urbanSTL

Yeah like where are they going to go? 

Also, regarding your crash example. Bad drivers usually crash there cars into something like a person, another car or a piece of property, I don't personally care about the health of bad drivers but I don't want to get hit by one of them or have to listen to their ear-splitting driving from my bedroom. 

This whole libertarian ethos thing you've got going just doesn't work. 

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Oct 18, 2023

Watching the city waste thousands of human hours and millions of dollars for a few dozen people has really brought me to political center on this issue.

It seems like the vast majority of homeless folks live out of view, in abandoned buildings or some type of mostly hidden spot in a tent. The entire homeless discussion revolves around the few who don't keep a low profile.

We haven't even begun to think about what to do about the hidden majority.

PeterXCV wrote:Yeah like where are they going to go? 
 

Again, why is that the city’s problem to figure out? The rules of survival in the US are generally the same everywhere. Is St. Louis going to be the first place to promise free shelter to everyone who needs it? Cute in theory, impossible in reality.

Libertarian? I mean, maybe? I just believe at some point the city has to draw a line and enforce that line. City of St. Louis has funding to support a certain number of people annually, everyone else looking to live outside needs to catch a bus to the next city. Not encouraged to setup shop outside of businesses and parks.

addxb2 wrote:

PeterXCV wrote:Yeah like where are they going to go? 
 

Again, why is that the city’s problem to figure out? The rules of survival in the US are generally the same everywhere. Is St. Louis going to be the first place to promise free shelter to everyone who needs it? Cute in theory, impossible in reality.

Libertarian? I mean, maybe? I just believe at some point the city has to draw a line and enforce that line. City of St. Louis has funding to support a certain number of people annually, everyone else looking to live outside needs to catch a bus to the next city. Not encouraged to setup shop outside of businesses and parks.

What does “draw a line and enforce that line” actually mean though? What’s the action by the city? Ship them on a bus to KC?

Debaliviere91 wrote:

addxb2 wrote:

PeterXCV wrote:Yeah like where are they going to go? 
 

Again, why is that the city’s problem to figure out? The rules of survival in the US are generally the same everywhere. Is St. Louis going to be the first place to promise free shelter to everyone who needs it? Cute in theory, impossible in reality.

Libertarian? I mean, maybe? I just believe at some point the city has to draw a line and enforce that line. City of St. Louis has funding to support a certain number of people annually, everyone else looking to live outside needs to catch a bus to the next city. Not encouraged to setup shop outside of businesses and parks.

What does “draw a line and enforce that line” actually mean though? What’s the action by the city? Ship them on a bus to KC?

Make them uncomfortable. Force them to move daily. Uncomfortable people will choose the best solution to not be uncomfortable. Either leaving a city that doesn’t want them on the street or take the authorized resources to not be on the street

Maybe we need federal leadership on this issue. The entire country needs to increase its capacity for the mentally Ill and the homeless. Or else we will just bus the excess homeless back and forth forever. I do agree that St. Louis is under no obligation to give my taxpayer money to homeless people. I think we should spend money on shelter capacity, as i don’t know how to solve the issue otherwise, but i disagree with the framing of the city “failing” the homeless you sometimes hear from the activists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dtgwvc wrote: ↑

Oct 18, 2023

Maybe we need federal leadership on this issue. The entire country needs to increase its capacity for the mentally Ill and the homeless. Or else we will just bus the excess homeless back and forth forever. I do agree that St. Louis is under no obligation to give my taxpayer money to homeless people. I think we should spend money on shelter capacity, as i don’t know how to solve the issue otherwise, but i disagree with the framing of the city “failing” the homeless you sometimes hear from the activists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At least regional.  It's ridiculous to put the the entire burden on 10% of the metro population.  The County and surrounding areas are more than happy to take advantage of the city and shirk their responsibilities when it come to homeless issues.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Oct 18, 2023

Debaliviere91 wrote:

addxb2 wrote:
Again, why is that the city’s problem to figure out? The rules of survival in the US are generally the same everywhere. Is St. Louis going to be the first place to promise free shelter to everyone who needs it? Cute in theory, impossible in reality.

Libertarian? I mean, maybe? I just believe at some point the city has to draw a line and enforce that line. City of St. Louis has funding to support a certain number of people annually, everyone else looking to live outside needs to catch a bus to the next city. Not encouraged to setup shop outside of businesses and parks.

What does “draw a line and enforce that line” actually mean though? What’s the action by the city? Ship them on a bus to KC?

Make them uncomfortable. Force them to move daily. Uncomfortable people will choose the best solution to not be uncomfortable. Either leaving a city that doesn’t want them on the street or take the authorized resources to not be on the street

That's going to cost a whole lot of money. 

I think the framing needs to shift from “accept help or continue to live on the street” to “accept help or be sent to a mental institution”. It sounds harsh, but nothing is more inhumane and ineffective than our current approach. These people simply don’t know what’s best for them and in order to run a functional society we can’t let these people run around, seemingly immune from any consequences of their actions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

STLEnginerd wrote:The "make them uncomfortable" idea is a little sickening.  Do we really think the only thing they are missing is motivation?

To return to my analogy of reckless driving… isn’t the equivalent traffic calming? We’re all supportive of building infrastructure that makes breaking the law (speeding) uncomfortable?

Why should we not build infrastructure or processes that make breaking the law or risking others safety uncomfortable?

I don’t WANT these people to be uncomfortable or in jail but we shouldn’t be making it easier to live on the street when the negative impact on others is clear.

"I think the framing needs to shift from “accept help or continue to live on the street” to “accept help or be sent to a mental institution.”

This is an extremely slippery, dangerous slope.  History has shown far too many people were incarcerated in mental institutions against their will simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  There has to be a better way, and if we can send a man to the moon, we should be able to deal with the problem of poverty and homelessness.  

The solutions to homelessness are known, but they aren't easy, quick, or final, and satisfy neither of the two major political camps. Those solutions are:

1. Publicly funded medical care, including mental health and substance abuse treatment, for those who need it, followed by:
2. Publicly funded temporary housing for those who can follow the rules (maintain employment, don't cause trouble) until they attain self-sufficiency
3. Continuous social support to prevent and manage recidivism 
4. Incarceration of some kind for those who can't/won't engage w/ (1) and (2), e.g., mental/medical institutions for those who need them, or prison for those who don't have debilitating health issues but still refuse to play ball.

Republicans don't like 1-3 or the medical/mental aspect of 4 because they grow the government which requires taxes, and libs don't like 4 because they view it as inhumane. So, round and round we go with no end in sight.

There’s no reason these can’t be ethical, humane places. We just need a place to send people who are both incredibly disruptive to society and refuse help. A place were they can get clean and get their mind back

Help means shelter beds or tiny homes. No sane person would chose the street over these.

Reminder that the alternative the involuntary institutionalization is letting people wander the streets until they die of an overdose. Not exactly humane either.

Seems like the only solutions (that don’t amount to some Nayib Bulkele style of fascism) are very long term. Could we start by legalizing forms of housing that allow a person to have an extremely low wage job but still afford a roof over their head?

The floor for housing seems really high and if you can’t afford that housing for even a short period of time you’re at risk of slipping into homelessness. Add in the social requirement that you own a motor vehicle, the most wealth sucking, poverty driving abomination in the history of mankind, and it’s easy to see how easy it is to slip into homelessness.

We made boarding houses and other cheap options illegal in the 50s. Legalize them again.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:Seems like the only solutions (that don’t amount to some Nayib Bulkeley style of fascism) are very long term. Could we start by legalizing forms of housing that allow a person to have an extremely low wage job but still afford a roof over their head?

The floor for housing seems really high and if you can’t afford that housing for even a short period of time you’re at risk of slipping into homelessness. Add in the social requirement that you own a motor vehicle, the most wealth sucking, poverty driving abomination in the history of mankind, and it’s easy to see how easy it is to slip into homelessness.

We made boarding houses and other cheap options illegal in the 50s. Legalize them again.

Yes to all the above. On the other hand, many of the tents that were recently removed from City Hall (after being offered housing) are now back at city hall. So there is an issue of some segment of the homeless population refusing housing options.

Legalizing boarding houses/flop houses are a great idea. Getting the nicer neighborhoods on board would be a bit difficult but you could build them in north city at least. I’ve worked with homeless before and some reasons come down to practical rules that shelters have, very often drug use, not being able to bring other people or dogs, ect. I think a lot of the most disruptive homeless are just out of their minds and aren’t thinking rationally, like they think homeless shelters are a trap and we’re trying to hurt them in some way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Warehousing, which is essentially what large scale homeless shelters are--should be seen as an emergency measure for people who have basic needs of food, safety and escaping the weather.  Some of those people need supervision in an institutional setting so they don't hurt themselves or others. As for the rest, if you really want to integrate the homeless into neighborhoods, you have to do just that.   We should be starting by creating small scale shelters in stablized neighborhoods where the priveleges of those neighborhoods can be leveraged to help them.  

Warehousing these problems somewhere where we don't have to see them has never worked.  It just eats through the money set aside for help, and burns out the people who work with them directly.   Immerse people in an environment of stability and they tend to stablize.  Immerse them in an unstable environment (with large numbers of other unstable individuals) and what should you expect?

The Board of Aldermen is currently working on policy to help make small scale shelters (and larger ones) easier to open, by getting rid of the (very unique) petition process that has made it almost impossible for any new shelters to open.   I wish they'd focus on the potential of small scale shelters in stablized neighborhoods.  They might be able to come up with something both the NIMBYs and Virtue Signaling SJWs on the board could tolerate.   

dtgwvc wrote: ↑

Oct 18, 2023

There’s no reason these can’t be ethical, humane places. We just need a place to send people who are both incredibly disruptive to society and refuse help. A place were they can get clean and get their mind back

Help means shelter beds or tiny homes. No sane person would chose the street over these.

Reminder that the alternative the involuntary institutionalization is letting people wander the streets until they die of an overdose. Not exactly humane either.

That's the challenge.  Most do choose the street because they don't want any guardrails on what they can do.  They have serious mental illness or a debilitating alcohol or drug addiction.  They are not looking for jobs or permanent shelter.

A civilized society requires rules.  You don't get to break the law just because you are in a difficult life position.

We can, do, and should provide services that support people that want help and are motivated to improve their position in life.  We should not be advertising our city as a safe haven for those don't want to follow laws.  We already executed that experiment with Kim Gardner.  The results speak for themselves.

Bingo. You need lots of carrots, but for those that refuse to eat them, you need the stick of involuntary incarceration in one form or another. Of course that can take more or less humane forms (e.g., forced medical/mental health treatment and social rehabilitation v. regular old prison), but without some credible threat of force you'll always have people that "prefer" no-rules homelessness.

Problem is homeless advocates are completely convinced homeless people are a protected class and that it would tyranny to expect them to follow rules. The idea that we should institutionalize mentally Ill homeless people would never fly with them. Which is why we can spend millions and thousands of man hours on a few dozen homeless people on the riverfront and make no discernable progress


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk