Should Homeless Addicts Be Removed From Cities?

[studiot]

Quote

 

Should Homeless Addicts Be Removed From Cities?

@Alex_Krycek

If a heroin addict is someone who is addicted to heroin, What is a homeless addict ?

Edited February 26, 2023 by studiot

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

However camping on the street, loitering, shooting up in public, would no longer be tolerated.  

So being poor would basically be illegal. But apparently not illegal to underpay people.

[MigL]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Where, indeed. But as that’s off topic here and also not a set of circumstances I’m here advocating it’s hard to see how this is anything more than a red herring. 

It is not a red herring; simply an example of how quickly due process can become irrelevant, and something that was legal can become illegal at the whim of a fewpeople.

Start paying attention to the details.

Your 'cure for homelessness is to build more affordable housing; seems like a no-brainer.
Where will you build them ?
In prime downtown real estate where the cost of building and the room to build would be prohibitive, or are you also going to 'relocate' the homeless to areas where there is room for a lot of housing to be built, and for reasonable prices ?
Sound like you are planningJewish ghettos and NAZI camps also ...

[geordief]

38 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is not a red herring; simply an example of how quickly due process can become irrelevant, and something that was legal can become illegal at the whim of a fewpeople.

Start paying attention to the details.

Your 'cure for homelessness is to build more affordable housing; seems like a no-brainer.
Where will you build them ?
In prime downtown real estate where the cost of building and the room to build would be prohibitive, or are you also going to 'relocate' the homeless to areas where there is room for a lot of housing to be built, and for reasonable prices ?
Sound like you are planningJewish ghettos and NAZI camps also ...

If you just increase the amount of houses built to match the demand won't the prices of houses fall overall?

You just build them where possible (in sufficient quantities) and the housing availability  part of the homelessness equation falls off the table.

There is a housing crisis in Ireland and ,as well as I can understand that is the argument put forward here -because even working couples can't get on the property  ladder. 

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, geordief said:

If you just increase the amount of houses built to match the demand won't the prices of houses fall overall?

It’s not going to fall below the cost of construction + property (without some kind of subsidy), which would tend to go up if you were doing a lot of construction. (increased demand for labor, equipment and supplies)

Also, one might expects there to be opposition to zoning changes or permits if it results in lowering property values.

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s not going to fall below the cost of construction + property (without some kind of subsidy), which would tend to go up if you were doing a lot of construction. (increased demand for labor, equipment and supplies)

Also, one might expects there to be opposition to zoning changes or permits if it results in lowering property values.

In the US maybe.

But I don't agree that it applies in more heavily populated Europe.

[geordief]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

It’s not going to fall below the cost of construction, which would tend to go up if you were doing a lot of construction. (increased demand for labor, equipment and supplies)

But once the houses are built you can get on the housing list if you pass the means    test  and if you fo not qualify for subvention (think there is something  for first time buyers) the cost of housing (renting or buying)for  the better off would probably fall to a degree. 

Whatever  about homelessness   the inability to get a home   near work makes life hard for the workers  and creates a problem for the popularity  of the government which is forced to set targets for house building

 

[MigL]

We can't relocate our homeless to Europe, Studiot; Republicans would see that as free 'vacations' for the homeless, while Democrats see it as internment at Auschwitz.
My home area in South Central Italy ( Irpinia region ) has hundreds, if not thousands of abandoned houses.
People relocate where the jobs are ( Rome and North ) leaving windows and doors open.
Houses 'abandoned' so pay no taxes.
Many parts of Southern Italy offer houses for 1 euro.

Then again, everyone wants to visit Italy, no one wants to actually live there.

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

What are the crimes for which they face prosecution? AFAIK neither homelessness nor drug addiction are crimes.

Been trying to get an answer to this for several pages.  If the answer is enforcing nuisance laws (squatting, loitering, excretion) that are not presently enforced, then it does de facto become criminalizing homelessness.  If the answer is drug law violations, then you have variation between states and cities, and any proposed rehabilitation facility would have to focus on chemical dependency, and the question of how long an addict would willingly stay if detox is involved.  

As for violent crime, I can't see how enforcement can really mean diversion from prosecution.  Voluntary camps seem not a good fit for people who are a danger to others.

The more I try to see the Sunbreak type idea, the less coherent it gets.  

 

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

We can't relocate our homeless to Europe, Studiot; Republicans would see that as free 'vacations' for the homeless, while Democrats see it as internment at Auschwitz.
My home area in South Central Italy ( Irpinia region ) has hundreds, if not thousands of abandoned houses.
People relocate where the jobs are ( Rome and North ) leaving windows and doors open.
Houses 'abandoned' so pay no taxes.
Many parts of Southern Italy offer houses for 1 euro.

Then again, everyone wants to visit Italy, no one wants to actually live there.

Actually I wasn't suggesting that.

Europe also suffers from this problem, though I have not seen any statistics to show the crime rate of homeless addicts is worse than many other sectors of the community.

I am merely challenging swansont's assertion about construction costs. What do these include ?

 

Interestingly there are quite a few do-it-up programmes on UK TV at the moment.

One is just running a series on these €1 properties.

They bought one (two actually) and have been doing them up.

Edited February 26, 2023 by studiot

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

is not a red herring; simply an example of how quickly due process can become irrelevant, and something that was legal can become illegal at the whim of a fewpeople.

You’ve suggested (in response to my posts) that the US has abandoned due process in context of abortion. This was your way of trying to wave me off my question of where is due process in all of this internment camp for homeless addicts business.  

You may not be aware, but women even in the states you highlighted DO get charged with crimes for having abortions, they ARE afforded due process, and your point (beyond just risking an off topic tangent into highly charged and volatile subject matter) doesn’t in any way negate my valid question to Alex.

If you’re not simply trolling me, then it’s hard making sense of why THIS is your line of attack, and why it’s been directed at me (a person who hasn’t affirmatively proposed anything in this thread).

Perhaps we can abandon this line of exchange and move closer to the topic… perhaps my original question of “where is the due process in all this?” can help us more rapidly do so? 

Edited February 26, 2023 by iNow
Spl

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

where is the die process in all this?”

I didn't know it was random ?

[iNow]

Edited misspellings before your submission ✌🏼

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Edited misspellings before your submission ✌🏼

The slip was too good to miss.

Especially as the original proposal doesn't seem to have many (any?) backers for a variety of paractical, moral, social and legal reasons.

Sadly nor has it had many admissions that there is a serious problem which I thought was clearly laid out in the OP, although I do not agree with the proposed solution.

It is a pity that this thread has become rather entrenched hard line.

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

Especially as the original proposal doesn't seem to have many (any?) backers for a variety of paractical, moral, social and legal reasons.

Sadly nor has it had many admissions that there is a serious problem which I thought was clearly laid out in the OP, although I do not agree with the proposed solution.

It is a pity that this thread has become rather entrenched hard line.

It happens quickly when there’s such a “final solution” vibe right from the start. 

[zapatos]

34 minutes ago, studiot said:

Sadly nor has it had many admissions that there is a serious problem which I thought was clearly laid out in the OP, although I do not agree with the proposed solution.

 

I'm happy to admit there is a serious problem. I don't think anyone here believes the problem is not serious.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Whatever  about homelessness   the inability to get a home   near work makes life hard for the workers  and creates a problem for the popularity  of the government which is forced to set targets for house building

That’s exacerbated by our generally poor public transit system. You can’t live far from work unless you have a car, and if you can barely afford housing, you can’t afford housing plus a car. If you’re using public transit and commuting for two to three hours a day, that makes working a second job even harder.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Sadly nor has it had many admissions that there is a serious problem which I thought was clearly laid out in the OP, although I do not agree with the proposed solution.

Serious problem, sure, but there’s definitely hyperbole in the OP, and using anecdotes rather than data.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, geordief said:

You just build them where possible (in sufficient quantities) and the housing availability  part of the homelessness equation falls off the table.

Not exactly. You don't build them; I don't build them; we don't build them - either a developer or a city government does. Either choice has its problems.

The developer prefers to put up low-density luxury housing for maximum profit. Where will he do it? On expensive downtown real estate he has to buy from another profit-seeker, or on the greenbelt that had hitherto served all the citizens? Well, he can't do the latter without the collusion of some level of government. Will/has it cost him substantial campaign contributions? that will be added to the price of the homes. Very likely, no vagrants allowed in there.  

If the city does it, it has to build on lands already owned by the city and designated for some other purpose, or else buy land at market value. It has to plan high-density, low cost housing and contract out the actual construction, using public funds, and make plans, and if necessary pass bylaws, to keep down the cost of owning or renting those units. 

City councils are not all just sitting on their night-sticks, ignoring the problem of homelessness; they're trying to solve it, in various ways, according to their budgets, their political clout, their level of corruption and the extent of their constituents' concern. 

https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/community-partners/affordable-housing-partners/housingto-2020-2030-action-plan/

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/nov/26/london-council-house-sale-southwark-colley

https://www.citybureau.org/newswire/2023/2/3/how-chicagos-2023-mayoral-candidates-plan-to-address-the-affordable-housing-crisis

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Sadly nor has it had many admissions that there is a serious problem which I thought was clearly laid out in the OP,

No, it was seriously misrepresented in the OP, and several people have made attempts to clarify the issues of homelessness and substance dependency and crime - which do not necessarily come as a nasty, disposable package.  A great variety of people are involved - real, live, human citizens - for a great variety of reasons. There cannot and should not be a single, simple, final solution. Governments and voters have to acknowledge, identify and address the causes of this problem before they can begin to solve any part of it.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

The slip was too good to miss.

Especially as the original proposal doesn't seem to have many (any?) backers for a variety of paractical, moral, social and legal reasons.

Sadly nor has it had many admissions that there is a serious problem which I thought was clearly laid out in the OP, although I do not agree with the proposed solution.

It is a pity that this thread has become rather entrenched hard line.

I think the original comments mostly addressed the proposed solution as coming up with an actual solution is obviously much more difficult. However, Markus has outlined a realistic path, but as with most real solutions, they do not give the instant gratification vibe as those solutions outlined in OP promise (but never deliver).

[sethoflagos]

The last ten years in particular has seen a major increase in concentration of global wealth into the hands of the 'haves' at the expense of the 'have nots'. (see https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/10/27/global-wealth-has-grown-but-at-the-expense-of-future-prosperity-world-bank for a fairly tepid version of this)

This has consequences. In particular, it causes an increase in the number of 'have nots' who have limited or no easy access to bathroom facilities, and seek some alleviation of their misery through intoxication.

Who has created this sorry state of affairs? Do the miserable wretches enjoy their condition and willingly embrace their misfortune?

Rather the OP seems to voice a total denial on behalf of the 'haves' for their greed being a major causative agent for the ills in society that are a natural consequence of their actions.

One wonders whether the OP is one of the 'haves' or one of the 'has just slightly more than the have nots'. There are very clear historical precedents from which we appear to have learnt not enough.

 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I've clarified several times that my view is in alignment with the Sun Break ranch proposal I referenced earlier.  

Under that proposal the homeless would be given the option to go to a treatment facility like Sun Break, find other accommodation (such as staying with family or friends, or go to prison.  However camping on the street, loitering, shooting up in public, would no longer be tolerated.  

Which is what we've all argued against, several times.

Imagine you're just minding your own business, going about your daily routine, not necessarily happy but content to survive on the floor, where they've fallen, until a Samaritan offers a helping hand.

What your offering, is a contract that state's "if you can't get yourself off the floor, it's the hemp fandango.".

Don't imagine that you're immune to life.

[Alex_Krycek]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What your offering, is a contract that state's "if you can't get yourself off the floor, it's the hemp fandango.".

If you can't get yourself off the floor, go and stay in a state run homeless shelter, which is only different from downtown shelters in that there's more beds and space, and it's further out in the countryside, so you'd get a free ride out there.  Gee, what an abhorrently dystopian concept.  

[Intoscience]

There was a homeless chap sheltering in a local rundown shop near where I live. He appeared from his dilated eyes and pale skeleton like appearance that he was an addict of some sort. I'm not a qualified medical person so my judgement was based on experience with known drug users and (wrongly) a predisposition to assuming most homeless people are such due to drug addiction. However, as I usually do I felt sad to see such a dire and desperate person just sat there with nothing. So I passed the person some money and walked on by.

A few seconds later a police officer stopped me and asked if I'd presented the homeless person with some money. "Yes officer I did, is this a problem" She replied " Well its not a crime for sure... I commend your intent but, do yo realise that this person is a known criminal who is also a drug addict and has been relocated to numerous charitable shelters. Which he always disregards and proceeds to commit crimes to fund his addiction and continues to live on the streets. By giving him money you are encouraging this behaviour and discouraging him from seeking the help that has been previously offered, I strongly suggest that you no longer approach such people and leave it to the authorities to deal with". 

I'm not so sure the authorities are doing all they can. I'm also sure that each individual case though similar in some respects may have differing circumstances, certainly differing personalities, backgrounds... plays a factor.

What can we learn from this experience?  

Edited February 27, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If you can't get yourself off the floor, go and stay in a state run homeless shelter, which is only different from downtown shelters in that there's more beds and space, and it's further out in the countryside, so you'd get a free ride out there.  Gee, what an abhorrently dystopian concept.  

Sounds like "a brave new world"...

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

you'd get a free ride out there

This actually touches on another issue with your proposal: Funding.

If tax dollars or philanthropic donations are required to cover this, then the next most logical question is: Is there a better way to get higher ROI on those expenditures? In most cases, the answer there seems to be an unequivocal yes (at least if we look to what other countries like Finland have done). 

And also... nobody would be challenging you if this were simply voluntary. It's not though, and you keep evading the due process questions.