Leaderboard

There's another similar (and similarly huge population) of folks who are known as "gym membership" homeless, where basically they sleep in their cars then use the gym facilities for showers and a locker space before they head to their jobs. And we're still here waiting to hear what that charge might/should be from the thread author. Thus far, it was all police bracelets and no human hearings. Fair, and as Charon rightly called out the difference is one of choice. I'd be amenable to discussing "what are best practices and things to avoid when building government subsidized housing for the underhoused population," but that's a bit of a topic hijack since it's clearly not what the OP mentioned. Unless "government subsidized housing" means wintery tents and muddy piles of feces off by the edge of the parking lot. They have, but it was peripherally: Make homelessness illegal. Then the weapons of the state can be yielded against the poor wretches stinking up the sewers. I don't reckon this is terribly relevant in the end if the funding is from the government. It's surely better to explore lower cost more efficient options, but whether it's $2B or $20B per year can be covered more or less equally easily from the central purse.

I've learned many things over the course of my life, and some of those were definitely an awakening. Like figuring out the HMO scam that took the place of actuarial-based health insurance. Learning that wages had decoupled from productivity back in Nixon's day so "raises" barely stretched to cover inflation. And doing some research into some ugly local history that led me to my current awakening about black people and indigenous people and people of color and the boot that white people have had on their necks for quite some time. LGBTQ folks have also been held back and held down. For me, waking up to injustice is a huge learning experience. I didn't mean to stand on anybody's neck, but I wear the boots, and I think it's up to me to try to help these folks up, or at least stop stepping on them. In that light, the woke person is trying to remove the boot from the neck, while the bigot keeps applying more pressure. Which is more dehumanizing?

Seems the insult is well deserved; I didn't say 'massless', I said 'weightless' ( big dfference ). Tell you what; let's do a little experiment ... Next time you go sky diving, bring a bathroom scale with you. As you are falling, place it under your feet. If it reads anything other than zero, I will publicly apologize to you. If it reads zero, you will publicly admit you are a 'crank'. Deal ?

The critical difference here is consent.

Aren't you just bits on my storage? (let me see your code.. koti didn't survive this stage) Where is your vat? Let me see.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat If this makes you laugh, it's not your fault, I just stimulated your brain cells (the one in vat)..

Sounds like "a brave new world"...

No one is asking you too, it's up to you if you want to aquire a taste; so, why are you still arguing about it? If you don't like it, don't taste it; but you'll have to accept a certain amount of societal pushback, think of it like your mother saying "if you don't eat your greens, you can't have any pudding.": the other side of the coin, so to speak, IOW sometimes it's better to just grin and bear it; it's not a poison, it's just yuk. 😝 See above. 🙄

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.

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 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.

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

Willem F Esterhuyse has been shown the door. Signal/noise has dropped to basically zero.

Okay. So you're another one of those senior posters I need to avoid getting into arguments with or I'll get into trouble. Thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

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).

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.