Is the reason why you don't see homeless camping in Red States because they just throw them in jail or give them 1 way tickets out of town?

[ALiberalModerate]

But Texas and Florida with more combined population than California have far less than half the homeless than California. They have just over 1/2 the homeless population of New York. It's the environment created by radical Leftist Democrats that encourages homelessness as a lifestyle.

It's the climate. Would you rather be homeless in California's mild coastal climate, or those states?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Right Wingers ignore this fact, that they represent in the Senate, (Republicans) at least 100 million less people than Democrats.

This is the problem with people who have no knowledge about American government history.

The Senate was not originally designed to represent the people. It was originally designed to represent States, while the House of Representatives was the "Peoples House." Each State had the right to appoint 2 Senators. It was not until the 17th Amendment changed that to the election of the Senators that they became somewhat dependent on "representing the people."

So now we have a situation where we cease recognizing the fact, that we are the Unites STATES of America, which IMO is one of the reasons we have so many problems understanding each other.

There not too many large Cities that are Republican run anyway. Boise and Salt Lake are a few I can think of and they're not that large.

Correct. Likely because when you cram millions of people together in such cities there is so much fear, frustration, angst, and obvious privilege differences (rich living in penthouses, median living in gentrified apartments, poor living in either government housing or tenements) it's like ancient Rome where bread and circuses are needed to prevent resentment turning into riots.

Fort Worth, Tulsa and OKC, but other than that?

And?

I've been in Pittsburgh and St Louis in the last 2 years. Neither had any tent Cities and both are basically Blue Cities.

As for this, maybe this is a reason:

Encampment shut down marks new era in Pittsburgh's homeless policies

Legal advocacy groups are raising concerns about the procedures the city and county employed during their most recent encampment closure.

www.publicsource.org

 

[Jetboogieman]

The Senate was not originally designed to represent the people. It was originally designed to represent States

Yeah….

And a State is made up of what…?

How can a state be truly represented without the will of its people?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Yeah….

And a State is made up of what…?

How can a state be truly represented without the will of its people?

STATES have different needs, issues, and problems based on geography, environment, resources, and so on.

The HOUSE controlled the purse strings. The SENATE handled diplomacy, etc.. Of course, now we don't really think of States as being anything other than political blocks of voters with two parties vying for control of the votes, and thus the Federal purse strings.

 

[Visbek]

Wanna try again?
While it’s not the #1 reason it IS a reason

You should have read that article before you linked it.

Idaho isn't packing its homeless onto buses and sending them to LA. What happened is that a lawsuit in Boise restricted some of the police options for dealing with homeless people, all across the US.

Specifically, police can't do things like break up encampments or ticket homeless people sleeping on the streets if they don't already have shelter available for those individuals.

 

[Visbek]

It's the climate. Would you rather be homeless in California's mild coastal climate, or those states?

It's not the climate. 90% of California's homeless are local. It's because:

• Housing is far more expensive in CA
• There isn't enough housing in general in CA
• There isn't enough affordable housing in CA
• There certainly isn't enough affordable housing in LA, SF and other big CA cities
• CA residents may want the homeless gone, but they aren't willing to build shelters, let alone short-term housing, let alone longer-term housing, let alone any sort of affordable housing, that would relieve the issue

For example, the ultra-wealthy venture capitalist Marc Andreessen wrote an essay in 2020 proclaiming "It's Time To Build," saying CA needed more housing -- but it turns out that he also opposed the construction of multi-family housing in his own town.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It's not the climate. 90% of California's homeless are local. It's because:

• Housing is far more expensive in CA
• There isn't enough housing in general in CA
• There isn't enough affordable housing in CA
• There certainly isn't enough affordable housing in LA, SF and other big CA cities
• CA residents may want the homeless gone, but they aren't willing to build shelters, let alone short-term housing, let alone longer-term housing, let alone any sort of affordable housing, that would relieve the issue

For example, the ultra-wealthy venture capitalist Marc Andreessen wrote an essay in 2020 proclaiming "It's Time To Build," saying CA needed more housing -- but it turns out that he also opposed the construction of multi-family housing in his own town.

The topic of the thread is "why dont you see homeless camping in red states". That means they are talking about visible homeless, which is not driven by housing prices or the cost of living. The tent city type homelessness is largely driven by psychosis, meth, and opioid abuse.

If you are talking about couch surfers and people living in their car, then yes that is largely a result of cost of living issues.

 

[jonny5]

The topic of the thread is "why dont you see homeless camping in red states". That means they are talking about visible homeless, which is not driven by housing prices or the cost of living. The tent city type homelessness is largely driven by psychosis, meth, and opioid abuse.

If you are talking about couch surfers and people living in their car, then yes that is largely a result of cost of living issues.

Its a factor of density and policy. You dont see homeless camping in the streets until you get a policy which allows it combined with a larger number, And there simply arent the large numbers or policies that allow it in red cities. But certainly there are some in blue cities in red states. Its not so much a state issue as a city issue. California has plenty of red cities without tent cities, because they have tough policies about camping in public.

 

[Visbek]

But Texas and Florida with more combined population than California have far less than half the homeless than California. They have just over 1/2 the homeless population of New York. It's the environment created by radical Leftist Democrats that encourages homelessness as a lifestyle.

Yes, because living in a cardboard box in the street is so cool these days.

Back in the real world, the "environment" that causes homelessness is the enormous economic success of those cities, which drives up housing prices, combined with a refusal to build more affordable housing.

Compared to Texas, the average home in NY costs 1.4 times more, and CA costs 2.5 times more. It's even worse in big expensive cities like NYC and LA.

We should also note that the Radical Leftist Democrats have, in fact, reduced the homeless population in Houston by 60% in about a decade with their Evil Socialist Government Policies (gasp!!!). Using the "housing first" policies pushed by the Obama administration, they were able to get all the aid and government organizations on the same page, and subsidize housing so people could get off and stay off the streets.

How Houston Moved 25,000 People From the Streets Into Homes of Their Own (Published 2022)

The nation’s fourth-largest city hasn’t solved homelessness, but its remarkable progress can suggest a way forward.

www.nytimes.com

So, what have conservatives done to address the problem? In Salt Lake City, they did the same thing -- adopting a "housing first" policy in 2005. But when they moved away from a "housing first" policy, homeless people started sleeping on the streets again:

Once a national model, Utah struggles with homelessness

Once lauded as a leader among U.S. cities struggling to relieve homelessness, the number of people sleeping rough in Utah's capital has spiked in the past two years, as funding for its groundbreaking housing program dried up.

www.reuters.com

Neither of those policies resulted in homeless people flooding those cities, looking for free housing.

So, what is the big conservative policy? Apparently, it is "screw the homeless." For example, Abbott wrote a law setting up a homeless encampment in 2019. He reversed himself in 2021, outlawing homeless encampments on public land in Texas, but provided no funds whatsoever for housing or shelters. In case it isn't clear, shoving homeless people out of sight is not a solution.

 

[Visbek]

The topic of the thread is "why dont you see homeless camping in red states". That means they are talking about visible homeless, which is not driven by housing prices or the cost of living. The tent city type homelessness is largely driven by psychosis, meth, and opioid abuse.

If you are talking about couch surfers and people living in their car, then yes that is largely a result of cost of living issues.

Sorry, but no. You can't disconnect these issues.

While homeless people are more visible in some urban areas, there are lots of people living in their cars in CA as well.

And no, it isn't just mental illness and drug abuse that causes homelessness or living on the streets. Lots of drug addicts still manage to find housing; and a lot of CA's homeless believe they would be able to stay in housing with a subsidy.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Sorry, but no. You can't disconnect these issues.

While homeless people are more visible in some urban areas, there are lots of people living in their cars in CA as well.

And no, it isn't just mental illness and drug abuse that causes homelessness or living on the streets. Lots of drug addicts still manage to find housing; and a lot of CA's homeless believe they would be able to stay in housing with a subsidy.

We actually did this in the city I live in. They put up homeless people from tent cities into apartments and in some cases motels. In less than a month, the vast majority of them trashed the housing the city provided for them, in many cases to the point of them being inhabitable, and then the city was on the hook for repairs.

You cannot treat the homeless person living in a tent in a park that has meth addiction induced schizophrenia the same way you would the homeless person living in their car because they can't afford housing. They are homeless for entirely different reasons. The person that is living in their car just needs more affordable housing. The person with meth induced schizophrenia is unhousable in their current state for the same reason they are unemployable in their current state.

While those with severe opioid addiction or meth induced psychosis do not represent the majority of homeless, they do represent the majority of visible homelessness. The person that did this:



Is likely not housable in his current state. Just putting that person in housing will only result in them doing to that housing what they did this park. You have to address the causes specific to the person that is homeless.

 

[slick]

Its a factor of density and policy. You dont see homeless camping in the streets until you get a policy which allows it combined with a larger number, And there simply arent the large numbers or policies that allow it in red cities. But certainly there are some in blue cities in red states. Its not so much a state issue as a city issue. California has plenty of red cities without tent cities, because they have tough policies about camping in public.

Reviving Baltimore appears to be impossible!
The recent sale of the 30-story building at One South Street sold for a fraction of its value in 2015.
Eight years ago, the building sold for $66 million.
Last month, new owners purchased the building for $24 million.
How many MILLIONS in property tax have over the years been FORGIVEN to
developers by their captured and owned politicians? Has to be $10's of millions.

Companies, which are desperately searching for staff and safety, are moving out
of downtown and this predicts the city's tax base will suffer.

Baltimore is DYING under the rule of Democrats. Like the many other cities that have
large areas that look like 3rd world cities. It is all due to DEMOCRATS who have ignored
the majority of law abiding citizens to concentrate on the minority of the society and it has FAILED.

When a city loses 40% of it's population and most who moved were tax payers,
and those who are left are not, the city dies.

 

[Visbek]

We actually did this in the city I live in....

Funny how that hasn't happened in numerous other cities with "housing first" plans, including Houston successfully rehousing 25,000 people without trashing thousands of homes. But you claim something happened in an unnamed city, so who cares about actual research, or aid agencies that actually keep track of the people they assist?

You cannot treat the homeless person living in a tent in a park that has meth addiction induced schizophrenia the same way you would the homeless person living in their car because they can't afford housing.

You also can't treat meth addictions or schizophrenia if that person is living on the street, or in a shelter.

The person that is living in their car just needs more affordable housing.

Yes... And it's the majority who become homeless because of a lack of affordable housing. It's estimated that 25% are mentally ill; another 25% abuse drugs (though that doesn't mean they are "drug addicts.") There's also a lot of overlap, i.e. a lot of those mentally ill individuals are also abusing drugs.

The person with meth induced schizophrenia is unhousable in their current state for the same reason they are unemployable in their current state.

And again, most drug addicts do manage to live in homes somehow.

The person that did this...

When in doubt, just attack the homeless. Nice.

And again: A person who is mentally ill can't get treatment if they don't have a place to live. So what's your solution here? Because it sounds like you're not proposing any sort of solution at all.

 

[AZRWinger]

The topic of the thread is "why dont you see homeless camping in red states". That means they are talking about visible homeless, which is not driven by housing prices or the cost of living. The tent city type homelessness is largely driven by psychosis, meth, and opioid abuse.

If you are talking about couch surfers and people living in their car, then yes that is largely a result of cost of living issues.

Don't forget the radical Leftist DA'S who deliberately fail to enforce the laws against drugs, theft, prostitution, and so forth.

 

[Visbek]

Baltimore is DYING under the rule of Democrats. Like the many other cities that have
large areas that look like 3rd world cities....

Please. Cities are the engine of America's growth, the centers of its entrepreneurship and commerce. If you want to see areas that look like the "dying 3rd world," look at rural areas. Unemployment, drug abuse, shrinking populations, failing schools...

Those of us who live and work in cities know that Baltimore is the exception, not the rule. NYC, SF, LA, Chicago, Seattle, Portland -- right wing media tries to make it sound like these are war zones, when the reality is that they are increasingly safe and affluent. In fact, these successes are driving the affordability crisis that is causing most homelessness, since people (gasp!) want to live and work in these big cities, which don't have sufficient housing.

It is all due to DEMOCRATS who have ignored the majority of law abiding citizens to concentrate on the minority of the society and it has FAILED.

Yes, Democratic elected leaders have failed in some cities, and ought to be held accountable for that, and adjust their strategies. Meanwhile, Democratic elected leaders have also succeeded in most cities; when do you plan to credit their successes?

When a city loses 40% of it's population and most who moved were tax payers,
and those who are left are not, the city dies.

Uh huh. So when do you plan to apply that standard to Republican-controlled rural areas?

 

[Lovebug]

https://www.wbbjtv.com/2022/11/01/homeless-coalition-builds-hygiene-station-in-west-tennessee/

https://www.areareliefministries.org/services/open-arm/

During extreme temperature shelters are popping up.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Funny how that hasn't happened in numerous other cities with "housing first" plans, including Houston successfully rehousing 25,000 people without trashing thousands of homes. But you claim something happened in an unnamed city, so who cares about actual research, or aid agencies that actually keep track of the people they assist?


You also can't treat meth addictions or schizophrenia if that person is living on the street, or in a shelter.


Yes... And it's the majority who become homeless because of a lack of affordable housing. It's estimated that 25% are mentally ill; another 25% abuse drugs (though that doesn't mean they are "drug addicts.") There's also a lot of overlap, i.e. a lot of those mentally ill individuals are also abusing drugs.


And again, most drug addicts do manage to live in homes somehow.


When in doubt, just attack the homeless. Nice.

And again: A person who is mentally ill can't get treatment if they don't have a place to live. So what's your solution here? Because it sounds like you're not proposing any sort of solution at all.

You are attacking a straw man at this point. My argument is that you can't just treat all homelessness as the same because there are different reasons for people being homeless. Yes, most drug addicts are housed. The ones you see in tent encampments are in a worse condition than those you often see being housed. Of the 25,000 people that Houston housed, the vast majority were not in tent cities. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.596

We have doubled the number of housing first units nationwide and have not reduced the number of overall homelessness. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/homeless/hsgfirst.html

In fact, we actually see an increase in substance abuse rates: https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2017.1319586

If you just put people in housing without requiring substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment and compliance with it, then you aren't fixing anything.

There are basically two things that are driving homelessness in America:

1. A lack of affordable housing in some areas.

2. An an opioid and meth epidemic. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/homeless/hsgfirst.htm

You cannot treat those same way because they have entirely different causes.

 

[trouble13]

Camping is racist

NBC report ridiculed for touting 'safe spaces' for Black people to camp, hike: 'Outdoors is racist'

A NBC Black Voices report was mocked after suggesting Black people needed "safe spaces" to hike and camp outdoors, protected from White people's 'trauma.'

www.foxnews.com

 

[Visbek]

You are attacking a straw man at this point.

No. I'm not. You stated that programs which provide housing don't work. You're not basing that on research or evidence, but on unverifiable anecdotes.

My argument is that you can't just treat all homelessness as the same because there are different reasons for people being homeless.

No one is saying that there is one, and only one, solution. That said, research does show significant benefits to the Housing First model (which, by the way, is a specific set of policies, and certainly isn't the only option out there).

Of the 25,000 people that Houston housed, the vast majority were not in tent cities.

That paper is from 2009. That's from BEFORE Houston started its "housing first"-based policy.

Back in the real world, Houston has worked on moving people out of encampments for several years now. They were delayed a bit due to litigation, but got approval from the courts in 2017.

Federal Judge: Houston Can Clear Out Homeless Tent Cities | Houston Public Media

City officials argue the tent cities and encampments, primarily under freeway overpasses, are hazardous to public health and safety

www.houstonpublicmedia.org

We have doubled the number of housing first units nationwide and have not reduced the number of overall homelessness. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/homeless/hsgfirst.html

That article is from 2007. Why are you citing papers that are over a decade old?

Why are you citing it at all? It actually supports the Housing First policy for homeless people dealing with substance abuse, while acknowledging that there are challenges (e.g. merely providing housing doesn't fix all of a person's issues; continued drug use while housed etc).

As to "more housing:" There was a housing bubble in 2007, building lots of expensive units -- not affordable homes. After the bubble popped (i.e. after the paper was written), construction halted, leaving the US with a deficit of new housing.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/homeless/hsgfirst.html

In fact, we actually see an increase in substance abuse rates: https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2017.1319586

OK, again? Are you reading your own links? That study names multiple benefits for a housing first approach for homeless individuals with substance abuse issues.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2017.1319586

If you just put people in housing without requiring substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment and compliance with it, then you aren't fixing anything.

Talk about a straw man! Housing First includes access to that type of help. The key differentiator here is that HF doesn't put any strings on housing.

There are basically two things that are driving homelessness in America:

1. A lack of affordable housing in some areas.

2. An an opioid and meth epidemic. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/homeless/hsgfirst.htm

What the... Why are you pointing to the same link, from a document written before the opioid crisis? Anyway:

1) Correct.
2) Nope.

Opioids and amphetamines were mostly a problem in rural and suburban areas. That isn't where we are seeing the major increases in homelessness.

Further, the claims about an opioid "epidemic" are... complex. What is undeniable is that the number of overdose deaths has increased significantly, and roughly 20% of that is specifically fentanyl.

What is less clear is changes to the the number of people using drugs over time. For example, the popularity of different drugs can rise or fall over time -- e.g. cocaine use has fallen significantly since the 90s, while opiate use rose. It may not seem this way, because the media is always reporting the bad news -- "drug use up! Scary new killer drug!" but that does seem to be the reality.

I.e. claiming that "more people are abusing drugs, and that's causing more homelessness" does not fly.

And again... What are your solutions? What is the evidence for your solutions?