• 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!

San Diego City Council Approves $6.5M To House Homeless In Industrial Tents

So in review. CA bans plastic bags, bumbs have no place to put thier poop, hep a spreads, so the bright idea is to shove them in a tent city leper colony so the hep a can spread even faster. BRILLIANT!

You think the homeless pick up their poop in San Diego?

Downtown they use one of a few bathrooms or leave it where it falls.

We have a big homeless problem because the weather doesn't kill you.
 
You think the homeless pick up their poop in San Diego?

Downtown they use one of a few bathrooms or leave it where it falls.

We have a big homeless problem because the weather doesn't kill you.




I'm going by what the city officials and "experts" say.
 
I'm going by what the city officials and "experts" say.

Interestingly the first thing they did was a hard dispersal of the encampments.

They used to line the street I take as a shortcut to work and a couple that cross it.

Packed solid.

Then they ran them all off. Actually ran off, they didn't come right back.

Which seemed like a good idea to me. Separation.

But then they flooded into the upscale neighborhoods surrounding downtown. Spread thin where the affluent had to see them outside the whole foods and the brewerys.

THEN they came up with the tent idea. Maybe they're gonna test/vax em.

But homelessness became a problem when politicians decided that the menatlly ill would be just fine on the street and they could save the money they were spending institutionalizing/treating them.

Because mental illness is the major cause of long term abject homelessness. Poverty contributes but it's obvious driving to work every morning.
 
Yep, that's the problem with getting government involved in housing these people. 6.5 million to house 700 people? Give me a break. :roll:

By my estimates they could build each of those 700 people a small "tiny" house and still have a couple million left over.

This makes no sense but we are talking about people with no sense.
 
By my estimates they could build each of those 700 people a small "tiny" house and still have a couple million left over.

This makes no sense but we are talking about people with no sense.

They can send them my way, I've got a couple of acres to put 'em on. I'll do it for 6.4 million. :D
 
so your only issue is with the bags?


the rest of my comment, you agree with?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/...-contribute-to-san-diegos-hepatitis-a-crisis/

They are literally handing out plastic bags now in health kits.

"San Diego banned plastic grocery bags last year, taking away a manageable alternative to defecating outside a bathroom. County health workers are now handing out thousands of “hygiene kits” that include plastic bags."

I also thought the other part of your post talking about putting them into a leper colony was also hyperbola. Your posts have settled down since that post and have improved.
 
Interestingly the first thing they did was a hard dispersal of the encampments.

They used to line the street I take as a shortcut to work and a couple that cross it.

Packed solid.

Then they ran them all off. Actually ran off, they didn't come right back.

Which seemed like a good idea to me. Separation.

But then they flooded into the upscale neighborhoods surrounding downtown. Spread thin where the affluent had to see them outside the whole foods and the brewerys.

THEN they came up with the tent idea. Maybe they're gonna test/vax em.

But homelessness became a problem when politicians decided that the menatlly ill would be just fine on the street and they could save the money they were spending institutionalizing/treating them.

Because mental illness is the major cause of long term abject homelessness. Poverty contributes but it's obvious driving to work every morning.


Excellent summary of historical events.
 
I also thought the other part of your post talking about putting them into a leper colony was also hyperbola. Your posts have settled down since that post and have improved.



Have you met me? I am the master at hyperbole and the metaphor!


it is akin to putting them into a leper colony, though they can venture out after festering together every night.
 
By my estimates they could build each of those 700 people a small "tiny" house and still have a couple million left over.

This makes no sense but we are talking about people with no sense.

The tiny house in all its forms is anathema to our current economic system.

Far too many fortunes depend on folks coughing up 25-30% of their gross income for most if not all of their working life for shelter alone.

Can't have folks spending a year or two's wages to own shelter outright. Can't have them putting those shelters in a friends backyard.

Might cause people to ask what they're getting for their 25% gross.
 
San Diego City Council Approves $6.5M To House Homeless In Industrial Tents KPBS, November 14, 2017,By City News Service



The hepatitis A outbreak has finally forced the issue of the cost of ignoring poverty. Worry about encouraging a dependent mentality is taking second place.

One of the things I read some time ago about the Hep 1 epidemic was that California outlawed single use bags, and the homeless used to crap in them and throw it in the dumpster, or park workers tossed it. Now it's right where they drop it and getting stepped in and tracked all over the place. Green became a health hazard.

The state needs to dial back on it's "Gee wiz" union retirement projects and go back into the business of mental health. When the ACLU sued the state in the '70's and forced the mental institutions to release those "who could operate with minimum supervision" into the community, the doors were opened. The problem is only the worst were kept in, and only the violent are seized off the streets and as long as they didn't kill anyone they were considered OK.

California has a Bullet Train to Nowhere, and plans to build miles of a pair of 30 foot tubes to take water from the Sacramento river and send it to LA. We're talking billions of dollars in union pork.

There is certainly money available to deal with the homeless. But they don't pay union dues and send "vig" to the democrats.

The cities are doing "just enough" to shut people up.
 
One of the things I read some time ago about the Hep 1 epidemic was that California outlawed single use bags, and the homeless used to crap in them and throw it in the dumpster, or park workers tossed it. Now it's right where they drop it and getting stepped in and tracked all over the place. Green became a health hazard.
....

Sounds like a very ignorant analysis. I still see plastic bags lying around, maybe the supply of bags just lying around has been reduced slightly.

Plastic-bag ban led to hep A health crisis?San Diego Reader, Sept. 8, 2017
“The plastic bag ban is the main reason for the hepatitis outbreak,” says the homeless man who writes the Homeless Survival Guide. “The hepatitis outbreak was completely predictable — it's why I left San Diego.”
...
In April, David Gibson was one of the participants who cleaned up a one-acre site in Grantville, behind the Fairmount Avenue Home Depot. Several dozen people had lived there, some for a few years. Police and San Diego River Foundation volunteers found a big bicycle chop shop with dozens of stolen and stripped bikes. They also found a nauseating stench, said Gibson, who is the executive director of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Gibson doesn’t think it’s as simple as a lack of plastic bags.

“Given what I saw at the Grantville encampment and other smaller ones, I doubt very much that plastic bags would have made much difference,” he said. “I saw firsthand multiple buckets of waste, most likely fecal, at the Grantville site and no shortage of plastic bags. Moreover, at many sites fecal wastes can be found on the ground in the riverbed encampments as well as in and around parking lots with no shortage of bags then or now.”
...
The ban was approved in June 2016 and officially took effect in November, about the time the first cases definitively tied to the outbreak showed up.
...
 
Yep, that's the problem with getting government involved in housing these people. 6.5 million to house 700 people? Give me a break. :roll:

Almost $93,000 a head. San Diego has an average rent for one bedroom apt of about $1,600. At that rate, you could furnish and house that person for at least 4 years.
 
San Diego is much cooler than the Arizona desert.

The tents are better too.

Joe just used old military tents.

These are the type used by the fire department when stations are being rebuilt, etc.

I'm still skeptical of their use during the hep a outbreak.

Said the same to my wife when she suggested tent housing. Piling them all together is asking for trouble.

But dispersing them would affect property values...
 
Almost $93,000 a head. San Diego has an average rent for one bedroom apt of about $1,600. At that rate, you could furnish and house that person for at least 4 years.

It really is unbelievable. And liberals wonder why we don't take them seriously when they complain about deficits and spending under Donald Trump. :roll:
 
Hmm... that big tent cost is about $770/month for each of the 700 homeless which is likely enough to let each group of four or five of them share a rental house ($3080 or $3,850/month).

Well sure, if the tent burns down after a year.

Amortize that out 10 years and it's down to $75/mo
 
Well sure, if the tent burns down after a year.

Amortize that out 10 years and it's down to $75/mo

That assumes that it will be needed for 10 years which contradicts the OP linked purpose.
 
That assumes that it will be needed for 10 years which contradicts the OP linked purpose.

The purpose was to do something while the homeless are found permanent housing. So, your point here is valid, but not so much your original complaints as to the cost.

I agree with the general argument that liberals like me are inclined to do something, anything. Frequently that something involves spending that when considered later was wasted, especially with the corruption that seeks its share of the spending.

I like to think we liberals are primarily concerned with saving lives. That's what I tell myself, anyway. That's different than my progressive ideology, which might be willing to sacrifice lives for progress, as I define it.
Is there a thread for the definition of progressive you can recommend?
 
The purpose was to do something while the homeless are found permanent housing. So, your point here is valid, but not so much your original complaints as to the cost.

I agree with the general argument that liberals like me are inclined to do something, anything. Frequently that something involves spending that when considered later was wasted, especially with the corruption that seeks its share of the spending.

I like to think we liberals are primarily concerned with saving lives. That's what I tell myself, anyway. That's different than my progressive ideology, which might be willing to sacrifice lives for progress, as I define it.
Is there a thread for the definition of progressive you can recommend?





Why do you think this will be more attractive to the homeless than a shelter?
 
That assumes that it will be needed for 10 years which contradicts the OP linked purpose.

I don't think anyone expects that transitioning homeless people to permanent housing will eradicate the need for homeless shelters. The currently homeless people may find housing, but there will always be new homeless people.
 
I don't think anyone expects that transitioning homeless people to permanent housing will eradicate the need for homeless shelters. The currently homeless people may find housing, but there will always be new homeless people.

In other words, no matter how much public help is offered the local "homeless" problem will not be solved. It seems to me that the more public benefits that are offered then the more of a magnate for drawing new "homeless" folks to that area will be.
 
Back
Top Bottom