• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homeless to be Evicted from Redding California Tent City

True. But vagrancy, loitering, and squatting are. So is panhandling and begging.

I know, but being homeless isn't

I said crimes that come along with homelessness.

You just aren't very good at this whole reading thing, are you?

You said chronically homeless; no mentions of them being criminals were made in your proposal.
 
I know, but being homeless isn't



You said chronically homeless; no mentions of them being criminals were made in your proposal.

Except where the mentions of crime associated with homelessness were made. :shrug:
 
Except where the mentions of crime associated with homelessness were made. :shrug:

Your original post:

I dont understand why they dont create work camps for the chronically homeless and give them something to do that grants a sense of purpose, financial stability to pay for the camp, and removal from the streets and, consequently, the opportunity for crime.

You didn't mention crimes committed by homeless people, only that the chronically homeless are to be put into the program.
 
Your original post:



You didn't mention crimes committed by homeless people, only that the chronically homeless are to be put into the program.

Can you not ****ing read? What do you think, and I quote what you just quoted, "consequently, the opportunity for crime" means? Also, did you not read the other 4 or 5 posts that referenced the same issue?

Reading really is FUNdamental!!!!
 
I took a completely subjective statement, totally unquantifiable, and used it to slam people I didn't know.

Just like you did.
No, I was referring to the "Will work for food" signs that many homeless people hold up. Not too long ago they did an episode of 20/20 or dateline or one of those shows where a guy walked up to people with said signs, offered them a a job for a meal, and had no takers. It was in reference to your "work camps" idea before I read the part about them being involuntary.
 
Can you not ****ing read
What do you think, and I quote what you just quoted, "consequently, the opportunity for crime" means? Also, did you not read the other 4 or 5 posts that referenced the same issue?

I can Jallman, and yelling won't convince me otherwise. We don't arrest people for the opportunity of committing a crime. From what you said: lower crime would be a result of these arrests. You made no mention of whether or not all homeless people were criminals. You did not say only criminal, homeless people should be enrolled. You said that all chronically homeless, criminal or not, should be enrolled in the program, and their opportunity for crime would decrease. You probably misspoke, but that's what your post meant.
 
I am advocating Mental Health services. Nothing more, nothing less. They are always the first on the chopping block when savings comes into play, and it's not right. These people (those in need of Mental Health services) are usually the most in need, and the most defenseless.

j-mac
let me make sure i understand your post, given your far right wing stance
you are advocating the government spend MORE tax dollars on mental health problems in our country
 
Question. What chance do you give this of succeeding?

Obama vows to end homelessness in 10 years | McClatchy

Do you think we'll "end homelessness among some of society's most vulnerable groups within the next decade"?

Oh, sure, right after we perfect cold fusion, start colonies on Mars, and end partisan politics.

It is a worthwhile goal, of course, but in ten years? No way. If it were just a matter of building houses, it could be done, but it is a lot more complex than that.
 
Oh, sure, right after we perfect cold fusion, start colonies on Mars, and end partisan politics.

It is a worthwhile goal, of course, but in ten years? No way. If it were just a matter of building houses, it could be done, but it is a lot more complex than that.
I'm not sure you read the whole article. It's much more than stable housing..

The plan is a significant breakthrough because there's never been a comprehensive federal effort to end homelessness with a timeline and measureable goals,

That's right. A timeline. And measurable goals. Do you not see these as siginficant breakthroughs in stamping out homelessness?
 
Obviously reading doesn't either.

I don't need a an English degree to pick up on what you wrote. At worst this is a simple miscommunication. Calm down dude. It's the Internet.
 
Redding California Homeless News - 8/6/2010

Reported by: Elizabeth Gadley
Email: egadley@khsltv.com

"Homeless living in a tent city in Redding are about to be evicted. Authorities say 20 to 30 people live in the camp behind Eastside Road and Technology Way.

To many of them, the network of tents is their neighborhood and the people their family.

“People live in houses and all that, that’s home to them. We live in tents and these are our homes to us. And we cook dinners together, go shopping together,” says Ronda Valdez, fighting back tears.

Last week she lost a loved one. Clarence Edger Thompson, 43, who was stabbed to death in the area, lived in a neighboring camp.

Valdez just found out she about to lose the rest of her community because police are planning to close the camp.

“It’s sad, what are they going to kick us out to find another spot?” says a worried Valdez."

Read More / Video

Homeless to be Evicted from Redding Tent City - CBS 12 Action News

I think the police need to leave those people alone.
 
The homeless should be put in the military where they will receive food and shelter and can serve a useful purpose. Or send them to Mumbai where no one will notice!

And if the homeless in the military don't want to join, or openly disobey? What then? It's a fool's plan, you can't force them to be good soldiers.

Also, Jall, do you think vagrancy, panhandling, and the like should be made crimes instead of just misdemeanors or infractions? Because unless we criminalize those acts all you're proposing is to slap more useless fines on the homeless.
 
let me make sure i understand your post, given your far right wing stance
you are advocating the government spend MORE tax dollars on mental health problems in our country


yep....See what happens when you assume things about people?

I'd much rather my tax dollar spending go to help those afflicted with mental illness, and in hopes of understanding the brain better, than to a 2nd generation welfare queen living in Sec 8 housing with 4 kids from 4 different fathers who don't pay a dime.


j-mac
 
Last edited:
Oh good. Does this mean the next time I post, you won't come of left field and say something ****ty based on the Lean: Liberal under my avatar?

yep....See what happens when you assume things about people?


j-mac
 
The problem is that they are living illegally on land they don't own. So, community fail. Squatters don't have rights.

This is true, but sad.

Every stinking square inch of the US is owned and fenced by someone. People have to be somewhere, yet there's nowhere to go.
 
Which of course made me think "Well, now we know how the Indians felt". So of course then I thought HEY! WE need reservations!

This is true, but sad.

Every stinking square inch of the US is owned and fenced by someone. People have to be somewhere, yet there's nowhere to go.
 
Redding is one of the hottest places in California in the summer, as temps climb into the 110-115 range most every summer. Evicting the homeless from a camp set up in a shady spot will just drive them to seek cool temps elsewhere, and so instead of one camp where their population is concentrated, they will be scattered.

I'm not sure what they are trying to achieve here, since all they are doing is making it more likely the average citizen will be affected rather than less. The article didn't say whether they are on public or private property, but if they are on public property, evicting them will only increase the likelihood they will infringe upon private.
 
Back
Top Bottom