That is the sentiment of the county municipalities that don't fund programs for the homeless.
Then why does the city?
Then why does the city?
Because the problem is in the city's yard, as opposed to the county's.JCity wrote:
That is the sentiment of the county municipalities that don't fund programs for the homeless.
Then why does the city?
steve wrote:Bastiat wrote:"Pay up, OR ELSE!" with a smile, of course.
Or ELSE. . . . . .
we'll send you a series of strongly worded letters!! In the MAIL!!!!
You better pay up now, OR ELSE. . . . .
we'll institute a tedious proceeding in which you'll get to meet a bored bureaucrat who will talk good game, but really only wants to get whatever he can out of you.
You better pay now, OR ELSE. . . . . .
We'll turn the case over to some overworked, underpaid lawyers who again will offer you a very generous settlement.
Oh, man, buddy, you really better pay now, OR ELSE. . . . .
We'll drag your butt into court. This is some seriously scary sh** now. No place on earth is more charged with the imminent explosion of mindless violence than a tax court. True, if you ultimately don't pay, you might wind up in jail, but it's not like the gov't going to come and crack your skull open. See the Brown case, for example.
Sorry, couldn't find a picture of the sharp shooter putting a bullet through Vicki Weaver's head as she held her baby daughter at Ruby Ridge.
I think the government is trying to hold off on their guns blazing approach, the publicity is bad.
But of course, it's just easier and more fun to talk about "men with guns" and Big Brother. Query this, Bastiat: let's pretend your fantasy world became a reality. Government does not exist. Ok, so I walk into a bank, borrow a million dollars to buy a house, and then refuse to pay. What's the bank going to do? Shrug it's shoulders? Just say "Hey, we're businessmen, we don't believe in violence. You just go ahead and keep that money." There would be no credit where agreements could not be enforced, no beautiful free market at all, actually.[/url][/i]
Steve, where is this bank that lends out a million dollars with no questions asked? I don't think I could even borrow a $100 from my bank with out filling out some papers and proving that I could pay them back. Your question is pretty silly to anyone who has done serious thinking about the subject, but there are indeed already examples of the free market dealing with similar predicaments.
Take for example, credit cards. You do have the option of not paying off your debt. They will not take you to court or show up at your doorstep with a baseball bat. But they will drag your name and reputation through the mud. They will file complaints with the credit bureaus and warn other people not to lend you money. This goes for utilities and cell phone bills, etc, etc. You will not be able to get a respectable job with bad credit.
There are also men that make a living repossessing the money that you have stolen from the credit card company. These men do not wear badges or get anointed with the power by the will of the people or the elected. They will get that yacht you bought with that money or that brand new sports car up on a tow truck flatbed.
There are also the insurance companies as well. A million dollar loan or other valuable objects are going to be insured against risk. And because the insurance companies have to foot the bill if something goes wrong, they have incentive to prevent it from happening in the first place and minimizing cost if it does. Policemen do not have this incentive. They get paid whether or not your stolen goods are returned. Why should they put their life on the line when they have no dog in the fight? Think Thomas Crown Affair
.Let's get back on subject. PM if you wish.
- 6,775
innov8ion wrote:Because the problem is in the city's yard, as opposed to the county's.JCity wrote:
That is the sentiment of the county municipalities that don't fund programs for the homeless.
Then why does the city?
Only because the city funds "programs". The homeless are like stray dogs - they will hang around wherever they get fed. Stop feeding them and they go away.
Now I realize that still leaves NLEC, but as soon as Larry croaks or moves away, the city should shut down all services.
Then why does the city?
Because, bottom line, it is the right thing to do.
publiceye wrote:Then why does the city?
Because, bottom line, it is the right thing to do.
Yeah right. If the majority of homeless where in STL county I really doubt the city would be throwing much money their way.
Bottom line is what Innovation said, homelessness has been dumped on the City's front yard and we get to take care of the county's problem as well as our own thanks to them literally dumping their problem downtown.
Whether we like it or not, we're stuck with the problem until the region decides to do its fair share
- 11K
Whatever happened to people monitoring dumping downtown? We need to press the issue that increasingly homelessness is a StL County issue and they must address it. The County, not the City is now losing people and seeing a decrease in housing values in a number of places. This is going to become a greater problem and the answer cannot be allowed to be dumping in the city.
Because, bottom line, it is the right thing to do.
fine with me, I just don't see how it's the CITY'S responsibility. Let private churches, etc. cater to this need.
how it's the CITY'S responsibility
It is the same responsibiity that requires the City to offer access to healthcare to indigents and recreation/education opportunities to youth.
Let private churches, etc. cater to this need.
Private sources, mostly churches, fund much of the effort to address homelessness. However, until recently, the effort was not coordinated and -- sometimes -- unhelpful.
We need to press the issue that increasingly homelessness is a StL County issue and they must address it.
We do.
It is the same responsibiity that requires the City to offer access to healthcare to indigents and recreation/education opportunities to youth.
Why is this the city's responsibility, especially in light of their spectacular failure in attempting to reach these goals? Why aren't parents the primary resource for their children's education?
Bastiat wrote:It is the same responsibiity that requires the City to offer access to healthcare to indigents and recreation/education opportunities to youth.
Why is this the city's responsibility, especially in light of their spectacular failure in attempting to reach these goals? Why aren't parents the primary resource for their children's education?
Is the city legally bound to provide these services?
If so, I'd say this whole "because it's the right thing to do" nonsense kind of goes out the window. It's more like we do it because we have to.
If the City isn't responsible for providing these services, why are we?
As Bastiat said, the effort has been far from successful despite the millions of dollars spent. It seems to be another case of STL beating a dead horse until it gets up...unfortunately it never does.
Because it's a moral obligation, not a legal one. Talk about free enterprise all you want, but if they don't step up, someone should. The city can also do much work in organizing aid in the private sector, not necessarily providing it themselves.
Anyway, from my perspective, I can definitely see how conditions will be improving downtown. Have faith.
Anyway, from my perspective, I can definitely see how conditions will be improving downtown. Have faith.
innov8ion wrote:Because it's a moral obligation, not a legal one. Talk about free enterprise all you want, but if they don't step up, someone should. The city can also do much work in organizing aid in the private sector, not necessarily providing it themselves.
Anyway, from my perspective, I can definitely see how conditions will be improving downtown. Have faith.
The Goverment has no "moral" obligation. This is where the "personal morality" of elected officials and their biases come in. In most cases, morality is projected as a polarizing factor to garnish more votes. Most of the "moral" leaders are immoral (Our senators being a prime example).
Someone "should" step up. We, as citizens have a moral obligation to help fellow humans. This is where giving money to private charities and giving your time comes into being. If we keep on relying on the Goverment from a "moral" outlook, we will be disappointed again and again.
- 6,775
bsharmastl wrote:innov8ion wrote:Because it's a moral obligation, not a legal one. Talk about free enterprise all you want, but if they don't step up, someone should. The city can also do much work in organizing aid in the private sector, not necessarily providing it themselves.
Anyway, from my perspective, I can definitely see how conditions will be improving downtown. Have faith.
The Goverment has no "moral" obligation. This is where the "personal morality" of elected officials and their biases come in. In most cases, morality is projected as a polarizing factor to garnish more votes. Most of the "moral" leaders are immoral (Our senators being a prime example).
Someone "should" step up. We, as citizens have a moral obligation to help fellow humans. This is where giving money to private charities and giving your time comes into being. If we keep on relying on the Goverment from a "moral" outlook, we will be disappointed again and again.
Correct.
Point of information: Governments across the globe have recognized a responsibility to help their poorest citizens for thousands of years of recorded history. This responsibility has stemmed from a diverse array of reasons; some humanitarian some not. The fact that they (and we) have always done so sets a precedent for the government taking a measure of responsibility for helping out those who are unable (and in some cases even unwilling) to help themselves. Because of this ubiquitous precedent, it can be assumed that government does have some obligation to continue to do so. Please, I am not trying to start a theoretical debate over whether this practice is the right thing to do or not, that will go nowhere. I simply wanted to point out that there is overwhelming precendent for governments taking on a measure of this responsibility.
TGE-ATW wrote:Point of information: Governments across the globe have recognized a responsibility to help their poorest citizens for thousands of years of recorded history. This responsibility has stemmed from a diverse array of reasons; some humanitarian some not. The fact that they (and we) have always done so sets a precedent for the government taking a measure of responsibility for helping out those who are unable (and in some cases even unwilling) to help themselves. Because of this ubiquitous precedent, it can be assumed that government does have some obligation to continue to do so. Please, I am not trying to start a theoretical debate over whether this practice is the right thing to do or not, that will go nowhere. I simply wanted to point out that there is overwhelming precendent for governments taking on a measure of this responsibility.
Who taught you that? Thousands of years?
The Western world did not have public schools until the 1850s. At the turn of the 20th century, the only contact that most Americans had with the Federal government was the Post Office. The income tax has only been around since 1913. Social Security only came about in the 1930s. Most welfare was established by the New Deal or the Great Society programs of the 1960s. It has also been shown that private charity decreased during the implementation of those programs. Contra your high school Civics teacher, man is perfectly capable of doing things without the government holding his hand every step of the way.
The precedent of helping the poor and downtrodden was established by Christianity (not saying that others didn't, but Christianity emphasized it more so than others) not enlightened bureaucrats.
Exhibit A:
123 BC: C. Sempronius Gracchus instituted the Lex Frumentaria; a system whereby the (pre-christian) Roman Government subsidized the purchase of grain for indigent people. This was an outgrowth of earlier, though less codified governmental distributions of food and even money to the poor.
Taken from a dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities edited by William Smith, Dr. of Classical Literature, Published by John Murray, London, 1875.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... Leges.html
123 BC: C. Sempronius Gracchus instituted the Lex Frumentaria; a system whereby the (pre-christian) Roman Government subsidized the purchase of grain for indigent people. This was an outgrowth of earlier, though less codified governmental distributions of food and even money to the poor.
Taken from a dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities edited by William Smith, Dr. of Classical Literature, Published by John Murray, London, 1875.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... Leges.html
Things seem out of balance.
On the one hand we have the concept of the social safety net (no poor farms in America).
While on the other, the idea that people will begin changing their behavior to take unfair advantage of the safety net (moral hazard).
On the one hand we have the concept of the social safety net (no poor farms in America).
While on the other, the idea that people will begin changing their behavior to take unfair advantage of the safety net (moral hazard).
Interesting concept, guys. So where is all the money from private charities you've promised to help the downtown downtrodden? Either it hasn't been enough or the programs haven't being implemented effectively or efficiently. If individual citizens and private enterprise fail to do the right and moral thing -- I'd sure as hell hope that government didn't sit idly by.bsharmastl wrote:innov8ion wrote:Because it's a moral obligation, not a legal one. Talk about free enterprise all you want, but if they don't step up, someone should. The city can also do much work in organizing aid in the private sector, not necessarily providing it themselves.
Anyway, from my perspective, I can definitely see how conditions will be improving downtown. Have faith.
The Goverment has no "moral" obligation. This is where the "personal morality" of elected officials and their biases come in. In most cases, morality is projected as a polarizing factor to garnish more votes. Most of the "moral" leaders are immoral (Our senators being a prime example).
Someone "should" step up. We, as citizens have a moral obligation to help fellow humans. This is where giving money to private charities and giving your time comes into being. If we keep on relying on the Goverment from a "moral" outlook, we will be disappointed again and again.
That being said, I see a turn in the trend. And if that environment does change, hopefully less of a toll will be paid by the government.
And regarding morality. Civil servants are generally no more or less moral than the populace they come from. Well, aside from absolute power corrupting absolutely. But that's what checks and balances are for.
- 6,775
innov8ion wrote:Interesting concept, guys. So where is all the money from religious entities you're promising will help the downtrodden? Either it's not enough or the programs aren't being implemented effectively or efficiently.bsharmastl wrote:innov8ion wrote:Because it's a moral obligation, not a legal one. Talk about free enterprise all you want, but if they don't step up, someone should. The city can also do much work in organizing aid in the private sector, not necessarily providing it themselves.
Anyway, from my perspective, I can definitely see how conditions will be improving downtown. Have faith.
The Goverment has no "moral" obligation. This is where the "personal morality" of elected officials and their biases come in. In most cases, morality is projected as a polarizing factor to garnish more votes. Most of the "moral" leaders are immoral (Our senators being a prime example).
Someone "should" step up. We, as citizens have a moral obligation to help fellow humans. This is where giving money to private charities and giving your time comes into being. If we keep on relying on the Goverment from a "moral" outlook, we will be disappointed again and again.
Their spending a lot of it trying to keep their priests out of prison. And paying settlements to the victims.
TGE-ATW wrote:Exhibit A:
123 BC: C. Sempronius Gracchus instituted the Lex Frumentaria; a system whereby the (pre-christian) Roman Government subsidized the purchase of grain for indigent people. This was an outgrowth of earlier, though less codified governmental distributions of food and even money to the poor.
Taken from a dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities edited by William Smith, Dr. of Classical Literature, Published by John Murray, London, 1875.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... Leges.html
Bread and circuses are hardly the shining example of government charity that you imply. These governmental subsidizations of grains led to serious problems for the empire. If I remember correctly, Caesar responded to problems of shortages by restricting the number of people eligible for the handouts.
I simply wanted to point out that there is overwhelming precendent for governments taking on a measure of this responsibility.
Where is this overwhelming precedent? Monarchies did not provide the services that you speak of and it was not expected. Government was correctly recognized as the few benefiting at the expense of the many. This led to the widely held classical liberal view that the only legitimate function of government was to protect its citizens and their property. We only started to see government provided services when the state realized it could gain control over the people with the strings attached (don't bite the hand that feeds you). Western socialism has roots with Otto von Bismark. That only started in the late 19th century. In the United States, there was no real government welfare until the New Deal in the 1930s.
TGE-ATW wrote:Point of information: Governments across the globe have recognized a responsibility to help their poorest citizens for thousands of years of recorded history. This responsibility has stemmed from a diverse array of reasons; some humanitarian some not. The fact that they (and we) have always done so sets a precedent for the government taking a measure of responsibility for helping out those who are unable (and in some cases even unwilling) to help themselves. Because of this ubiquitous precedent, it can be assumed that government does have some obligation to continue to do so. Please, I am not trying to start a theoretical debate over whether this practice is the right thing to do or not, that will go nowhere. I simply wanted to point out that there is overwhelming precendent for governments taking on a measure of this responsibility.
I am not going to bite bastiat. I haven't implied "a shining example of government charity." See above. All I am saying is that governments have assumed some responsibility for the poor and helpless for thousands of years. That is true. If you would care for more, there is one-stop-shopping here, at the University of Virginia
http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI ... ?id=dv3-60
For those who want the notes, the essay discusses ideas of charity and philanthropy in the public and private sphere from the Egyptian Book of the dead, the Hammurabic Code, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Greek and Roman philosophy (which manifested its charitable ideas in common public work projects and handouts previously mentioned), and their associated governments and individual adherents. I don't contest that the Dark ages and Medieval periods in Western Europe destroyed some of the apparatus and ideology that buttressed institutionalized charity, Christian precepts (despite contradictions in teachings) in addition to varied cultural beliefs, and probably in some cases memories of Roman influence, continued to elicit charity from government to citizen. Charity was much more alive during those centuries in Western Europe within The Church, which at the time was very much a government entity (the question of course precipitated centuries of warfare). Oops. I bit after all. Once again, all I am saying is that there is a long-standing precedent for governments giving aid to the poor.
Chronic Homelessness Takes Dip in 2005
Nov 7 03:27 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of people who are chronically homeless dropped by nearly 12 percent from 2005 to 2006, according to government estimates being released Wednesday.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development credited government programs designed to move homeless people into permanent housing.
"HUD and local communities are increasingly providing permanent housing solutions and breaking a vicious cycle of homelessness for those who have lived on the streets as a way of life," HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson said in a statement.
HUD says people are chronically homeless if they have been continuously living on the streets for a year or more, or if they have been homeless at least four times in the past three years. They also have to have a disability, often mental illness or substance abuse.
The number of chronically homeless people dropped from 175,900 in 2005 to 155,600 in 2006, according to data collected by HUD from about 3,900 cities and counties.
Earlier this year, HUD estimated there were a total of 754,000 homeless people on a given night in January 2005. The overall estimate for 2006 is expected early next year.
The homeless are notoriously difficult to count, though HUD started requiring housing agencies to try in 2005. The agencies are required to count their local homeless populations every other year, though about 60 percent do it annually.
Rest of article: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... le=1&lst=1
----
And how did St. louis fare?
Nov 7 03:27 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of people who are chronically homeless dropped by nearly 12 percent from 2005 to 2006, according to government estimates being released Wednesday.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development credited government programs designed to move homeless people into permanent housing.
"HUD and local communities are increasingly providing permanent housing solutions and breaking a vicious cycle of homelessness for those who have lived on the streets as a way of life," HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson said in a statement.
HUD says people are chronically homeless if they have been continuously living on the streets for a year or more, or if they have been homeless at least four times in the past three years. They also have to have a disability, often mental illness or substance abuse.
The number of chronically homeless people dropped from 175,900 in 2005 to 155,600 in 2006, according to data collected by HUD from about 3,900 cities and counties.
Earlier this year, HUD estimated there were a total of 754,000 homeless people on a given night in January 2005. The overall estimate for 2006 is expected early next year.
The homeless are notoriously difficult to count, though HUD started requiring housing agencies to try in 2005. The agencies are required to count their local homeless populations every other year, though about 60 percent do it annually.
Rest of article: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... le=1&lst=1
----
And how did St. louis fare?
In the Lucas Park thread several people mentioned the concept of eliminating homelessness. I realize there are more than a few idealists on this forum 
, but does anyone seriously think that is an attainable goal?
I recall an article in the Chicago Tribune a few years back, in which they interviewed several homeless people - I will see if I can dig it up. Not amazingly (to me anyway), some of the homeless said that they used to live with family in the suburbs, still had the option of doing so, and went on to say that there was no abuse or anything similar that would have made that situation intolerable, yet they chose to live the homeless life, and said that they preferred it. You could certainly argue that these people are mentally ill, but what do you do to get them off the streets, institutionalize them? Lock them up?
, but does anyone seriously think that is an attainable goal? I recall an article in the Chicago Tribune a few years back, in which they interviewed several homeless people - I will see if I can dig it up. Not amazingly (to me anyway), some of the homeless said that they used to live with family in the suburbs, still had the option of doing so, and went on to say that there was no abuse or anything similar that would have made that situation intolerable, yet they chose to live the homeless life, and said that they preferred it. You could certainly argue that these people are mentally ill, but what do you do to get them off the streets, institutionalize them? Lock them up?
- 264
In the Lucas Park thread, the concept of eliminating homelessness in Lucas Park (not this city, this state, this country, or the world) is mentioned as an attainable goal.jlblues wrote:In the Lucas Park thread several people mentioned the concept of eliminating homelessness. I realize there are more than a few idealists on this forum
Also, the focus is on eliminating the homeless who trash the park, aggressively panhandle, use loud vulgar language, use the park as a toilet, remain in the park after closing, and throw leftovers on the ground for bugs, pigeons, and rats. If the homeless respected the land like the rest of society does, then we wouldn't be so focused on eliminating them.