Should Homeless Addicts Be Removed From Cities?

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If people don't agree with your approach, they are fearful? No, they disagree, and might be right. It can happen. 

The fearful approach, as in investing in police and prisons assuming people will be criminals, rather than investing in people assuming they'll work to prosper themselves. It has fuckall to do with agreeing with me, mistermack.

[mistermack]

29 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This is exactly what I was arguing for earlier: removing the option to camp on the street (which is much more unsafe for the homeless anyway).  Cities have the legal right to arrest people who loiter, camp, or shoot up on the streets.

To me, you are massively overstating the problem. By all means, if homeless junkies become a menace, something needs to happen. But if the problem is slight, then it's just overbearing nanny state to do what you're proposing. 

My own proposal is to do nothing, if you can. They don't bother me, and if they did, there are lots of ways to complain. I might be homeless one day. Just because you are lucky yourself doesn't make it right to treat others with contempt. 

[MigL]

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

unless your conservative local government is either trying to make money or hire more police.

Our Liberal Government decriminalized cannabis products here in Canada, with Government oversight on the growers, middlemen, and local dispensories.
The result has been that you can get a widervariety of products ( gummies, creams, rtc.) but a baggie of smokable  is more expensive than from a street level supplier.
( we are also allowed to grow 4 plants per person for personal use )

I only mention this because you wrote 'conservative' instead of 'republican', as it should be.

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The fearful approach, as in investing in police and prisons assuming people will be criminals, rather than investing in people assuming they'll work to prosper themselves. It has fuckall to do with agreeing with me, mistermack.

It's you who call it a fearful approach. That doesn't make it a fact. Other people have a different approach, and think that your approach is a pipe dream and out of touch.  

[Alex_Krycek]

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

To me, you are massively overstating the problem. By all means, if homeless junkies become a menace, something needs to happen. But if the problem is slight, then it's just overbearing nanny state to do what you're proposing. 

My own proposal is to do nothing, if you can. They don't bother me, and if they did, there are lots of ways to complain. I might be homeless one day. Just because you are lucky yourself doesn't make it right to treat others with contempt. 

Here we need to clarify again two points, which I believe others missed also.

1.) Just how entrenched and dangerous a certain element of the homeless population has become in many cities.  These are mainly opioid / meth addicts.  I'm not referring to one or two guys who got laid off when their factory was relocated to Mexico, and now they drink Jack Daniel out of a brown paper bag and sleep at the bus stop.  This is a new breed of homeless we're seeing today.  Young, unremorseful about their addiction, increasingly entitled (thanks to local government who coddle them and tell them it's normal to be an addict)  and violent towards the citizens who live in the surrounding area.  See the original documentary link I posted about Vancouver for an accurate frame of reference - this is the homeless profile that I'm talking about.

2.)  About bothering you.  This is exactly the problem in many cities.  The homeless actively harass, rob, assault, in some cases even murder the local citizens and not a darn thing is done about it.  The enforcement has been reduced to such an extent that it's given free reign to these people.  I posted one link about Portland, but there are many others if you search for them.  Local citizens who are constantly under threat by homeless addicts and the city does little to nothing to help them.

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Just how entrenched and dangerous a certain element of the homeless population has become in many cities.

Well, our media must be pretty hopeless then, because I don't recognise the massive problem you are attempting to portray. I don't live in those cities, so I can only go on what's in the media, and I they seem pretty silent on the problem, so I still think you're exaggerating. Individual problems happen, and always will, and your camps won't stop that. But I think you're taking a sledgehammer to crack a sesame seed. 

55 years ago, I hitched around North America, six months on the road. There was addiction and violence around then, I wouldn't say it's got hugely worse. 

I hitched from a roundabout in New York back up to Canada, after visiting my aunt in the Bronx. She was in a panic for a while, because someone was reported murdered on the same roundabout a couple of hours later. From what I've heard, New York is safer now than it was then. And that's without rounding people up and putting them in special camps. 

[swansont]

16 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

In my continued research of this issue I found a recent column by Bill Walton in the Times of San Diego that proposes more or less exactly the same solution as my camp idea.  It's called "Sunbreak Ranch" in San Diego. 

Very well thought out.  Full column here:  

https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2023/01/14/sunbreak-ranch-is-the-answer-to-san-diego-and-americas-homeless-crisis/

 

I see that it is similarly devoid of supporting studies, and no, it is not “more or less exactly the same solution as (your) camp idea” as it does not propose forced relocation, nor does it focus on drug addicts. It, in fact, cites the rule of law, so in that way it’s the opposite of your idea.

It’s also only about 15 miles from downtown, whereas you proposed a forced relocation of over 100 miles.

[zapatos]

41 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The homeless actively harass, rob, assault, in some cases even murder the local citizens and not a darn thing is done about it. 

That seems a bit of an exaggeration.

[Sensei]

China has banned computer games (limits the age and hours people can use them, for now) to combat people addicted to games..

The question is what path you (i.e., liberal democracy) want to take..

 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Come on, don't feign ignorance.  We both know you're smarter than that.

The options are very simple: go to Sun Break (where all the support facilities are provided, and yes, they can leave at any time), or go to jail (if loitering / public camping).   And as established, the city has a right to arrest those trespassing, loitering, public camping etc.

And you're smarter than to think I'll just accept that a pretrial diversion (which is what Sunbreak would require) is purely voluntary.  No court would accept a jail alternative that someone could just walk away from, without consequence.  Mr Walton can spit shine that idea all he wants, but adding formal arrests to the picture then turns the gears of the legal system, which tends to see a diversion from prosecution as a binding agreement.  It's seen as risky and expensive to just let someone go and maybe have to later reprocess them and incarcerate them.  

I have no problem with prosecuting and incarceration of the violent segment you also mentioned.  Isn't that already what law enforcement does?  Do you have citations for this spectre of muggers and killers prancing around freely while police ignore them?   

I know your Morley smoking boss doesn't think much about the rule of law, but I know you do, and your idea needs a way to make sure that it's actual lawbreakers who are inside the fence after going through due process.   

[Peterkin]

Portland seems to be another city in contradiction. It seems from this article that the homeless are more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of violence.

Quote

“The string of recent homicides of homeless individuals over the past few weeks is heartbreaking and Mayor Wheeler is following these cases closely,” spokesperson Cody Bowman said in a written statement. “Homeless Portlanders have been victim to ongoing violence at an alarming rate this year.”

There is also this self-fulfilling aspect. If you criminalize what people are, or have done, they become criminals, and thus targets for police to "sweep" - basically, terrorize, simply for being in somebody's way - the encampments

Quote

“From the perspective of people experiencing it on the streets, if an official entity is taking their stuff it’s a sweep,” said Kaia Sand, executive director of Street Roots, a Portland-based newspaper and nonprofit covering social justice issues. “But if someone else does it, it’s theft.”

 or arrest, more or less at random

Quote

arrest data obtained from Portland Police Bureau, and court records and found that of those 14 arrests, ten solely involved a previous warrant. One of his arrests, one of his more recent arrests actually dates back to an original arrest of possession of methamphetamine from December 2017, and that’s interestingly not even an arrestable offense at this point.

So, yes, the editorial comments are exaggerated; the causes and consequences are difficult to disentangle, and there is at least one other side to every scare story.

[iNow]

The OP is arguing more against caricatures than anything else and the proposed solution is similarly cartoonish. 

[Peterkin]

re's also this, for background:

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/new-study-housing-market-root-cause-homelessness/283-819457a7-9606-42c6-9cb3-62bd25661d2b

Quote

The urban study called “Homelessness is a Housing Problem” found that the biggest factors in the homeless crisis are not necessarily addiction or mental health but rather a combination of high rent prices and a lack of affordable housing.

 

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-beach-becomes-makeshift-campground-amid-affordability-and-housing-crisis-1.6097983

Quote

As the cost of living in British Columbia continues to skyrocket, there are new, alarming signs of just how dire the housing crisis has become.

Life is now so unaffordable that some Vancouverites are now being forced to live in their vehicles.

https://wacities.org/data-resources/state-of-the-cities/affordable-housing-homelessness

Quote

Washington is missing more than 100,000 housing units for the anticipated population increase alone, to say nothing of the urgent need for workforce housing and for those at lower income levels. Cities are struggling to address the absence of affordable housing in their communities and lack resources to help the growing number of people experiencing homelessness who are sheltering in parks and on city streets.

IOW - people can't afford to live in houses.

[MigL]

whatever the causes this is a problem that is growing.
And not just for homeowners where the homeless choose to make their encampments, but much more so for the homeless themselves.

Solutions need to be found and discussins need to be had.
And while I ( and many others ) don't agree with Alex's methods and ideas, it did open the door for discussion involving people like Markus who have first hand experience in the field.
The worst thing that can happen is shutting down the much needed discussion ( especially by city councils and governments ) because someone suggests an unpalatable idea.

[zapatos]

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

The worst thing that can happen is shutting down the much needed discussion ( especially by city councils and governments ) because someone suggests an unpalatable idea.

Luckily we participate on a site where this type of discussion is allowed and interesting to a lot of members, even when one suggests an unpalatable idea.

[Peterkin]

it's unfortunate that the more palatable alternatives pretty much require that money be collected from those who have possession of it. People do not like to relinquish possession of money.

[Alex_Krycek]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Solutions need to be found and discussins need to be had.
And while I ( and many others ) don't agree with Alex's methods and ideas, it did open the door for discussion involving people like Markus who have first hand experience in the field.
The worst thing that can happen is shutting down the much needed discussion ( especially by city councils and governments ) because someone suggests an unpalatable idea.

This is what it's about: solutions, and thus far I haven't seen anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is and choose one.  

The options can be boiled down to three approaches:

Solution 1.  Lenient: offer the addicts drugs, safe spaces to shoot up, no enforcement against homeless encampments, free food and social services wherever the homeless addicts choose to set up shop.  Whatever the homeless addicts want, they get, regardless of the consequences to the nearby residents.  There are no conditions or expectations for when they will get clean.  This solution is fine for those who don't live or work near the problem since it doesn't affect their day to day life directly (as seems to be the case with most people participating in this thread).  This solution isn't practical in my view due to the costs and the social reinforcement that society condones addiction as acceptable.

Solution 2:  Strict:  Criminalize homeless addicts but offer them no alternatives.  Send them directly to jail for loitering or camping, and give them the maximum time in prison for possession of illegal drugs.  This solution isn't practical either as it offers no viable alternatives for treatment / recovery.

Solution 3:  Balanced:  Criminalize loitering and camping but offer an alternative facility which offers a premium level of social services such as medical care, addiction support, and counseling (camp, ranch, etc).   This would be the most cost effective (more so than prison and the lenient approach), is humane, and is entirely practical.  If homeless addicts don't choose the support facility they can go to prison.  

So tell me again what's so wrong with Solution 3?  Is it simply the word "camp" that triggers an emotional reaction and illogical conflation with Dachau or Bergen-Belsen?  

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

And you're smarter than to think I'll just accept that a pretrial diversion (which is what Sunbreak would require) is purely voluntary.  No court would accept a jail alternative that someone could just walk away from, without consequence.  

The camp isn't a prison.  It's an alternative to them being on the street, which would be classified as illegal.  If they find a friend who can house them that would work, or they can relocate to another state and find work, whatever.  But the bottom line is the camp wouldn't be a facility to incarcerate homeless addicts.

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

I have no problem with prosecuting and incarceration of the violent segment you also mentioned.  Isn't that already what law enforcement does?  Do you have citations for this spectre of muggers and killers prancing around freely while police ignore them?   

Not in many places, such as Vancouver.  See the documentary from the OP.  Vancouver is now very much "hands off" with violent homeless offenders.  

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

I know your Morley smoking boss doesn't think much about the rule of law, but I know you do, and your idea needs a way to make sure that it's actual lawbreakers who are inside the fence after going through due process.   

The camp would be a support facility where homeless addicts can choose to reside, not a prison.

6 hours ago, iNow said:

The OP is arguing more against caricatures than anything else and the proposed solution is similarly cartoonish. 

If you had actual direct experience with this issue, I don't think you'd refer to it as a caricature.  

9 hours ago, swansont said:

I see that it is similarly devoid of supporting studies, and no, it is not “more or less exactly the same solution as (your) camp idea”

Idea: let's not wait 20 years for long term government studies to come out before taking action.    

9 hours ago, swansont said:

as it does not propose forced relocation, nor does it focus on drug addicts. It, in fact, cites the rule of law, so in that way it’s the opposite of your idea.

Glad to see you think the Sun Break proposal is meritorious.  I agree that it's a sound plan.  

9 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s also only about 15 miles from downtown, whereas you proposed a forced relocation of over 100 miles.

I have no problem accepting that the Sun Break solution is better in many ways than mine.  We're brainstorming here - it's a process of iterative design. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[mistermack]

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

it's unfortunate that the more palatable alternatives pretty much require that money be collected from those who have possession of it. People do not like to relinquish possession of money.

And I don't blame them. A lot of people work hard for long hours for the money they have. And would prefer to spend it on themselves and their families, which was the reason they did work hard for long hours. And of course, we all have the future of old age, when having some savings means you can pay people to do what you are no longer able to do. And often people like to help out kids and grand-kids. 

Taking tax money off people should be treated very seriously, because people spend their own money carefully, but others are inclined to chuck tax money about without a care in the world. 

[Alex_Krycek]

44 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And I don't blame them. A lot of people work hard for long hours for the money they have. And would prefer to spend it on themselves and their families, which was the reason they did work hard for long hours. And of course, we all have the future of old age, when having some savings means you can pay people to do what you are no longer able to do. And often people like to help out kids and grand-kids. 

Exactly.  Social policies should take into consideration those who work and earn a living, as well as the disadvantaged.  Policies should primarily favor those who work.

44 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Taking tax money off people should be treated very seriously, because people spend their own money carefully, but others are inclined to chuck tax money about without a care in the world. 

To them it's other people's tax money, so they don't mind.

[John Cuthber]

17 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

  Policies should primarily favor those who work

You do realise that most of the people here telling you that you are wrong work for a living, don't you?

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If you had actual direct experience with this issue, I don't think you'd refer to it as a caricature.  

Was it not obvious I was referring to YOUR treatment of the subject?

[Genady]

31 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Policies should primarily favor those who work.

No, they should not.

[Alex_Krycek]

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, they should not.

Really?  Explain please.  Why should tax dollars, pounds, euros (insert your currency here) be spent primarily on things that do not benefit those that contributed?

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Policies should primarily favor those who work.

So what happens when you run out of work?

It's like saying, no work no value; and we all know where that ends... 😉

In answer to the OP, every person should be included, just in case they're valuable. 🤞 

 

[Alex_Krycek]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Was it not obvious I was referring to YOUR treatment of the subject?

In what way has my treatment of the subject been cartoonish or a caricature?  You seem to be implying this because you don't have a strong counter argument.