- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 35,659
- Reaction score
- 26,114
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
It's the climate. Would you rather be homeless in California's mild coastal climate, or those states?
It's the climate. Would you rather be homeless in California's mild coastal climate, or those states?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.
Right Wingers ignore this fact, that they represent in the Senate, (Republicans) at least 100 million less people than Democrats.
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.
Fort Worth, Tulsa and OKC, but other than that?
I've been in Pittsburgh and St Louis in the last 2 years. Neither had any tent Cities and both are basically Blue Cities.
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?
You should have read that article before you linked it.Wanna try again?
While it’s not the #1 reason it IS a reason
It's not the climate. 90% of California's homeless are local. It's because:It's the climate. Would you rather be homeless in California's mild coastal climate, or those states?
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.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.
Yes, because living in a cardboard box in the street is so cool these days.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.
Sorry, but no. You can't disconnect these issues.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.
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.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.
Reviving Baltimore appears to be impossible!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.
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?We actually did this in the city I live in....
You also can't treat meth addictions or schizophrenia if that person is living on the street, or in a shelter.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.
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 that is living in their car just needs more affordable housing.
And again, most drug addicts do manage to live in homes somehow.The person with meth induced schizophrenia is unhousable in their current state for the same reason they are unemployable in their current state.
When in doubt, just attack the homeless. Nice.The person that did this...
Don't forget the radical Leftist DA'S who deliberately fail to enforce the laws against drugs, theft, prostitution, and so forth.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.
Baltimore is DYING under the rule of Democrats. Like the many other cities that have
large areas that look like 3rd world cities....
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?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.
Uh huh. So when do you plan to apply that standard to Republican-controlled rural areas?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.
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.2009.596Funny 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.
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.You are attacking a straw man at this point.
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).My argument is that you can't just treat all homelessness as the same because there are different reasons for people being homeless.
That paper is from 2009. That's from BEFORE Houston started its "housing first"-based policy.Of the 25,000 people that Houston housed, the vast majority were not in tent cities.
That article is from 2007. Why are you citing papers that are over a decade old?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
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.In fact, we actually see an increase in substance abuse rates: https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2017.1319586
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.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.
What the... Why are you pointing to the same link, from a document written before the opioid crisis?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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?