• 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!

Camps for the Homeless?

calamity said:
Yes, I am sure they will enjoy being "rounded up" and stuck in a POW camp. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are implying, or if you have followed my exchange with Lisa, but ok. She likes your post.
 
California is all about the rights of homeless people to camp on the sidewalk if they can't find shelter, but shouldn't taxpayers have the right to walk down city sidewalks that aren't littered with bodies, needles, and human waste? A grocery store opened around the corner from my gym 3 years ago, yet if you visited this store you'd think it was much older- the sidewalk outside of the store reeks of urine, and there's these huge weird dark colored stains. The entire property was built from scratch 3 years ago, and its already trashed.
 
Lursa said:
An issue with places like this, for the city, community, or organization that builds and administers it, is liability. Security, as an example, is incredibly difficult. Esp. if you have families. Even if you segregate men, women, and families, all are vulnerable to theft, rape, violence in these concentrated areas of unscreened people. Even if they are screened, the range of drug abuse, mental illness, criminal history, authoritative resentment, etc is HUGE.

They could also be held responsible for crimes and property damage (yes, I know, also a crime) in the immediate vicinity of the shelter property.

For a city to cover its ass, the security and rules would have to be very strict (as some shelters do have)...and that's costly and then begins to cross the line between freedom (legal and personal) and what so many of these disenfranchised people distrust and wont accept.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't a city be held liable for leaving human beings on the street? In addition to being vulnerable to theft, rape, violence, how about stepping in body fluids or needles or both?
No easy answer, that's for sure, but it needs to be addressed.
 
calamity said:
Yes, I am sure they will enjoy being "rounded up" and stuck in a POW camp. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Oh the horrors being proposed:

"At that meeting Tuesday, administration officials asked how or if the federal government could help local authorities take homeless people off the streets of Los Angeles and into a sanitary place where they could access services including showers and meals"
 
Lovebug said:
Shouldn't a city be held liable for leaving human beings on the street? In addition to being vulnerable to theft, rape, violence, how about stepping in body fluids or needles or both?
No easy answer, that's for sure, but it needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

The city has an obligation to all its citizens to provide safe public areas that are not public health threats from garbage, rats, human waste, and disease.
 
Lisa said:
I am quite aware of that. It would have to be screened because it would be impossible to permit a Mad Max atmosphere of people coming and going without rules. I udnerstyand how the mental heath is a problem but e must do better than what we currently do. I am opposed to institutionalizing them because those places are havens of abuse because the employees that they attract are not held accountable and the patients are too vulnerable to neglect and abuse.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to understand it. It's another to create a facility that the homeless will use voluntarily that will also meet the legal requirements to protect the city/community from being held responsible for crimes committed on their premises.

I do believe the balance can be found...Seattle is working tirelessly on this and using alot of innovation and alot of $$$. With that said, I've seen some really stupid **** proposed too.
 
Lovebug said:
Not sure what you are implying, or if you have followed my exchange with Lisa, but ok. She likes your post.
Click to expand...

I liked it too.
 
Bullseye said:
Yeah, let's just let them continue crashing on city streets, sleeping under bridges, and crapping all over sidewalks. Seems like camps would increase sanitation, medical/mental care, nutrition and other services. But "Trump!:wicked:", right?
Click to expand...

So, Big Government is OK with your Libertarian beliefs all of a sudden. Eh? Maybe you should change your lean to nanny state liberal, because what you are proposing is certainly not Libertarian-Right.
 
calamity said:
So, Big Government is OK with your Libertarian beliefs all of a sudden. Eh? Maybe you should change your lean to nanny state liberal, because what you are proposing is certainly not Libertarian-Right.
Click to expand...
Fine, go with personal attack - sorry I destroyed your original premise.
 
Bullseye said:
Fine, go with personal attack - sorry I destroyed your original premise.
Click to expand...

Sorry I exposed the hypocrisy in your political lean. Not really.
 
If the camps are voluntary I see no problem, other than only so many will go to them. If Trump is going to propose gathering up homeless people by force, then this is what you call concentration camps.
 
calamity said:
Sorry I exposed the hypocrisy in your political lean. Not really.
Click to expand...
Not actually. What you did was demonstrate a pathetic lack of understanding of anything beyond Trump Psychosis.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
If the camps are voluntary I see no problem, other than only so many will go to them. If Trump is going to propose gathering up homeless people by force, then this is what you call concentration camps.
Click to expand...
I've seen stories about some private agencies running short term camps for homeless, offering medical, dental, mental assistance, showers, haircuts, etc.
 
Bullseye said:
I've seen stories about some private agencies running short term camps for homeless, offering medical, dental, mental assistance, showers, haircuts, etc.
Click to expand...

That isn't permissible if there is a cost, they are required to work or of religious belief is involved.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Have you ever talked to a homeless person? I'm in NYC maybe homeless people in Sand Diego are different. Here most of them don't look employable.

There are shelters but they don't want to go to the shelters because of real fear of crime or just paranoia or both.

But if conservatives want to help the homeless, that's great. It would be the first time I ever heard of Republican politicians trying to help the homeless.
Click to expand...

Do you even HAVE Republican politicians in NYC? :eek:
 
Tlrmln said:
Given the fact that many of them are in flagrant violation of the law, they easily could be given the choice of camp or prison.
Click to expand...

Libertarian my ass.
 
poweRob said:
Libertarian my ass.
Click to expand...

Most current right-learing libertarians are either anarcho-capitalists, theocrats or neo-fascists.
 
Outlook said:
Oh yea, tent cities with people using the sidewalk as a toilet is so much better.
Click to expand...

Here we go. The REAL modern conservatism showing it's true face. Authoritarianism along with their love for "camps".
 
Amelia said:
The subject is the possibility of the federal government imprisoning the homeless.

You said,




It is in that context that it matters whether they are violating federal law. If they are merely violating some city ordinance, it's probably a misdemeanor but more importantly it's not a matter for the federal government. If they are violating federal law, that opens another can of worms -- the costs of due process. But if they aren't violating federal law then it's moot. The federal government has no grounds to walk into American towns, scoop up people who are not violating federal law, and send them to prison.
Click to expand...

I really don't see any indication this is a law enforcement action at all. And, from what I read in the article this whole thing is in the very initial stages - mostly just feasibility studies.
 
calamity said:
Ah yes, Donald trumps state’s rights and small government ideology in one fell swoop. I love it....the end of not only conservatives but libertarians as well—now that not even Hillary could have achieved.
Click to expand...
You have zero concept of states' rights and small government ideology. You talk loony clichés. As usual, you seem more interest in spewing anti-Trump BS than actually offering anything meaningful about dealing with this serious problem.
 
Tlrmln said:
Given the fact that many of them are in flagrant violation of the law, they easily could be given the choice of camp or prison.
Click to expand...

They violate the law by being homeless. I get it. What would the sentence be? You might want to read various amendments to the Constitution.

I can see defense lawyers lining up to get involved. Go ahead, make their day.
 
Barnacle said:
... as compared to dems always talking about it but never doing anything.
Click to expand...
Good point. He conveniently ignores that some of the cities with the worst homeless problems are historically Dem controlled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom