Please someone Look at Baton Rouge Louisiana. Since the city is “led” by democrats the crime is rampant. Mayor just announced a “week of peace” last week after a 4 year old was killed in his bed but it lasted maybe one hour. Every single day there are shootings and killings. Every day.
Please someone Look at Baton Rouge Louisiana. Since the city is “led” by democrats the crime is rampant. Mayor just announced a “week of peace” last week after a 4 year old was killed in his bed but it lasted maybe one hour. Every single day there are shootings and killings. Every day.
What is the solution? Austin tried. It is impossible IMO. You cannot help people who do not want the help. They had issues with cholera in San Francsco for goodness sake. Sanitation matters. That is why we have codes to assure proper sanitation. Why is it okay for a group to not comply?
Just read article, not that long ago, from a guy that worked in the streets. (Didn't save link, but may be able to find it.) Even the idea that You give a person a free place doesn't seem to pan out. They've still got all the same problems, and it doesn't end well.
The solution is mandated institutionalization, AFAIK. Sorry if that seems harsh. But I don't see how it clears up until You treat the root of whatever is causing them to be non-functional. Whether it's drugs ojr whatever. That's just me.
I somewhat blame the ACLU from about 50 years ago. In the distant past, an obviously unstable person could be involuntarily committed to a mental institution. ACLU fought this as being unconstitutional (probably was), and the practice ceased to a large extent, and with it funding for dedicated mental institutions. This fell to the police, and to local jails and state prisons to possibly house the unstable.
I am very familiar with institutions for mentally ill and developmentally disabled. These people were let go by the governments in many states to commit crimes and live under the bridges and die there in high numbers in the name of freedom. There are zero resources for them out there . Some of them begged to stay where they were being taken care of (maybe not 100% ideally but still better than living on the streets). Their families were desperate too but nobody listen to them. Now they are out there fending for themselves and hurting themselves and others in the process. There is no money in taking care of these people. High percentage of prisoners are mentally ill or developmentally disabled but who cares. We as a society are consumed by surgeries and hormonal treatments on children which eventually will lead to severe mental anguish with no help for them. Full circle
The US Suoreme Court made the ruling. There was no choice but to release them. Many mentally ill are incompetent and thus cannot give consent. If they do not have family or others with the means to seek a guardianship they are essentially rudderless. And homeless.
Yes because the Supreme Court ruled the mentally ill could not be held without their consent. I was moving to Houston to go to school and worked downtown. The Texas mental hospitals put them on buses "home" despite the fact many had no homes. So they congregated around the Greyhound station. It quickly became a no-go zone.
Agree this is where a large part of the problem began. I'm less clear what the solution is. But rewarding those who violate the social contract is the surest path to destroy any community or nation.
I live near the beach in Florida. And it's astonishing to me that, even here, vagrants are given primacy of place to encamp and lounge about all day on beachfront property.
I wouldn't dream of going near the local boardwalk – the one featured in photos from the 1950s as a magical place - because now it's filled with drug-addled and clearly unstable people. I can't even go to the local Starbucks anymore, which used to serve as my office. Because now there are mentally-ill and/or drugged out people lounging about in the chairs all day.
Surprise!!! My city is run by Democrats!
Do I feel sorry for these people? Yes.
Does that mean they should be given the right to displace productive, taxpaying members of the community? No.
Again, I don't have the answer. But catering to them, as we are now doing, clearly isn't it.
Well, getting back to the Scandinavians, Finland is widely regarded as having the best approach to homelessness. They are not allowed to sleep or camp in public places. All are picked up and triaged. Those who want to get sober go to one location, those who want to keep using go to a place (not of their choosing) where they can keep getting high. All have to work in some fashion. Recognizing they can't change human behavior and "save" each individual, Finland chooses not to let these people ruin the country's overall quality of life. What a concept.
You can't camp in public in Finland. Most of the year you would freeze to death. It's almost May and it's still barely clearing freezing most nights in Helsinki.
maybe Ron DeSantis and the Florida state Republican legislature should be more focused on these issues than engaging in performative political stunts against Disney, no? I mean he's such a "powerful governor", surely he could break some local kneecaps like he did about preventing local masking and vaccination policies.
I see a lot of comments that blame Democrats for the conditions of cities with regards to the homeless. Can you identify what the Democratic policies are that allow homeless to camp out in the beach or occupy the serving rooms of private businesses? Can you identify what the Republican policies will be to address homeless and public vagrancies?
The governor can only do so much. Vagrancy has traditionally been a local issue, subject to local ordinances enforced by local police. If the local populace doesn’t care about homelessness, what is DeSantis supposed to do, send in the Florida National Guard?
In Texas the problem.in Austin was a city ordinance that allowed camping in public places. The Texas legislature enacted a statewide public camping ban.
Interesting and even though I think Austin is a pack of liberal fools encouraging crime, it still seems as though the state is overreaching with this camping ban. The state also overrode Austin's regulations governing ride sharing, which had driven Uber and Lyft out of the city.
Interestingly, those regulations were enacted by means of a referendum in which some 9% of the electorate participated, and the ballot question was worded so confusingly that probably thousands of people voted the opposite of what they intended. The mayor and city council are a bunch of weasels.
Austin Democrats passed an ordinance that allowed camping in public spaces - parks, sidewalks, overpasses and ROWs, literally everywhere. The city was soon overwhelmed. Needles, trash, and feces everywhere. I do not go there anymore.
Democrat policy is lack of enforcement of existing laws. Republicans don't seem to have a coherent strategy as you say. See my comments on what Finland does above.
I don't know where one draws the line on free speech. So I tend to be an absolutist about it. I do think the shouting fire in a crowded theater exception is good. I believe the quip about sticks and stones I learned as a child so am not easily harmed by words. IMO if speech incites violence prosecute the violent offender and if the offender and the speaker are one and the same so be it. I do not believe in prosecution or censorship of "hate speech". Haters gonna hate, let 'em. I much prefer people who show their true colors than those who mask them.
I agree wholeheartedly that turning the mentally ill loose without resources was not good.
Please someone Look at Baton Rouge Louisiana. Since the city is “led” by democrats the crime is rampant. Mayor just announced a “week of peace” last week after a 4 year old was killed in his bed but it lasted maybe one hour. Every single day there are shootings and killings. Every day.
Roxanne...that's a good one. Homeless, being a big problem for warmer climate cities and it is being ignored.
What is the solution? Austin tried. It is impossible IMO. You cannot help people who do not want the help. They had issues with cholera in San Francsco for goodness sake. Sanitation matters. That is why we have codes to assure proper sanitation. Why is it okay for a group to not comply?
Just read article, not that long ago, from a guy that worked in the streets. (Didn't save link, but may be able to find it.) Even the idea that You give a person a free place doesn't seem to pan out. They've still got all the same problems, and it doesn't end well.
The solution is mandated institutionalization, AFAIK. Sorry if that seems harsh. But I don't see how it clears up until You treat the root of whatever is causing them to be non-functional. Whether it's drugs ojr whatever. That's just me.
Oh! Just saw the reply below that ACLU made this illegal.
Weeeel, need to pass a law to somehow make it comply with whatever the objection was, I s'pose.
I somewhat blame the ACLU from about 50 years ago. In the distant past, an obviously unstable person could be involuntarily committed to a mental institution. ACLU fought this as being unconstitutional (probably was), and the practice ceased to a large extent, and with it funding for dedicated mental institutions. This fell to the police, and to local jails and state prisons to possibly house the unstable.
Regan also closed all the federal mental hospitals in the 80s. That’s when homelessness skyrocketed.
I am very familiar with institutions for mentally ill and developmentally disabled. These people were let go by the governments in many states to commit crimes and live under the bridges and die there in high numbers in the name of freedom. There are zero resources for them out there . Some of them begged to stay where they were being taken care of (maybe not 100% ideally but still better than living on the streets). Their families were desperate too but nobody listen to them. Now they are out there fending for themselves and hurting themselves and others in the process. There is no money in taking care of these people. High percentage of prisoners are mentally ill or developmentally disabled but who cares. We as a society are consumed by surgeries and hormonal treatments on children which eventually will lead to severe mental anguish with no help for them. Full circle
The US Suoreme Court made the ruling. There was no choice but to release them. Many mentally ill are incompetent and thus cannot give consent. If they do not have family or others with the means to seek a guardianship they are essentially rudderless. And homeless.
Yes because the Supreme Court ruled the mentally ill could not be held without their consent. I was moving to Houston to go to school and worked downtown. The Texas mental hospitals put them on buses "home" despite the fact many had no homes. So they congregated around the Greyhound station. It quickly became a no-go zone.
I'd like to see that particular decision revisited with the current Supreme Court. Dunno it'd make a difference or not.
That is not true at all, but it has been part of the Democrat party line ever since.
Thank you for pointing that out. Man. I need to do more reading on the subject.
Agree this is where a large part of the problem began. I'm less clear what the solution is. But rewarding those who violate the social contract is the surest path to destroy any community or nation.
I live near the beach in Florida. And it's astonishing to me that, even here, vagrants are given primacy of place to encamp and lounge about all day on beachfront property.
I wouldn't dream of going near the local boardwalk – the one featured in photos from the 1950s as a magical place - because now it's filled with drug-addled and clearly unstable people. I can't even go to the local Starbucks anymore, which used to serve as my office. Because now there are mentally-ill and/or drugged out people lounging about in the chairs all day.
Surprise!!! My city is run by Democrats!
Do I feel sorry for these people? Yes.
Does that mean they should be given the right to displace productive, taxpaying members of the community? No.
Again, I don't have the answer. But catering to them, as we are now doing, clearly isn't it.
Well, getting back to the Scandinavians, Finland is widely regarded as having the best approach to homelessness. They are not allowed to sleep or camp in public places. All are picked up and triaged. Those who want to get sober go to one location, those who want to keep using go to a place (not of their choosing) where they can keep getting high. All have to work in some fashion. Recognizing they can't change human behavior and "save" each individual, Finland chooses not to let these people ruin the country's overall quality of life. What a concept.
You can't camp in public in Finland. Most of the year you would freeze to death. It's almost May and it's still barely clearing freezing most nights in Helsinki.
It's certainly too cold for me, but Finland nonetheless has a homeless problem that is year around, though probably less in winter. NYC does too.
maybe Ron DeSantis and the Florida state Republican legislature should be more focused on these issues than engaging in performative political stunts against Disney, no? I mean he's such a "powerful governor", surely he could break some local kneecaps like he did about preventing local masking and vaccination policies.
I see a lot of comments that blame Democrats for the conditions of cities with regards to the homeless. Can you identify what the Democratic policies are that allow homeless to camp out in the beach or occupy the serving rooms of private businesses? Can you identify what the Republican policies will be to address homeless and public vagrancies?
The governor can only do so much. Vagrancy has traditionally been a local issue, subject to local ordinances enforced by local police. If the local populace doesn’t care about homelessness, what is DeSantis supposed to do, send in the Florida National Guard?
In Texas the problem.in Austin was a city ordinance that allowed camping in public places. The Texas legislature enacted a statewide public camping ban.
Interesting and even though I think Austin is a pack of liberal fools encouraging crime, it still seems as though the state is overreaching with this camping ban. The state also overrode Austin's regulations governing ride sharing, which had driven Uber and Lyft out of the city.
Interestingly, those regulations were enacted by means of a referendum in which some 9% of the electorate participated, and the ballot question was worded so confusingly that probably thousands of people voted the opposite of what they intended. The mayor and city council are a bunch of weasels.
Austin Democrats passed an ordinance that allowed camping in public spaces - parks, sidewalks, overpasses and ROWs, literally everywhere. The city was soon overwhelmed. Needles, trash, and feces everywhere. I do not go there anymore.
Democrat policy is lack of enforcement of existing laws. Republicans don't seem to have a coherent strategy as you say. See my comments on what Finland does above.
That is true. We could not "warehouse" the mentally ill without their consent and well consent from the mentally ill is problematic.
I don't know where one draws the line on free speech. So I tend to be an absolutist about it. I do think the shouting fire in a crowded theater exception is good. I believe the quip about sticks and stones I learned as a child so am not easily harmed by words. IMO if speech incites violence prosecute the violent offender and if the offender and the speaker are one and the same so be it. I do not believe in prosecution or censorship of "hate speech". Haters gonna hate, let 'em. I much prefer people who show their true colors than those who mask them.
I agree wholeheartedly that turning the mentally ill loose without resources was not good.
Liberalism is the embrace of stupidity.