them.
I can get around a lot of the virus stuff on this basis: if you believe the virus is real and is a real public health emergency (you either do or you don't - not gonna litigate that one in the club), then you can rationalize on civil liberties in the same sense that you do during wartime. It's a war on a virus. Just like lights out after a certain time so the Japanese wouldn't see where they were flying were they to launch an air attack. Or rationing or other shit that the country did. Or, fuck, the draft for that matter. Is there a greater infringement on civil liberties than the draft?
Anyway, back on topic, yes. I think there is a sense in which the royal "we" can haul your ass off to a facility to get you to quit shitting on the streets and spitting at people. We're not taking your agency, to use HH's term; for you have no agency really to speak of when you're pulling your pants down in broad daylight on the 3rd avenue and pinching off a loaf. I have actually seen this happen. More than once.
Like I said in another thread. I may be joining you in Idaho before it's all said and done. I like CDA. A lot. -
To me the issue is that it's a regional problem that every municipality treats differently, so there is no comprehensive approach. (Mercer Island recently responded to the problem by criminalizing sleeping outdoors or in a car and deciding that it would drive offenders to Bellevue. I heard tell Puyallup just drives homeless people to Tacoma.)creepycoug said:My $0.02 is that this is an area where I'm willing to send some tax dollars, or embrace some public/private partnership, to get people off the streets and cleaned up.
There will always be an irredeemable % of the population. They need to go somewhere too.
We should also be chasing at whatever problem is causing such a rash of this shit. I guess opioids are the whipping post now. I'm generally more libertarian when it comes to allow people to kill themselves, whether slowly or quickly; but I'm also tired of stepping over shit in the streets.
This is what we call an intractable issue. I know this: throwing $$ at it and nothing more won't do shit. I've lost the last count, but the city of Seattle has burned through hundreds of millions (or more) and the problem has only gotten worse.
The idea of collecting folks and getting them to one place to clean them up appeals to me. It's also an infringement on civil liberties. There will always be that tension.
Opioids is a part of the issue. But if you're an addict, free will is an elusive concept. Addiction is a throw of the genetic dice. Most people won't get addicted to opioids because they don't have that predisposition.
Mental illness is part of the problem. Not exactly a matter of free will.
Personally, I'd live with the risks of being overly paternalistic and intrusive. Many people can't simply white knuckle themselves into a solution to their issues. -
Exactly!creepycoug said:
I think there is a sense in which the royal "we" can haul your ass off to a facility to get you to quit shitting on the streets and spitting at people. We're not taking your agency, to use HH's term; for you have no agency really to speak of when you're pulling your pants down in broad daylight on the 3rd avenue and pinching off a loaf.PurpleThrobber said:
It's a major infringement - but why is it ok to infringe on some constitutional rights but somehow homeless people are off limits? We've kinda been infringed as fuck the last year on our ability to move around, express and gather for religious reasons, etc. My pursuit of happiness has been a real buzz kill for the last 12 months.creepycoug said:My $0.02 is that this is an area where I'm willing to send some tax dollars, or embrace some public/private partnership, to get people off the streets and cleaned up.
There will always be an irredeemable % of the population. They need to go somewhere too.
We should also be chasing at whatever problem is causing such a rash of this shit. I guess opioids are the whipping post now. I'm generally more libertarian when it comes to allow people to kill themselves, whether slowly or quickly; but I'm also tired of stepping over shit in the streets.
This is what we call an intractable issue. I know this: throwing $$ at it and nothing more won't do shit. I've lost the last count, but the city of Seattle has burned through hundreds of millions (or more) and the problem has only gotten worse.
The idea of collecting folks and getting them to one place to clean them up appeals to me. It's also an infringement on civil liberties. There will always be that tension.
If "they" are going to play fast and loose with the Constitution for a year, why not burn a year on the dregs of society and see if maybe we could clean up a good chunk of them up.
Otherwise, just place pallets of meth out in the middle of Central Washington and lets the dregs kill themselves - because that's essentially the slow death that's going on in major cities up and down the west coast right now by spending 'compassionate' taxpayer money on them. -
I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.). -
Not that I have any experience with it either, but I've assumed it's a mixed bag of people whose brains are misfiring, addiction, bad lives so they think they want this one, or a mix of those. I've also always said, "yeah, sure move it. get it the fuck outta here. but they'll pop up somewhere else."1to392831weretaken said:I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
I really don't know what to do about it, which is why sometimes I think Vantage is the only solution. Keep it isolated somewhere and do the best you can.
What's happening in the cities now is simply not sustainable. Eventually we'll all abandon them and it'll be like Mad Max down there. -
This is a great post. Surprised to find it here1to392831weretaken said:I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
lol -
Must have been ghost written by someone who posts on the Tug.RaceBannon said:
This is a great post. Surprised to find it here1to392831weretaken said:I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
lol -
I rest my case.1to392831weretaken said:I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
I actually know a shit ton about homelessness and government intervention and programs and shit but I don't want to get all angered right now.
They are a tremendous resource suck relative to the other 99.9% of people who try to live normal lives.
-
NWF maybe?SFGbob said:
Must have been ghost written by someone who posts on the Tug.RaceBannon said:
This is a great post. Surprised to find it here1to392831weretaken said:I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
lol
