Posted on 04/12/2024 7:38:45 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this month in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which focuses on whether a local government can make it a crime to live outside when adequate shelter is not available.
This case has resulted in an inaccurate and harmful framing of homelessness by suggesting that there are only two potential outcomes: Either arrest those who are unhoused or homelessness will become an inevitable and permanent fixture of the urban landscape.
But there is a third path: providing subsidized housing with services to people experiencing homelessness.
Too often, policymakers ignore the obvious solution to homelessness — housing — in favor of immediate (and generally ineffective) responses, such as criminalization. Forced displacements and criminalization move people from one place to another, increasing their trauma and exacerbating the barriers they face to housing, while doing nothing to solve the underlying problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Too bad democrat policies have made everything unaffordable
Yeah, this worked out so well when Hickenlooper tried it as mayor of Denver. Not.
You make a good point. Truly affordable housing (which taxpayers so not pay for) has been outlawed in many, many places.
SROs, boarding houses, trailer parks, all outlawed.
In between that and destroying to concept of a two-parent family, we need need to subsidize housing so it will be “affordable.”
That’s how the leftist organizations get money. It is not a housing crisis, it is a mental illness and addiction problem.
Certain people will make a lot of $ while claiming to solve this problem...
We’ve got this happening in Redmond, Wa right now. Plymouth housing is getting millions of taxpayer $ to build a facility to keep drug users warm and safe in nice little apartments. Many people are upset but the officials have pushed it through without going the proper procedures. The new facility will be 1/2 mile from a school and right across the street from a park. I’d say it’s insane but they’re going to make a lot of $ so really it’s immoral.
“affordable” means gov’mt made (poorly) with taxpayer $$ so the politicos and skim it directly and/or award non-bid contracts to relatives.
These are in reality just bums. Leaches. Parasites.
Work or starve.
It means that nonprofits enrich their executives with zero results.
This is all such BS promulgated by the Poverty Pimp industry.
The vast majority of the homeless are mental, violent, and/or drug addicted.
Housing doesn’t do a damn thing except assuage higher income feelings of guilt.
Of course, 1/10 off the money totally blown on Ukraine and Green shit could have built and staffed the permanent treatment facilities the homeless need, but then the “right” people couldn’t get rich off those lucrative scams.
The solution to bums and hoboes is a bigger truncheon, and forced mental health treatment in state hospitals.
I have had 18 dogs since 1966 when I bought my first house—1-2-3 at a time.
ALL my dogs behaved better than any homeless person out there.
Sometimes you need a carrot and sometimes you need a stick. We’re a little past the carrot stage.
Mrs. BBB333 & I purchased a 14 x 70 mobile home in the early 90’s as no one would rent to us with two cats (this was at a different trailer park in town that still exists).
We had a 5 year note on the trailer and the lot rental was reasonable. That was affordable housing.
We found a lot that we liked outside of town, sold everything we could (including a car) to purchase the property. I rode a bicycle for almost three years (we get a lot of ice and snow here so it was not always easy).
We built our just barely over 1,000 sq. ft house in 95 and sold the trailer walking away with $10,000 in equity.
God has truly blessed us for if anyone had rented to us we would not have this wonderful home.
If they don’t care about themselves they won’t care about you.
Exactly. To discuss the homeless without discussing and accommodating (meaning provide a hard solution for) their bad behavior is like playing baseball without a ball.
Some of the homeless are Americans who have had a hard financial time and could be helped by “affordable” housing. They are far outnumbered by the insane who need to be institutionalized, the drug addicts who would just cut the pipes out of their walls to get money from the copper for one more high, and the illegals who shouldn’t be here at all.
Please tell me that they didn't peddle that as being for the benefit of poor people.
I got a big house and land for a little more than half of that.
It means “Your tax dollars at work.” and “We are coming for your neighborhood next.” When every policy and new regulation means added costs to construction it is the height of hypocrisy to mouth the words “affordable housing.” Demanding, planning, designing, contracting, building, and allocating housing all requires lots and lots of money changing hands. If the idea was truly to get people into housing you would have far less people involved in the process.
We have an example of affordable (for the tenant) housing.
It is called prison. The problems in prisons would continue in most other ideas of affordable housing. At least prisons mostly contain them to the tenants.
Note “most other ideas” does not equal “all ideas”.
OK...I can agree with that.Perhaps the first “affordable housing” complex can be built on Martha’s Vineyard. I’d say a complex of about 10,000 units would be perfect.
Prison for being homeless?
Homelessness is not the problem, it’s just a symptom of drugged out bums.
Drugs is the problem.
The are few if any “homeless ‘ in Singapore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.