Oakland: Jogger throws homeless mans stuff into lake.

[sdifox]

Mmmm it may be not be politically correct, but that jogger should be stomped in the face. Repeatedly.

strap them down in front of the starting line of a marathon :awe:

 

[Moonbeam]

Some people will be homeless regardless due to substance abuse and or mental illness reasons.

Want to reduce homelessness though? Build lots more housing to make it cheaper. Oh wait I forgot, having ‘nice’ neighborhoods is more important than alleviating mass human suffering.

Jesus, I feel like somebody just ran by and kicked me mercilessly into a lava lake. I guess when you have the answer to mass human suffering and know who stands in the way, your sense of entitlement can go way up.

As I started to crumple under the withering shame I experienced reading these words, it suddenly occurred to me what I had not considered before that I'm already playing a small part. Several years back I spent 100,000 dollars fixing up my house that was destroyed by a broken toilet pipe while I was away in Europe. I spent hours and hours of my time and with relish and joy to create a mini masterpiece for myself. I was extremely proud of the results and the builders agreed that I should be. Then along comes a relative, who can't work and has no income who asks if she and her friend can live there. So not only do the two of them now live there rent free in my dream home, but I also pay all of the bills to the tune of several thousand a month. There is more than one kind of density that solves housing problems.

 

[interchange]

Yeah, but vengeance.

I know there was a test where they just gave homeless people housing. Once the person destroyed the house, they just gave him another. It turned out to be cheaper to do than to deal with all the issues of leaving people homeless.

Many different programs with similar results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Evidence_and_outcomes

I personally don't think unqualified provision of housing is a right, but evidence certainly shows that it's a public good. Without my personal experience with the medical, legal, disability, and social welfare systems and homelessness, I would not have been so keenly understanding of this benefit. It just doesn't make obvious sense that giving people expensive things saves money. It's hard to understand just how much is being spent on the care and policing of the homeless unless you are actively involved in it, and to realize that the homeless people we see on the streets is missing huge amounts of people. Plus, by clogging hospitals and prisons with homeless people whose need for being there is likely to be mitigated by not being homeless, we are making our own interactions with medical and legal services delayed, costly, and more impersonal.

For those of you that are concerned that people will simply take advantage of these programs and not be motivated to change their lives despite capacity to do so, well... yeah that will happen. But who do you think is going to the ER with made-up or exaggerated physical and mental health complaints to get a place to sleep and free meal? Who is out there selling their bodies and drugs to obtain housing/money/more drugs and exposing themselves to great risk of accruing medical problems? Who is causing a scene so that cops get called and being oppositional with cops to end up arrested? It's those people. Giving them housing is a lot cheaper, and if you look at the outcomes, they're more likely to get their lives together when given a handout than abusing the system otherwise.

And this is not a small deal. For example, it was studied among alcoholics: "95 residents in a Housing First program in downtown Seattle, the study reported an average cost-savings of 53 percent—nearly US $2,500 per month per person in health and social services, compared to the per month costs of a wait-list control group of 39 homeless people." Put the math together. These people went from costing taxpayers nearly $60k/person/year as homeless individuals to more than half that. $60k! These homeless people were costing taxpayers more money in a year than the average household earns before taxes.

 

[fskimospy]

Jesus, I feel like somebody just ran by and kicked me mercilessly into a lava lake. I guess when you have the answer to mass human suffering and know who stands in the way, your sense of entitlement can go way up.

As I started to crumple under the withering shame I experienced reading these words, it suddenly occurred to me what I had not considered before that I'm already playing a small part. Several years back I spent 100,000 dollars fixing up my house that was destroyed by a broken toilet pipe while I was away in Europe. I spent hours and hours of my time and with relish and joy to create a mini masterpiece for myself. I was extremely proud of the results and the builders agreed that I should be. Then along comes a relative, who can't work and has no income who asks if she and her friend can live there. So not only do the two of them now live there rent free in my dream home, but I also pay all of the bills to the tune of several thousand a month. There is more than one kind of density that solves housing problems.

I bet all the people who became homeless because they couldn’t afford housing just forgot to move in with their relatives.

You’re pulling a Paul Ryan right now. Every year he has countless photo ops of him personally helping to feed a handful of people while simultaneously endorsing policies that take food away from far more. It's admirable that both Paul and yourself help to mitigate some of the human suffering your preferred policies inflict on others. It doesn't change the fact that you endorse policies that cause mass human suffering though.

 

[umbrella39]

You want his stuff?

Not unless there is a cock to suck or an ass to fuck in there... (based on his posting history, of course...)

 

[realibrad]

Many different programs with similar results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Evidence_and_outcomes

I personally don't think unqualified provision of housing is a right, but evidence certainly shows that it's a public good. Without my personal experience with the medical, legal, disability, and social welfare systems and homelessness, I would not have been so keenly understanding of this benefit. It just doesn't make obvious sense that giving people expensive things saves money. It's hard to understand just how much is being spent on the care and policing of the homeless unless you are actively involved in it, and to realize that the homeless people we see on the streets is missing huge amounts of people. Plus, by clogging hospitals and prisons with homeless people whose need for being there is likely to be mitigated by not being homeless, we are making our own interactions with medical and legal services delayed, costly, and more impersonal.

For those of you that are concerned that people will simply take advantage of these programs and not be motivated to change their lives despite capacity to do so, well... yeah that will happen. But who do you think is going to the ER with made-up or exaggerated physical and mental health complaints to get a place to sleep and free meal? Who is out there selling their bodies and drugs to obtain housing/money/more drugs and exposing themselves to great risk of accruing medical problems? Who is causing a scene so that cops get called and being oppositional with cops to end up arrested? It's those people. Giving them housing is a lot cheaper, and if you look at the outcomes, they're more likely to get their lives together when given a handout than abusing the system otherwise.

And this is not a small deal. For example, it was studied among alcoholics: "95 residents in a Housing First program in downtown Seattle, the study reported an average cost-savings of 53 percent—nearly US $2,500 per month per person in health and social services, compared to the per month costs of a wait-list control group of 39 homeless people." Put the math together. These people went from costing taxpayers nearly $60k/person/year as homeless individuals to more than half that. $60k! These homeless people were costing taxpayers more money in a year than the average household earns before taxes.

This is something relatively new to society. For most of human history, someone that was homeless would die. As we grew, so did our wealth and people started giving charity to help keep homeless people alive. We can no longer wish away people that fall through the cracks. There are multiple reasons as to why someone can become homeless, and the remedy is almost never getting tougher on these people.

It is sad that people would rather punish these people even when it costs themselves more to do so. Nobody wins.

 

[IJTSSG]

You want his stuff?

Why the fuck would I want his stuff?

 

[pauldun170]

For most of human history, someone that was homeless would die.

Nope
Unless your idea of history is less than a century and only includes a small subset of white people

 

[realibrad]

Nope
Unless your idea of history is less than a century and only includes a small subset of white people

Um, what? I said human history and not modern history. My statement is 100% valid. Society has evolved over a very long time, and for the vast majority of that history the poor received very little if any help and had very short lives.

How did you get confused?

 

[Moonbeam]

I bet all the people who became homeless because they couldn’t afford housing just forgot to move in with their relatives.

You’re pulling a Paul Ryan right now. Every year he has countless photo ops of him personally helping to feed a handful of people while simultaneously endorsing policies that take food away from far more. It's admirable that both Paul and yourself help to mitigate some of the human suffering your preferred policies inflict on others. It doesn't change the fact that you endorse policies that cause mass human suffering though.

Nobody moved in with me. I moved out. And I don't see the sacrifice of my home or the 2000 each month as feeding a handful of people. Make it over 3000 with the loss of rent. Nor do I support policies that take food away from far more. I don't believe in your Logan's Run, Soylent Green paradise where the acreage you inhabit is all in your head. Where have all the flowers gone? I just came in from watering my poppies.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nope
Unless your idea of history is less than a century and only includes a small subset of white people

Yup, even the Neanderthal, unlike modern day unmoored intellectuals, took care of their elders and showered them with respect. Now we live in a world full of heal-snapping curs.

 

[fskimospy]

Nobody moved in with me. I moved out. And I don't see the sacrifice of my home or the 2000 each month as feeding a handful of people. Make it over 3000 with the loss of rent. Nor do I support policies that take food away from far more. I don't believe in your Logan's Run, Soylent Green paradise where the acreage you inhabit is all in your head. Where have all the flowers gone? I just came in from watering my poppies.

You do support policies that make it difficult or impossible for lots of people to find housing they can afford though.

As far as what you believe that's your business! You support housing policies that inflict enormous suffering on other people though and it's important to recognize that.

 

[pauldun170]

Um, what? I said human history and not modern history. My statement is 100% valid. Society has evolved over a very long time, and for the vast majority of that history the poor received very little if any help and had very short lives.

How did you get confused?

Make up your mind.
Homeless or poor.
There is a difference.

I'm sticking to your original post

Case#1
Any nomadic people current or historical could give two shits about your home.
Lets not even get into nomadic empires through out history.
There are 30-50 million nomads that we care to even count today.

Forget nomads. Travel around the world and you will find people who travel from region to region, technically homeless.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Why the fuck would I want his stuff?

Naturally, because you offered to store it at your house.

 

[Amused]

No. He did the wrong thing.

And the allegedly compassionate people in Oakland arent much better.

I gotta say I agree with this.

We DESPERATELY need a new mental health system and the ability to humanely institutionalize people who cannot care for themselves.

Anything short of that is passing the buck.

 

[realibrad]

Make up your mind.
Homeless or poor.
There is a difference.

I'm sticking to your original post

Case#1
Any nomadic people current or historical could give two shits about your home.
Lets not even get into nomadic empires through out history.
There are 30-50 million nomads that we care to even count today.

Forget nomads. Travel around the world and you will find people who travel from region to region, technically homeless.

How about this definition...

Someone that is unable and or unwilling to provide themselves with shelter.

Those nomadic people are self sustaining whereas the vast majority of "homeless" are not. What ever arbitrary definition you want to use, people that could not or would not provide enough for themselves often died for most of human history. There is a reason the vast vast vast majority of "homeless" are in large cities.

 

[Moonbeam]

You do support policies that make it difficult or impossible for lots of people to find housing they can afford though.

As far as what you believe that's your business! You support housing policies that inflict enormous suffering on other people though and it's important to recognize that.

I see the problem of homelessness differently than you do, I think.

1. Denser housing is being built at a very fast pace where I live. It includes affordable housing and the cost to buy is staggering. Traffic is gridlock during increasing portions of the day and evening and getting worse, because of the lack of availability of public transportation. If 10 times more living accommodations were built the price would hardly come down because demand where I live is staggering. Perhaps if it were increased a 100 fold such that no one could drive and people had to walk for miles to buy milk, prices might drop since slum life isn't too attractive. So before we increase density let's be sure we can get to and fro.

2. Homelessness and affordable housing are somewhat different issues. There are many causes of homelessness just one of which is not having the income to buy in coveted areas. No matter how cheap one can build affordable housing you still have to be able to pay something for it. What to do with those who can afford nothing, who are physically or mentally handicapped, addicted, drug addled, psychologically impaired?

3. There is the matter of what causes homelessness of all kinds. One cause is low paying jobs. This is an issue that can only be fixed by a restoration of economic justice due to class warfare. Then there is the problem that American culture and social structure is sick. Competition is hate and hate destroys children before they have a chance to protect themselves from it. We live in a country that creates mass mental illness. This can't be solved by having a place to live. You rattle on about the old trying to protect their homes, but are asleep to how you would yourself resist any fixing of that problem that is real. That would require the destruction mercilessly and without compromise of everything that you treasure in the form of naive dreams and ego fanciful self representations. It would require an immense psychological revolution, the acquisition of psychological data you have culturally been deprived of to face.

4. As wealth accretes to the top and population accelerates to the maximum carrying capacity of the planet, the problem of lack of shelter will only grow more dire despite all efforts to prevent catastrophe. Lack of housing is in part a problem of population growth.

For these reasons I oppose a single minded focus on throwing old people out of homes they bought when all of these problems were less pressing. You are fighting a battle to resist people's genetically programmed facility for attachment to land. It is a humanely inorganic and inelegant, undignified even,. solution to the problem.

 

[pauldun170]

How about this definition...

Someone that is unable and or unwilling to provide themselves with shelter.

Those nomadic people are self sustaining whereas the vast majority of "homeless" are not. What ever arbitrary definition you want to use, people that could not or would not provide enough for themselves often died for most of human history. There is a reason the vast vast vast majority of "homeless" are in large cities.

So now you are narrowing it down to a subset of the homeless?
Whats next? Will you be narrowing it down to just the homeless who have eye patches and pet squirrels?

 

[realibrad]

So now you are narrowing it down to a subset of the homeless?
Whats next? Will you be narrowing it down to just the homeless who have eye patches and pet squirrels?

How is that narrowing it down? Are you telling me there are homeless people that are outside of unwilling or unable? Please explain.

 

[pauldun170]

How is that narrowing it down? Are you telling me there are homeless people that are outside of unwilling or unable? Please explain.

Allow me to help out.

I believe that you have a narrow view of homelessness and that what you are focusing on is chronic homeless accompanied by a disabling condition.

Chronic homelessness is not a "death sentence".
When combined with a disabling condition (physical or mental), then your argument can work.

 

[fskimospy]

I see the problem of homelessness differently than you do, I think.

1. Denser housing is being built at a very fast pace where I live. It includes affordable housing and the cost to buy is staggering.

Supply and demand applies to housing. If you build more of it, the costs come down. The staggering cost of housing is people in your area reaping the consequences of decades and decades of underbuilding. I'd be interested to know what you mean by a 'very fast pace' though: how many units per year would you say are being built and what's the approximate population of your town?

Traffic is gridlock during increasing portions of the day and evening and getting worse, because of the lack of availability of public transportation. If 10 times more living accommodations were built the price would hardly come down because demand where I live is staggering. Perhaps if it were increased a 100 fold such that no one could drive and people had to walk for miles to buy milk, prices might drop since slum life isn't too attractive. So before we increase density let's be sure we can get to and fro.

Again, you're arguing that supply and demand don't apply where you live. They do. What you're likely noticing is that the small and wholly inadequate amount of new housing that's being built isn't bringing down prices but that's to be expected. It's nowhere near adequate and is probably just slightly mitigating future price increases.

As far as mass transit goes yes, you should build better transit! Here's the thing though, mass transit REQUIRES density to be effective. That's what was nice about SB827, it was trying to tie the two together so they could be built out simultaneously. Anyways, I agree that increased density leads to increased traffic and that's a problem. The good news is that we have very good, tried and tested solutions for that.

2. Homelessness and affordable housing are somewhat different issues. There are many causes of homelessness just one of which is not having the income to buy in coveted areas. No matter how cheap one can build affordable housing you still have to be able to pay something for it. What to do with those who can afford nothing, who are physically or mentally handicapped, addicted, drug addled, psychologically impaired?

Yes, lack of affordable housing is only one aspect of homelessness, I agree. As I said earlier in this thread I also agree that we will always need government supplied/subsidized housing because market rates will never work for everyone. The good news is that increasing density gives you more tax money to pay for exactly that. Everyone wins.

3. There is the matter of what causes homelessness of all kinds. One cause is low paying jobs. This is an issue that can only be fixed by a restoration of economic justice due to class warfare. Then there is the problem that American culture and social structure is sick. Competition is hate and hate destroys children before they have a chance to protect themselves from it. We live in a country that creates mass mental illness. This can't be solved by having a place to live. You rattle on about the old trying to protect their homes, but are asleep to how you would yourself resist any fixing of that problem that is real. That would require the destruction mercilessly and without compromise of everything that you treasure in the form of naive dreams and ego fanciful self representations. It would require an immense psychological revolution, the acquisition of psychological data you have culturally been deprived of to face.

I agree we also need to solve income inequality but that doesn't mean we can't build more housing until we do.

4. As wealth accretes to the top and population accelerates to the maximum carrying capacity of the planet, the problem of lack of shelter will only grow more dire despite all efforts to prevent catastrophe. Lack of housing is in part a problem of population growth.

For these reasons I oppose a single minded focus on throwing old people out of homes they bought when all of these problems were less pressing. You are fighting a battle to resist people's genetically programmed facility for attachment to land. It is a humanely inorganic and inelegant, undignified even,. solution to the problem.

What building denser housing is... is an effective solution to the problem. Refusal to build more housing in California is causing massive, real suffering to huge numbers of people and they need your help. Speaking of which, good news just came in that a pro-development candidate won the SF mayor's election. Hopefully that's a start.

 

[pauldun170]

Some interesting reading material
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/toward-...-homelessness/what-does-history-tell-us-about

 

[realibrad]

Allow me to help out.

I believe that you have a narrow view of homelessness and that what you are focusing on is chronic homeless accompanied by a disabling condition.

Chronic homelessness is not a "death sentence".
When combined with a disabling condition (physical or mental), then your argument can work.

Don't deflect. You called me out for my definition and accused me of narrowing down. What definition would you use and how was mine wrong?

 

[pauldun170]

Don't deflect. You called me out for my definition and accused me of narrowing down. What definition would you use and how was mine wrong?

I'm not deflecting and to answer your question see post 45.
Had I known you were this passionate about the homeless I would have had t-shirts made up.

 

[Zaap]

No idea why someone would target a homeless person this way. (Was he living on someone's doorstep and all reasonable requests to relocate exhausted?)

But then again.. Oakland. Strikes me as a place practically devoid of civilization or civility.