What would you do with or for homeless people?

You are the one who should receive that treatment. You have the pathology of serial killer. It is scary that people like you are allowed to live among us.

 

I've never seen a homeless retarded person, but that's because retarded people work.

Homeless people should try working.

You're claiming they're mentally ill. They can either take their meds and be productive or not take their meds and hang out on the streets of Tripoli (in Libya).

Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Powers not exclusively reserved for the federal government belong to the States.

Not yet. We'll see what happens when people have to choose between their Standard of Living and the homeless and criminals.

Deporting the homeless and criminals will seem like a good idea.

There's nothing authoritarian about it. It's about Economics and Finance. You don't have the money to waste on homeless or criminals.

Okay.

The Veterans Administration has programs for homeless vets, so any vet that is homeless is so by choice.

- - - Updated - - -

There are lots of us. Resistance is futile.

 

Thankfully no one with any real power is suggesting anything like you suggest. It is simply the ravings of a madman

 

Maybe offer them a choice. Either leave the city on your own, or stay and work for your bread.

and just how is this program funded? If it's not from the homeless themselves, then no. Another ridiculous welfare program designed to take money from taxpayers to give to the vagrant class isn't acceptable.

 

It is unconstitutional to move people against their will. Why do you hate the constitution?

We could keep housing them in the most expensive way in er's, jails, prisons and hospitals. Why do you love paying taxes?

 

Immigration/deportation is a power reserved to the Federal government.

 

Fortunately, people who think like you are generally gutless and stupid. The progression of civilization has made giant steps despite your kind.

 

If it's unconstitutional to move people against their will, the prisons are filled with people whose constitutional rights have been violated.

My plan was rejected. My backup plan to house them in secure housing facilities and be provided with jobs is going to be revenue neutral. Hell, it'll probably produce a nice profit considering how much current road maintenance crews cost.

Let's just say that breakfast in Belch's secure housing facility bed isn't going to consist of steak and eggs...

 

I guess you never heard of due process. Homelessness is not illegal and it would be unconstitutional to make it so. Mission fail

- - - Updated - - -

After due process

 

And natural born citizens cannot be stripped of their citizenship.

 

I would solve simple poverty and capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment, at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clear our poverty guidelines, and call it, compensation for being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

 

Well okay, so that idea is out too. One progressive socialist city came up with a great idea to combat the scourge of homelessness, and unfortunately it was narrowly defeated.

https://ballotpedia.org/Berkeley_Sit-Lie_Ordinance,_Measure_S_(November_2012)

It's from Berkeley so it has to be a good idea!

 

I've heard rumors that the homeless are disappearing. Maybe they are being abducted for secret experiments on live human beings.

 

If a homeless person goes missing then maybe they found a home.

 

Fair enough, though I don't really see what difference it makes, as my opinion is no better than yours, and my opinion is up above somewhere ... here, at post #48:

Cobbling off other answers above, I would support establishment, with tax money, of screening centers for the ill and would subsidize minimal health care to get them functioning. Sorry, no heart transplants or mammograms or viagra or sex reassignment surgery, as funds and willing volunteer doctors and nurses to provide basic health care for free don't grow on trees.

For the real hardheads and a-wholes, including drug addicts, I'd build work camps in remote areas. Guards would carry stun guns.

They would be as safe as the residents decide to make it, and there would be occasional bus transportation back to the city upon proof of a place to live and a basis for support. These would be Joe Arpaio style camps, with tents to sleep in and no air conditioning. If they refuse to work, they can starve. If they don't care about contributing to the rest of society, why should society care about them.

I think Merwen has the best specific ideas:

I would also initiate a distribution system of very basic necessities such as individual rolls of toilet paper, large bottles of hand cleanser, rolls of paper towels, large bottles of drinking water, basic antiseptics like peroxide, bug repellent, and gummy vitamins. Homeless individuals would need to accept an ID wristlet with their name, etc on it to participate in the basic necessity program.

I would also get voluntary agency/ies to set up a permanent kiosk soup kitchen in the area, where a free rudimentary but nutritious hot meal could be obtained once or twice a day.

 

The only thing in your way is the constitution

 

There is always litigation, no matter what we do. Agreed. Doing absolutely nothing to keep crazy people from sleeping, fornicating and defecating on public streets is, I am sorry, insane.

Anyway, this is why, in the OP, I am making you czar, not president of the ACLU. And maybe I should have clarified further that by "czar," I did not mean "Director of the Office of Community Safekeeping," but a real czar with absolute power as well as a conscience.

If you (you personally) were starting from scratch and creating the constitution of your dreams, you might well write it as it is written now and interpret it liberally in favor, not of the tax-paying public, so as to protect loitering and vagrancy, as did Justice William O. Douglas, who amazingly found a right to "loaf" in the constitution.

I would trust local judges to draw lines between poor people who like to walk down the street talking to themselves versus people who erect tents on sidewalks to live in.

 

Housing first is a proven success.....what could anyone have against it?

 

I suggested this early on by allowing supervised and temporary homesteading on federal lands. It was rejected on the grounds that this is cruel to people who are only homeless due to mental problems and drug addiction.

It's no wonder that homelessness hasn't been solved. Nobody wants it solved.

 

They are supposed to build their own homes? Hilarious

 

I have nothing against it in principle, though some of the hard rightists and Libertarians here on the board have expressed concern about the "free rider" problem. Some people just don't want to work, and frankly I don't blame them given how soft we have become in accommodating their lifestyle preferences. But sure, housing first sounds fine, and my no-frills tent camps would constitute "housing" for those who refuse to go to whatever place the city offers, though obviously there should be and there are regular homeless shelters first. Actually, I don't know why I should give anyone a tent to live in if he refuses to do anything in return (who could be in favor of that?), but ...

Here's a question: suppose there is nice big shelter with air conditioning, safe bathrooms, saunas, clean kitchens, a recreation room, free wi-fi and a medical team that visits every week. But .... It is located 40 miles outside of San Diego, or Houston, or Atlanta.

It's easy to deal with a guy in the tent who says, "Thank you very much, I'll board the bus as soon as I gather my belongings." What about the guy who says "No, I like it here in the park. the climate is great and liberals with guilty consciences give me money and treats for nothing."

There comes a point where you as czar must either yield to the public's desire for safe and clean sidewalks and parks, removing the hard cases like him by force from the sidewalk or the park, or yield to the homeless person's rights as Justice Douglas and the ACLU see them and basically let him continue living on the street.

I'm with the majority for those hard cases. Each community should do the best it can for them, of course, but letting them live chronically in a tent or a cardboard box in a public park or on a sidewalk should not be on the menu.

 

Houses don't build themselves, dude.

 

Or you could give him an apartment in downtown San Diego. He is off the streets and with some stability may be open at some point to services that would lead to independence. If this is cheaper why is it so hard for people

 

Yeah, I vote that Le Chef start handing out apartments in downtown San Diego!!!!

by way, how many do you have to hand out? I might want one myself.

 

Sure. Just be chronically homeless first. You think they haven't thought of this?