Honolulu to move homeless people from tourist hubs into former internment camps/waste dumps.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: LDragonFire
They say they are gonna try to come up with a plan to help the homeless.

Hmm livable wage jobs would fix this problem!

They should build a self sustaining community that grows there own food and manufactures textiles or light industry related to what they can grow. All voluntary and self governed they each get a share of whatever they sell. This absolutely doesn't support capitalism, but how long can we pretend that capitalism is a successful system?

Capitalism ain't the problem.

The Socialist/Progressive government policies are.

They are the failures that last for eternity.

Then perhaps you can explain to us why there are so many homeless people in this capitalist country and so few in socialist countries like Sweden.

Any country that doesn't have universal healthcare can't remotely be called a socialist country.

Oh I think places like Sweden have homeless.

And perhaps just as many in poverty.

Is there a list that's trustworthy?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: LDragonFire
They say they are gonna try to come up with a plan to help the homeless.

Hmm livable wage jobs would fix this problem!

They should build a self sustaining community that grows there own food and manufactures textiles or light industry related to what they can grow. All voluntary and self governed they each get a share of whatever they sell. This absolutely doesn't support capitalism, but how long can we pretend that capitalism is a successful system?

Capitalism ain't the problem.

The Socialist/Progressive government policies are.

They are the failures that last for eternity.

Then perhaps you can explain to us why there are so many homeless people in this capitalist country and so few in socialist countries like Sweden.

Any country that doesn't have universal healthcare can't remotely be called a socialist country.

Oh I think places like Sweden have homeless.

And perhaps just as many in poverty.

Is there a list that's trustworthy?

www.homelessworldcup.org...

According to this site, Sweden has 17,800 homeless people and the U.S. has between 600,000 and 2.5 million homeless people.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: LDragonFire
They say they are gonna try to come up with a plan to help the homeless.

Hmm livable wage jobs would fix this problem!

They should build a self sustaining community that grows there own food and manufactures textiles or light industry related to what they can grow. All voluntary and self governed they each get a share of whatever they sell. This absolutely doesn't support capitalism, but how long can we pretend that capitalism is a successful system?

Capitalism ain't the problem.

The Socialist/Progressive government policies are.

They are the failures that last for eternity.

Then perhaps you can explain to us why there are so many homeless people in this capitalist country and so few in socialist countries like Sweden.

Any country that doesn't have universal healthcare can't remotely be called a socialist country.

Oh I think places like Sweden have homeless.

And perhaps just as many in poverty.

Is there a list that's trustworthy?

www.epi.org...

The relative poverty rate in Sweden is 8.4% of the population. In the U.S. it's 17.3% of the population.

originally posted by: ArchPlayer

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I live near Portland and Portland is a homeless friendly city, and so it is a magnet for them. With that said though I understand their plight it is a serious issue. Every corner has them with their nifty signs and you can not walk down any street without a group always there.

At some point a city needs to setup a camp of some kind because the main streets is not good for them nor everyone else. They already live in in rather nasty areas so what does the OP suggest?

As you no doubt know, there are several categories of homeless people including those just down on their luck and needing a hand up, off-the-gridders (I don't know what else to call them), serious addicts and alcoholics, and the mentally ill. Some fall into more than one category. I happen to believe that everyone should have a place to live but there's obviously no political will to do that yet and it's complicated when dealing with homeless people in some of those categories. There are some programs (although probably not nearly enough) that those temporarily down on their luck can use to get a foothold and get back on their feet. However, the off-the-gridders aren't interested and the serious addicts/alcoholics and the mentally ill can't get it together to make the available programs work for them.

What's to be done with/for the serious addicts/alcoholics and the mentally ill homeless who can't or won't cooperate in anything that will result in transitioning into "normal" society? I'm not talking about them becoming stiff-necked drones but at least being able to live in an apartment without presenting huge problems for their neighbors?

On the one hand, rounding them up and transporting them to a "compound' is probably a violation of their civil rights. On the other hand, other people have a right to go about their business without being subjected to the behavior several people have described.

The fact of the matter is there is a segment of homeless population that has become homeless institutionalized; they have been out there so long and so disenfranchised they are essentially war shell shocked and don't give a damn anymore. They cannot be saved and they are the ones you know got mental issues. They will never be able to transition back to society for society failed them and their bitterness consumed them.
If people showed more humanity, if employment went back to checks and balances, if the economy was stronger we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, people's ignorance to the country they live, the struggle for survival, the ignorance to more and more people being homeless because "if it isn't me the hell with it" narcissistic attitude all while being more concerned with reality television and the newest electronic product has put us here.

Of course something should be done to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place but you have not answered my question about what should be done about the currently homeless who are serious alcoholics/addicts and/or mentally ill and will not or can not take advantage of any existing programs offering help. I'm sure being on the street for an extended period of time makes people crazy, but some end up homeless because they're addicts and/or mentally ill.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
They say they are gonna try to come up with a plan to help the homeless.

Hmm livable wage jobs would fix this problem!

They should build a self sustaining community that grows there own food and manufactures textiles or light industry related to what they can grow. All voluntary and self governed they each get a share of whatever they sell. This absolutely doesn't support capitalism, but how long can we pretend that capitalism is a successful system?

Yea just look how colective living promoted wealth in the old USSR. If you will feed me why should I work?

Homelessness and tourism do not mix well.

When you drop the big bucks to go on vacation, most likely you want to go somewhere nice. There are lots of alternatives out there.

If you get wind of homeless people using they area you plan to visit as a toilet, you may rethink your destination.

If you build facilities for the homeless, you most likely won't build them right near your big tourist attractions.

Just my opinion.

originally posted by: ArchPlayer
Anytime you live in a society that is going to forcibly remove you and tell you where you can or cannot go, where if you sit down or lay too long in one place you are harassed - any homeless person will tell you cops harass them and specifically target them regardless of doing anything, especially if they go to barnes and noble, the library, anywhere just to get a break from the elements, its illegal by another name.

So you have homeless that live by desire many times on the streets of a big city, so what do you do? Do you find it better that they camp in some business' doorway?

If you are referring to the toxic waste dump...go live there for two months and tell us how your experience was.

Why would he? He doesn't desire to live on the streets, and those that are forced temporary into the homeless life can get out of it.

The 2 problems are what is the country going to do with the homeless population that exists now, and what is the country going to do with the homeless population that is forthcoming and one paycheck away.

What do you suggest?

a reply to: ArchPlayer

If you are referring to the toxic waste dump...go live there for two months and tell us how your experience was.

What toxic waste dump?
Why do you assume the facility would even be on the site of the former city dump? Here are people enjoying that "toxic waste dump."
www.surf-oahu.com...
s3.amazonaws.com...

The island covers more than 500 acres. The camp would be 5. Now, how about you show us where the dump actually was and how big it was? Then show us the planned location for the camp. Then, maybe you can say the facility will be on a former dump with some authority, otherwise you're making it up.

Oh, and btw. The internment camp is very long gone. Contrary to your OP, no one will be moving into it.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ArchPlayer

originally posted by: rbkruspe


Living in a cardboard box or tent is better than living in a homeless facility controlled and dicated by a group of city administrators that don't give a damn and let the place go to pot. See most homeless shelters for more information. At least in the box or tent you are free, you are not being held captive, or dictated to with the craziest curfew hours that prevent you from seeking adequate employment. Some shelters make people leave at 5am. But you have to be already checked in by 9am and can't leave. What the hell is that? People are still adults. This is one step from a jail system. As a person that has never been in the situation you really just don't know how fcked up it is out there. Derison and resentment come in many different forms and I'm here to tell you most homeless folk do not look at others like that. They are too busy surviving the war to engage those types of thoughts.
And again, no one just goes around and craps the floor unless they got a mental problem. Most people are so conditioned to a toilet it is a hardship for them to go without it.

I'm sorry you experienced homelessness. I know that the obvious solution to preventing homelessness for most people is a living wage, universal healthcare, and adequate low-cost housing, etc. but what, in your opinion, is the solution to dealing with the serious addicts/alcoholics, mentally ill who are homeless? In your experience, what percentage of the homeless that you encountered were in those categories?

In my experience, addiction for most came after the shock of being homeless in the first place. Others were addicts from being addicted from military service; I knew a lot of homeless Navy Vets that said their drug experimentation started on the ship. Some folks out there just had a hard time coping; for me it was akin to stories I heard about people being sent to Vietnam and not ready for what laid ahead. Some people are cut out for war, and some aren't. These are the folks who were productive working citizens that just couldn't find work after layoffs. There is a lot of stress hearing from people that you're lazy, or you should change skill set, etc. when you are broke and can't afford to do anymore than what you have to work with. The rejectionary society America has developed into first and foremost has to change.

Now, with the mentally ill, they are victims of a system that has totally rejected them. Most of this population will never be able to manage "normal". The government could help this problem by not mass shutting down facilities all at once. This is why in places like NYC the homeless have taken over the underground subway systems and attacking folks like Indigo Prophecy. Keep in mind most that are institutionalized are forced onto medications; throwing them on the street AFTER getting them hooked, messing with their chemical balances causes problems when they are now thrown to the dogs.

Adequate low cost housing is EASY. Outlaw and make illegal bull run prices on "prime real estate". Make gentrification illegal. Make all housing property a set value based on size/dimensions/sq feet/ that doesn't exceed the cost of living. In Chicago one company A+ Properties took OVER the North Side and rose rent to astronomical prices just because of the proximity to the lake. They got these properties for pennies on the dollar. Stop that.

Alcoholics that are homeless are cool. They are sane, and know what they are doing. They like being sauced. Of the entire gambit, they are the most reliable and cause the least harm. Getting them to kick the bottle isn't an easy answer; the circumstances surrounding their need to drink has to be explored and dealt with first. There will always be that one person that loves to be scummy though.

In my experience, the percentage of homeless that were mentally ill was literally .2%. And everybody knew within the "loop" who those individuals were. Now, everybody drank if they could. Nothing was better than having a tall boy PBR if you could swing it, but it wasn't an everyday thing and it wasn't an obsession. It was almost an affordable treat every now and again. The argument about "donation being used for liquor" gets really out of control. As adults, you just might feel like beer. Or a wine cooler. Nobody was drinking hard liquor, no vodka or nothing like that. Beer was about it, and like I said, it wasn't everyday.

I never saw any junkies; saw folks who would hustle to barter for a joint though. Far more potheads abound than anything.

Now, 97% of the homeless people were smokers. They sold loose cigs and smoked like a chimney. There was always a scramble for them to collect butts put out and drain the extra tobacco not smoked and collect it. I'm not a smoker, but a LOT of them were really hooked into the smoking as their primary device, to the point they would rather buy cigs than food if they begged for change, or got a handout. There was always a scouring of searching for squares.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ArchPlayer
Anytime you live in a society that is going to forcibly remove you and tell you where you can or cannot go, where if you sit down or lay too long in one place you are harassed - any homeless person will tell you cops harass them and specifically target them regardless of doing anything, especially if they go to barnes and noble, the library, anywhere just to get a break from the elements, its illegal by another name.

So you have homeless that live by desire many times on the streets of a big city, so what do you do? Do you find it better that they camp in some business' doorway?

If you are referring to the toxic waste dump...go live there for two months and tell us how your experience was.

Why would he? He doesn't desire to live on the streets, and those that are forced temporary into the homeless life can get out of it.

The 2 problems are what is the country going to do with the homeless population that exists now, and what is the country going to do with the homeless population that is forthcoming and one paycheck away.

What do you suggest?

If people want to live homeless (which would be a small tiny fraction of the homeless society as a whole) then allow them to move freely. Quit dumbing down their rights of travel, which is what this is about. They could be in a rural environment - same would apply. Being in an urban area is irrelevent. A person homeless by personal choice wouldn't be the one hiding in the doorway anyway. They would know how to keep a low profile.

To the person who posted:

If you are referring to the toxic waste dump...go live there for two months and tell us how your experience was.
Why would he? He doesn't desire to live on the streets, and those that are forced temporary into the homeless life can get out of it.

He should live there since he's advocating sending people to be poisoned, maybe he should check it out for the rest of us and let us know if it is okay.

I suggest people get used to homelessness. The government is going to force the issue through bad decisionmaking; voting and "being heard" is not going to change the corporate cronyism going on in America. When the 90% are homeless then we can talk revolt. At that point that will be the only thing that patriotically binds Americans.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ArchPlayer

If you are referring to the toxic waste dump...go live there for two months and tell us how your experience was.

What toxic waste dump?
Why do you assume the facility would even be on the site of the former city dump? Here are people enjoying that "toxic waste dump."
www.surf-oahu.com...
s3.amazonaws.com...

The island covers more than 500 acres. The camp would be 5. Now, how about you show us where the dump actually was and how big it was? Then show us the planned location for the camp. Then, maybe you can say the facility will be on a former dump with some authority, otherwise you're making it up.

Oh, and btw. The internment camp is very long gone. Contrary to your OP, no one will be moving into it.

Take it up with the news article Phage from the OP on MSN. You are acting as if I wrote the news article, which DEFINITELY STATED former internment camp/former waste dump.

I don't know about you, but a waste dump is toxic to me. In Chicago they built nice affordable low cost housing and a big church (House of Hope) on the Old Sherman Williams waste dump. People got SICK after they "cleaned it up". Whatever they have been dumping there I'm sure is questionable.

Instead of bashing me, bash them. THEY RELEASED IT.

I'm not sure I see what the problem is here. That the government is taking steps to help people who are apparently having trouble taking care of themselves? That the places they're being sent are not the nicest (compared to, I suppose, a cardboard box in an alley)?

The thing is, if you choose to live among people, in a society -- as opposed to being a hermit in the wilderness -- you are bound to live by the rules of that society, whether you're rich or dirt poor. And if the majority of people in that society decide that you're not doing what you need to do, they can and will act to fix the problem you're creating. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is.

If you're against this, what's a better fix? Come up with a better solution. As part of the society, you get the choice of either taking personal responsibility for this -- sending money or giving a homeless person a room in your own home -- or letting the people you allow to have authority in your society take care of it how they see fit.

It's all pretty simple. Your choice is to either put up, or shut up.

Similarities and Differences in Homelessness in Amsterdam and New York City

ps.psychiatryonline.org...

Could be relevant and a slight kick in the pants to those who feel putting homeless individuals out of sight out of mind.

Funny how the strongest Nations are the ones who are apt to be far less tolerant and empathetic towards individuals who are either temporarily or permanently disabled and homeless, after all everyone started that way after the Last Great Depression and only went up from there with cooperation and a belief in the American way.

It has gotten to the point where people think if they help the homeless it will only create more dependence, but history and Data shows that is not true.

Anyway, I think of how the GOV shells out billions daily to other countries without our permission, without the homeless's permission, but to throw a few stinking dollars into programs that will house both temporary and permanently is just too out there to ask for I guess.

originally posted by: ArchPlayer

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ArchPlayer

originally posted by: rbkruspe


Living in a cardboard box or tent is better than living in a homeless facility controlled and dicated by a group of city administrators that don't give a damn and let the place go to pot. See most homeless shelters for more information. At least in the box or tent you are free, you are not being held captive, or dictated to with the craziest curfew hours that prevent you from seeking adequate employment. Some shelters make people leave at 5am. But you have to be already checked in by 9am and can't leave. What the hell is that? People are still adults. This is one step from a jail system. As a person that has never been in the situation you really just don't know how fcked up it is out there. Derison and resentment come in many different forms and I'm here to tell you most homeless folk do not look at others like that. They are too busy surviving the war to engage those types of thoughts.
And again, no one just goes around and craps the floor unless they got a mental problem. Most people are so conditioned to a toilet it is a hardship for them to go without it.

I'm sorry you experienced homelessness. I know that the obvious solution to preventing homelessness for most people is a living wage, universal healthcare, and adequate low-cost housing, etc. but what, in your opinion, is the solution to dealing with the serious addicts/alcoholics, mentally ill who are homeless? In your experience, what percentage of the homeless that you encountered were in those categories?

In my experience, addiction for most came after the shock of being homeless in the first place. Others were addicts from being addicted from military service; I knew a lot of homeless Navy Vets that said their drug experimentation started on the ship. Some folks out there just had a hard time coping; for me it was akin to stories I heard about people being sent to Vietnam and not ready for what laid ahead. Some people are cut out for war, and some aren't. These are the folks who were productive working citizens that just couldn't find work after layoffs. There is a lot of stress hearing from people that you're lazy, or you should change skill set, etc. when you are broke and can't afford to do anymore than what you have to work with. The rejectionary society America has developed into first and foremost has to change.

Now, with the mentally ill, they are victims of a system that has totally rejected them. Most of this population will never be able to manage "normal". The government could help this problem by not mass shutting down facilities all at once. This is why in places like NYC the homeless have taken over the underground subway systems and attacking folks like Indigo Prophecy. Keep in mind most that are institutionalized are forced onto medications; throwing them on the street AFTER getting them hooked, messing with their chemical balances causes problems when they are now thrown to the dogs.

Adequate low cost housing is EASY. Outlaw and make illegal bull run prices on "prime real estate". Make gentrification illegal. Make all housing property a set value based on size/dimensions/sq feet/ that doesn't exceed the cost of living. In Chicago one company A+ Properties took OVER the North Side and rose rent to astronomical prices just because of the proximity to the lake. They got these properties for pennies on the dollar. Stop that.

Alcoholics that are homeless are cool. They are sane, and know what they are doing. They like being sauced. Of the entire gambit, they are the most reliable and cause the least harm. Getting them to kick the bottle isn't an easy answer; the circumstances surrounding their need to drink has to be explored and dealt with first. There will always be that one person that loves to be scummy though.

In my experience, the percentage of homeless that were mentally ill was literally .2%. And everybody knew within the "loop" who those individuals were. Now, everybody drank if they could. Nothing was better than having a tall boy PBR if you could swing it, but it wasn't an everyday thing and it wasn't an obsession. It was almost an affordable treat every now and again. The argument about "donation being used for liquor" gets really out of control. As adults, you just might feel like beer. Or a wine cooler. Nobody was drinking hard liquor, no vodka or nothing like that. Beer was about it, and like I said, it wasn't everyday.

I never saw any junkies; saw folks who would hustle to barter for a joint though. Far more potheads abound than anything.

Now, 97% of the homeless people were smokers. They sold loose cigs and smoked like a chimney. There was always a scramble for them to collect butts put out and drain the extra tobacco not smoked and collect it. I'm not a smoker, but a LOT of them were really hooked into the smoking as their primary device, to the point they would rather buy cigs than food if they begged for change, or got a handout. There was always a scouring of searching for squares.

This is not entirely my quote. It is mostly someone else's quote with brief comment from me. I would appreciate it if you would correct this error. Only one small paragraph was written by me (ie."I'm sorry you experienced homelessness. I know that the obvious solution to preventing homelessness for most people is a living wage, universal healthcare, and adequate low-cost housing, etc. but what, in your opinion, is the solution to dealing with the serious addicts/alcoholics, mentally ill who are homeless? In your experience, what percentage of the homeless that you encountered were in those categories?

)

As for your responses to my post, you still have not stated what should be done after these people are homeless and serious addicts/alcoholics, mentally ill. I am only familiar with the situation where I live, of course, but I have been accosted by obviously drunk and obviously mentally ill homeless people. They were not asking for money. They were simply out-of-control aggressive and foul-mouthed. Alcoholics that are homeless are cool? Huh? I don't think so. Every winter when the shelter opens the store owners complain that shoplifting skyrockets.

I do believe in helping the homeless. I do not believe in allowing them to accost people, attack people, and break laws anymore than I believe in allowing people with homes to do that.

I have spoken with people who work in social services and they tell me that 20% of the homeless people use up 80% of the resources and that those 20% are the addicts/alcoholics and mentally ill. They get processed through various programs over and over. In some cases, they are provided with housing but, due to their behavior, are evicted. The shelter population consists largely of the same people each winter.

The question is what should be done for/with this group of homeless people? Obviously, they can't co-exist peacefully with the rest of society. If they are going to be housed, they need separate housing. Is it a violation of their civil rights to give them an option of accepting this housing or being arrested if they remain on the streets?

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I'm not sure I see what the problem is here. That the government is taking steps to help people who are apparently having trouble taking care of themselves? That the places they're being sent are not the nicest (compared to, I suppose, a cardboard box in an alley)?

The thing is, if you choose to live among people, in a society -- as opposed to being a hermit in the wilderness -- you are bound to live by the rules of that society, whether you're rich or dirt poor. And if the majority of people in that society decide that you're not doing what you need to do, they can and will act to fix the problem you're creating. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is.

If you're against this, what's a better fix? Come up with a better solution. As part of the society, you get the choice of either taking personal responsibility for this -- sending money or giving a homeless person a room in your own home -- or letting the people you allow to have authority in your society take care of it how they see fit.

It's all pretty simple. Your choice is to either put up, or shut up.

That's why I'm asking people who are opposed to the Honolulu solution to come up with a better one. Setting aside the obvious: no one should have to become homeless to start with, I think step one is to separate those just down on their luck from those with serious addiction/alcohol, mental illness problems. The solution for those two groups is obviously different.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I'm not sure I see what the problem is here. That the government is taking steps to help people who are apparently having trouble taking care of themselves? That the places they're being sent are not the nicest (compared to, I suppose, a cardboard box in an alley)?

The thing is, if you choose to live among people, in a society -- as opposed to being a hermit in the wilderness -- you are bound to live by the rules of that society, whether you're rich or dirt poor. And if the majority of people in that society decide that you're not doing what you need to do, they can and will act to fix the problem you're creating. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is.

If you're against this, what's a better fix? Come up with a better solution. As part of the society, you get the choice of either taking personal responsibility for this -- sending money or giving a homeless person a room in your own home -- or letting the people you allow to have authority in your society take care of it how they see fit.

It's all pretty simple. Your choice is to either put up, or shut up.

The government is not taking steps to help people; they are throwing them away in far reaches where they are out of sight out of mind and away from corporate interests who are bitching about their presence. And why do you assume that they are in a cardboard box in an alley? That is a STEREOTYPE, and one that is really a problem and influences people's opinions about the problem in a negative way.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if you are a hermit or living amongst people - corporate cronyism is dictating an individual's right to travel. PERIOD. I am not bound to live by the rules of society. All anyone has to do is stay the race they were born into and die. Everything else is optional. The majority of people are not dictating that these people "aren't doing what they need to do" they are demanding they be removed from their eyesight. Big difference. If they cared about the circumstances, then they would offer ample employment at their fine establishments for said people, and pay them enough to live and this wouldn't be a problem.
I am and will always be against people being coralled like cattle and shipped off into makeshift camps; this only leads to more oppressive infrastructure of society and laws. Is this your solution? Guess what, I, like a lot of people, have been homeless on 2 separate occasions for long stretches of time in the coldest climates IMAGINABLE. No shelter in the dead of winter. I've seen and heard it all. No one gives a good damn. That is for certain. And guess what, more and more people are out there now, not just the handful of bohemians that want to be the peaceful pilgrim. So what are we gonna do when a city has 80% unemployment? Annex it off from "civilized society?" I call BS. Your little cutesy "send them money or give them a room" argument is just that BS. Most people now are homeless and those who they could stay with are in a similiar boat. Sending money? Yeah, okay. That little pocket change that people are bitching about going to a beer is not going to cut it.
But rest assured, the government if they are willing to cavort these people off are COMING FOR THE REST OF US NEXT for one reason or another.
It's all pretty simple for you, you've already given into the status quo and go along to get along and shut up when they told you to.
The rest of us are concerned, abhored, and trying to notify like minds what is coming down the pipe.

originally posted by: Tangerine
There is nothing that neither you, nor I nor the people can do about the homeless and serious addicts/alcoholics, mentally ill. This is a problem that requires literally the return of America as a manufacturer/producer versus being an exclusive digital consumer base. There are 350 million people and 100 million jobs; most labor has been outsourced or made obsolete by technology - see the new Cadillac commercial for more details. Without sustainable prevailing wage employment and/or a bailout for the people akin to what the corporations got, this is a major problem that is going to get worse and encompass at the bare minimum half the population before its all said and done.
If you can leave America and migrate out, that would be my suggestion. That is what I was able to do and its been more profitable and as I am in the middle of excommunicating my citizenship I am being fought by America who likes to tax based on citizenship versus residency (see the Tax thread). With policy like that in my opinion the government wants everyone dependent on it like a baby with a tit.
As you said, you are only familiar with the situation where you live; the situation varies city to city, rural area to rural area. I am sorry you have been accosted by drunk and mentally ill homeless folks. I've encountered homeless people in Atlanta (their tent city), NYC metro, Miami, Chicago, Cleveland, LA (skid row), San Francisco, Dallas, and even Birmingham (which is really bad down there) and I have never seen homeless people behave inappropriately. I've seen at most an aggressive begging for change, waiting for you to come out of a store but outside of that, nothing that would bat an eye; and even if they get aggressive begging for change they know who they can pull that with.
Alcoholics that I met are cool. They don't bother folk. If any BS was going down, they would let the ones that treated them with respect know. They were the town criers on the grapevine. Maybe your winos act out because the climate is more palatable, but in a colder climate in the winter, nobody is really on anything more than figuring out how to survive the night outdoors. And for a wino, they proclaim the liquor "keeps them warm".
Helping them is a hard issue to tackle. You cannot tell an adult what to do. There is a lot of bitterness of people that wind up on the street. SHELTERS ARE A DANGER. They are overrun with conditions that look like Calcutta slums in winter, filled with bedbugs, lice, crabs, other bugs, and diseases. They are not conducive generally to couples, single parents with opposite sex children who are big kids-teens. They are not conducive to women. I never stayed in a shelter. It was safer to hide on the street. People I knew on the street were raped there. Their belongings were stolen by the very people assigned to work for them. But don't get me wrong, I saw the police rob homeless people too, just because they could.
The population is also diverse. There is a tremendous homeless population of teens and adults who are transgendered, and on the street because their families couldn't understand their preference. I saw a lot of prostitution from this group. A LOT. In all the cities I mentioned. I have a lot of stories about that but I'll keep it to that. There were a lot of veterans of all generations, and IMHO their PTSD was worse than dealing with the mentally ill. I knew one vet who everytime he heard an alarm he would go bezerk and attack whoever was closest to him. He had a bad experience with alarms in Iraq and that kept him from holding any type of job. His VA benefits did not cover counseling and other health issues.
Your social services may be different there. Not every city is homeless friendly and offers adqeuate services. As I said in a previous comment, some cities like Atlanta or Dallas or Chicago tend to have "services" that are just designed to keep the person in a circle or rut. They have no intention of helping them get on their feet. Their job programs are bogus and are literally just something to do to make your time pass. You get a paper certificate and no gig. Housing is a big problem. I have yet to see a housing program work for anybody unless you come to the table with children, and even then that was only in Chicago. In NYC I knew a woman who slept with her kids off and on all night riding the Staten Island Ferry. She had been waitlisted for 3 years for housing and no luck.
It is not up to us to figure out what to do with them. At this point in the game they are in survival mode, for bad or worse. Those who can get out or find a way out will, and those who can't will die on the battlefield. Maybe your homeless can't co-exist peacefully - and this is part of the problem, everybody's experience is different and their location and circumstances are different. Therefore we don't have a commonality on approaching the topic. You want a quick fix and there isn't one to be had. This is a multilayered problem.
Regardless, carting them off to live on possibly toxic land/former internment camp is a violation of their civil rights and regardless of their behavior I do not condone that. It is a bad precedent and this country has enough problems without bringing back de facto slavery by keeping the property on the plantation. I do not agree they need to be separated/segregated; again, people who aren't homeless are slobs, pigs, and destroy property. Why pick on this group for isolation?
On the mainland, I have never heard of a town giving an apartment to people on the street. Never. If you guys are doing it like that on the island and they are not taking advantage of it, cite them for their poor behavior and keep it moving.

originally posted by: ArchPlayer

You've done it again! You've created a post that contains mostly your words and and a few of my words and attributed the entire post to me. Stop it!

Now I'll respond to some of YOUR comments: Yes it is up to us to figure out what to do with the homeless who are incapacitated by alcohol/addiction and mental illness. Their behavior affects us.

I don't know how you could have been exposed to drunks and have concluded that they're great people.

I agree that most shelters are dangerous places.

I haven't "picked on" the homeless people. The topic was the homeless situation in Honolulu. I simply responded to it.

I agree that the Social Services programs are inadequate and poorly designed.

PTSD is a mental illness.

Public housing does exist, although not nearly enough. Homeless people sometimes do get public housing although the alcoholics/addicts and mentally ill tend to get evicted. That's the issue I raised.

I don't think Honolulu intends to capture and imprison the homeless at some location. I think the intent is to create a place where they can live and enforce laws against loitering, etc. to prevent them from staying on the streets where they are now. I imagine they'll have several options: Live in the new place, get arrested for loitering,etc. and go to jail, or leave Honolulu. What would you expect Honolulu to do?

a reply to: Tangerine


I'm replying to my own post because I, too, have succeeded in creating a post that looks like someone else wrote it. Bad enough but I just blamed him for doing the same thing. My apologies. I don't know how this happens.

a reply to: ArchPlayer

You are acting as if I wrote the news article, which DEFINITELY STATED former internment camp/former waste dump.

No. The article says this:

The city also is planning a temporary legal campsite on a remote, mostly industrial island far from resorts, parts of which were previously used as an internment camp and former dump.

I don't know about you, but a waste dump is toxic to me.

The term "toxic waste dump" carries a certain connotation. But fine, where did the article say that the camp would be on the dump site?

In Chicago they built nice affordable low cost housing and a big church (House of Hope) on the Old Sherman Williams waste dump.

Which was, indeed, a "toxic waste dump." But in spite of Sand Island covering 500 acres, and in spite of having no idea where on that 500 acres the dump was and where the facility is planned, you assume that the facility will be on the location of the dump.

You express concerns about the welfare of those who may use the site because at one time there was an internment camp on the island. Why? The internment camp is long gone.

Honolulu to move homeless people from tourist hubs into former internment camps/waste dumps

Was there a toxic waste dump on Sand Island or did you make it up? Will the camp be located where the city dump was, or did you make it up? Will the homeless be moved into non-existant internment camps or did you make it up?

Instead of bashing me, bash them. THEY RELEASED IT.

And you spun the hell out of what they actually said.


What's your solution? Be kind to the homeless by allowing them to live on the sidewalks in Waikiki and downtown? Buy them all homes?