Homeless shelter

[MKULTRABOY]

Yeah, like the govt is full of trained professionals and don't use our donations (aka taxes) to pay high salaries for themselves

Do you hate that the sky is blue?

 

[samsmart]

I really don't see how the OP's stance is at all objectionable. I understand that things like homeless shelters, methadone clinics, prisons, graveyards, dumps and sewage treatment plants are all necessary parts of a city. That doesn't mean I'm wrong to object to their placement near my home. Whether or not individual homeless people are more prone to committing crimes is irrelevant - the fact is that the location of a shelter near a home will lower property values and create an atmosphere than many would find uncomfortable.

To be honest with you, I don't think it's objectionable either. I don't think that a homeless shelter should be near schools or residential areas either.

However, when you look at the type of people who are likely to be perpetually homeless, the demographics are either 1) the mentally ill or 2) ex-convicts with felonies. Those are two demographics normally not treated very well by conservatives.

The standard Republican response to the mentally ill is for them to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." That's not easy for the mentally ill to do. What they need is treatment and in many cases medication. It costs money for social workers to provide that treatment. But in most cases the mentally ill cannot do it themselves since they lack the capability to do so by virtue of their mental illness.

The standard Republican response to ex-convict felons is "well, you shouldn't have done the crime." In most states, if anyone is convicted of a felony, they have to check a box for work applications and in many cases applications to rent a home or apartment. Based on that alone, employers and renters can deny them employment or renting a shelter, respectively.

Now when it comes to the mentally ill, they can't help that the roulette of genetics or environment has caused them to develop inabilities to function in society. But by allowing the government to use professionals to give the mentally ill treatment and needed medication, those professionals can help the mentally ill become productive citizens. So by making the investment in the mentally ill by paying for social workers with tax dollars, society will get a return because those mentally ill will be able to be a part of the work force instead of a drain on welfare or private charities.

When it comes to ex-felons, if people don't allow people who have paid their dues to society for their crimes to be treated as full citizens again, then there's no point in allowing themselves to be rehabilitated. Let them try to hold down jobs. Let them rent homes. If they're trying to be a positive influence on society after their crimes, let them.

And even if you're not, let them have shelter. Start building communities whose apartments can be rented only by ex-felons. They're going to need places to live too when they get out. And they're going to need jobs too when they get out. Otherwise, they'll have no reason to try to go straight, because if they go back to jail then at least they'll get 3 square meals and a roof over their head.

So, RightinNYC, I sympathize with the OP as well. But then the question becomes, "Well, if we're not going to do that, then what are we going to do?" Or maybe I just think that way because I'm looking at the larger picture.

Also: with regards to the OP, something the poster can do is call a lawyer and see what her options are. That would probably be the most effective way to deal with this issue, in all honesty.

 

[OscarB63]

Do you hate that the sky is blue?

not nearly as much as I hate people with nothing relevent to add to a discussion that come in spounting gibberish.

I also hate the fact that liberals think that more government is the answer to every question.

 

[samsmart]

yeah, like the govt is full of trained professionals and don't use our donations (aka taxes) to pay high salaries for themselves

When it comes to social work, they don't, typically. Most of the extremely high salaries get paid to "chief" politicians, such as mayors, city councilmen, governors, state legislators, etc. Those who do the grunt work don't get paid exorbiant salaries or wages.

And if you're asking me if I agree with you that we should cut the salaries of those in government at the top then I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, we may disagree when it comes to the majority of workers employed by the government.

Also, I don't give charity to pay for administrators. I give to charity to pay for help for a cause.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

So who are these people in the government that raise their wages to lofty levels on our taxes? Are you just angry to be angry or do you have any legitimate reason/evidence that this is a commonplace thing to the point one would want to withhold their taxes...

indulge me.

Unless you're spouting inane gibberish..... again.

 

[OscarB63]

When it comes to social work, they don't, typically. Most of the extremely high salaries get paid to "chief" politicians, such as mayors, city councilmen, governors, state legislators, etc. Those who do the grunt work don't get paid exorbiant salaries or wages.

just like with charities. most of those doing the grunt work get paid little or nothing at all. i fail to see how the govt is any different in this regard.

Also, I don't give charity to pay for administrators. I give to charity to pay for help for a cause.

just as I don't pay taxes to pay for high salaried congressmen. i pay taxes to provide essential services like schools, roads, defense, etc.

 

[OscarB63]

So who are these people in the government that raise their wages to lofty levels on our taxes? Are you just angry to be angry or do you have any legitimate reason/evidence that this is a commonplace thing to the point one would want to withhold their taxes...

indulge me.

Unless you're spouting inane gibberish..... again.

are you really that dense? congressmen/women with their 6 figure salaries and "retirement for life" after serving a mere 1 term. the people who actually can "vote" themselves a pay raise any time they want. The guys who travel all around the world on our dime. virtually unlimited expense accounts. the list goes on and on.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

are you really that dense?

Moderator's Warning:

Cease the personal attacks or there will be further consequences.

 

[spud_meister]

Most conservatives believe the answer lies in charitable organizations. Thats why they give much more to help the poor than liberals.

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Conservative Voters Are More Liberal With Charity - Prospecting - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

Democrats prefer to give other peoples money to aid the homeless rather than their own.

On that, I'd be curious to see if it's more liberal or conservatives that are actually working at the places where the money is donated too.

 

[Orion]

Hello everyone,

I found this website through a friend of mine. I am worried about the construction of a homeless shelter in my neighborhood. I am preparing emails to local congress officials and other political people and I would like to know if anyone else has experienced these situations before and know of anything good to send to the town officials. Would anyone here support the construction of such a center in their neighborhoods, where children and schools are nearby? The one near me is being put up in a residential area, on a residential street. Property values will go down, sex offenders will become prevalent, there are 2 schools within a short radius of each other in the area, mental retards will be there.

I know the liberals will be coming in here calling me some sort of right wing nut job for this, but the truth is, if it were happening in your area, you would be upset too. There are children, think about the children, then say if you support it or not.

Homeless shelters don't just have happenstance locations. A lot of research is done on the demographics of the area before a shelter comes into operation.

If a shelter is being made in your area, then your area already has all of the problems you are worried about, the only difference is that there has been no agency to deal with it until now. The shelter represents the perception that the problems it will address are new, when in fact your area has probably been endemic for a while now. Given this, the children would probably be safer and not worse off, because there will now be an institution dealing with local issues.

 

[justabubba]

Homeless shelters don't just have happenstance locations. A lot of research is done on the demographics of the area before a shelter comes into operation.

If a shelter is being made in your area, then your area already has all of the problems you are worried about, the only difference is that there has been no agency to deal with it until now. The shelter represents the perception that the problems it will address are new, when in fact your area has probably been endemic for a while now. Given this, the children would probably be safer and not worse off, because there will now be an institution dealing with local issues.

excellent points

in my city, there is a concerted effort to broadcast social assistance throughout
rather than building public housing in clusters, it is now co-mingled with owner-resident properties. it was believed that clustering those citizens who faced socio-economic problems had little benefit in changing the culture of need
it is anticipated (hoped?), that by dispersing those who need assistance throughout the general population, those families/individuals will see other, more positive behaviors to be modeled, than if they were to be located within a project populated by nothing but other individuals/families in need of social support

my particular affluent neighborhood continues to be a very desirable place to live and a relocation destination, despite the presence of a halfway house, a safe home for children, many assisted houses for the disabled, a public urgent care facility, infill subsidized housing and a public hospital

certainly, the neighbors of the proposed facility should want to assure the facility can be expected to be well planned and well managed, but to dismiss it as an intrusion into the community only because of the displaced population it serves strikes me as being beyond elitist

 

[Compatibilist]

On that, I'd be curious to see if it's more liberal or conservatives that are actually working at the places where the money is donated too.

What??? How could they determine that... and what difference does it make anyway? If you skimmed thru any of the links I provided, you'd know [on the avg] libs talk big about about help and compassion but don't put there money where their mouth is... All the studies are clear that even though libs generally make significantly more money than conserves... but they give less.

=================

Of those surveyed, those who live in conservative households donated an average of $3,255 to charities outside of places of worship during the past year. By comparison, moderate households donated $2,926 and liberal households donated $1,879.

Conservatives also give significantly more money to their place of worship than liberals and moderates.

The survey found conservatives gave, on average, $1,841 to their places of worship during the past year — compared with $1,115 for moderates and $499 for liberals.

=====================

Lib leader Al Gore is a perfect example of hypocracy with regards to his own lifestyle

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

 

[liblady]

What??? How could they determine that... and what difference does it make anyway? If you skimmed thru any of the links I provided, you'd know [on the avg] libs talk big about about help and compassion but don't put there money where their mouth is... All the studies are clear that even though libs generally make significantly more money than conserves... but they give less.

=================

Of those surveyed, those who live in conservative households donated an average of $3,255 to charities outside of places of worship during the past year. By comparison, moderate households donated $2,926 and liberal households donated $1,879.

Conservatives also give significantly more money to their place of worship than liberals and moderates.

The survey found conservatives gave, on average, $1,841 to their places of worship during the past year — compared with $1,115 for moderates and $499 for liberals.

=====================

Lib leader Al Gore is a perfect example of hypocracy with regards to his own lifestyle

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

Search: The Giving Pledge - Billionaire givers - 1

libs make more than republicans? not according to most right wingers posting here.

 

[Compatibilist]

Search: The Giving Pledge - Billionaire givers - 1

libs make more than republicans? not according to most right wingers posting here.

I think you missed something... All republicans are not conservatives... so don't lump them together. Which "right wingers" do you refer too here, and would that be your anecdotal evidence or based on a poll or reliable source at DB???

 

[liblady]

I think you missed something... All republicans are not conservatives... so don't lump them together. Which "right wingers" do you refer too here, and would that be your anecdotal evidence or based on a poll or reliable source at DB???

of course i missed nothing. i have some respect for true conservatives. most republicans are not true conservatives, they're whiny freaking babies who have nothing better to do than dress up and play patriot. waa, waa, waa......except they don't know what the **** they are crying about. ask them if they want to give up their social security......ask them if they want to give up their medicare.....they don't realize THEIR party would just as soon throw them under a bus than look at them.

oops......post after post refers to democrats as welfare recepients or under employed.

 

[OscarB63]

ask them if they want to give up their social security......ask them if they want to give up their medicare...

and most of them would tell you yes. if given the choice to get out of the system most of the crybaby republicans would get the **** out of SS and medicare. because, unlike liberals, we prefer to fend for ourselves instead of depending on the govt to take care of us.

 

[VanceMack]

Hello everyone,

I found this website through a friend of mine. I am worried about the construction of a homeless shelter in my neighborhood. I am preparing emails to local congress officials and other political people and I would like to know if anyone else has experienced these situations before and know of anything good to send to the town officials. Would anyone here support the construction of such a center in their neighborhoods, where children and schools are nearby? The one near me is being put up in a residential area, on a residential street. Property values will go down, sex offenders will become prevalent, there are 2 schools within a short radius of each other in the area, mental retards will be there.

I know the liberals will be coming in here calling me some sort of right wing nut job for this, but the truth is, if it were happening in your area, you would be upset too. There are children, think about the children, then say if you support it or not.

Im not a liberal and I suspect you of trolling, to be blunt...but I'll play...

If you are really concerned about the sex offenders and predators among you, go to the internet and look up the sex offender registry in your area. You are likely already living next to one...working with one, maybe going to church with one.

Everyone agrees there needs to be help...but no one wants it in their back yards. Well..why not? In fact...why not full on embrace it...be very aggressively active and support it? Why not make it a place and source of community pride?

 

[liblady]

i volunteer at a soup kitchen. our primary focus is feeding the homeless
the soup kitchen is located within an affluent community
and we have faced opposition from local residents who (legitimately) see us as being a magnet for the least among us
what i do not understand is why those opponents in the community believe the homeless should be deprived of their rights
why do they believe that those of little means are not deserving to come to our soup kitchen, or in your instance, to reside in your community
as can be seen by your post, being homeless is viewed as being criminal. but that is a false belief. yes, there is criminal activity among the homeless population, just as there is criminal activity among those who are housed, and well off. and if the homeless engage in criminal activity, they should be incarcerated, just as those who are well off should be incarcerated for their illegal actions. but to presume that someone is going to engage in criminal behavior only because they are homeless is a very bogus assumption

the kitchen itself is located in an affluent neighborhood?

 

[liblady]

LOL - "think about the children" . . . trolling?
(just kidding!)

Well - if you're wanting to take serious action you need more heft behind your argument.
You need to research crime, property value and other statistics that are connected to this situation in all these areas of concern for you - your community isn't the only one to do this and have backlash. Look into how things happened and changed in other areas and what actions they took - if any legal recourse was available to others, etc. Sometimes this approach is successful and sometimes it's not. . . but nothing happens when someone just complains and has 0 weight behind the stone throwing.

well, i'm not kidding.....this a troll thread. pretty poor one at that.

 

[liblady]

That's the thing, no one knows. They just sent a notice saying a homeless shelter is being made. Nothing else. No information as to where exactly on the street it will be (it said a road name).

i think you should sell your home immediately, and move to siberia.

 

[beyonce]

Hello again.

First of all, no I am not joking. This is a true story and a true situation. They have decided to call a town meeting on it, which will be on the 28th, so I will be certainly going there.

The thing is, the liberals can sit here telling me how I think all homeless people are pedophiles, but really, wake up! When you get out of your stupid liberal universities in your little bubbles and have children of your own, you will understand what I am saying, and understand my point. The proposed location BACKS UP to the middle school, and there are elementary bus stops along the way. One of them is right across from the proposed location. I know because my daughter used to get on the bus there. We don't know the backgrounds on these people. There is no accountability held in these houses. If I'm worried about my neighbor, I can search him or her on the internet within a second. In the days before the internet, we would search the phonebook for the person's name, then we could ask around with people in the town. There was more talking back then compared to nowadays, but still, the same result was reached. We find out. With this, there is no background. We don't know the backgrounds on these people being put in there. We just don't know who they are, why they are homeless, if they have criminal histories, etc. The homeless people living there will not be listed on the phonebook. We will not know. There could be pedophiles, ex cons (as someone previously mentioned), rapists, god knows who!

 

[liblady]

Hello again.

First of all, no I am not joking. This is a true story and a true situation. They have decided to call a town meeting on it, which will be on the 28th, so I will be certainly going there.

The thing is, the liberals can sit here telling me how I think all homeless people are pedophiles, but really, wake up! When you get out of your stupid liberal universities in your little bubbles and have children of your own, you will understand what I am saying, and understand my point. The proposed location BACKS UP to the middle school, and there are elementary bus stops along the way. One of them is right across from the proposed location. I know because my daughter used to get on the bus there. We don't know the backgrounds on these people. There is no accountability held in these houses. If I'm worried about my neighbor, I can search him or her on the internet within a second. In the days before the internet, we would search the phonebook for the person's name, then we could ask around with people in the town. There was more talking back then compared to nowadays, but still, the same result was reached. We find out. With this, there is no background. We don't know the backgrounds on these people being put in there. We just don't know who they are, why they are homeless, if they have criminal histories, etc. The homeless people living there will not be listed on the phonebook. We will not know. There could be pedophiles, ex cons (as someone previously mentioned), rapists, god knows who!

BOO! god forbid an ex con live in a shelter. you must be one of those compassionate conservatives that don't exist.

 

[beyonce]

BOO! god forbid an ex con live in a shelter. you must be one of those compassionate conservatives that don't exist.

Funny. I don't want an ex con living in a homeless shelter near my house, where my children live and go to school. I can't find out what he's in there for. Is he an ex con for tax evasion or is he an ex con for murder or drug dealing?

 

[VanceMack]

BOO! god forbid an ex con live in a shelter. you must be one of those compassionate conservatives that don't exist.

Some of those non-existent compassionate conservatives have spent thousands of their own dollars and countless manhours to CREATE those shelters.

 

[liblady]

Funny. I don't want an ex con living in a homeless shelter near my house, where my children live and go to school. I can't find out what he's in there for. Is he an ex con for tax evasion or is he an ex con for murder or drug dealing?

don't ask me, i live where no boogie men can get me.

in all seriousness, what don't you get about "EX"? those people have paid their debt and deserve a chance to rebuild their lives. it's your problem to deal with if you are uncomfortable.