• 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!

Poop. Needles. Rats. Homeless camp pushes SF neighborhood to the edge

Hamish Howl said:
Well, yeah. Except for all the conservative cities that have the same problem.

Cities with growing homeless populations to shelter
Click to expand...

All cities have such problems. They are worse in leftist cities though.

As a percentage of population:

1.760% Seattle, Washington
1.317% Oakland, Berkeley, California
1.265% Los Angeles, California
1.190% Kansas City, Missouri
1.027% District of Columbia, District of Columbia
0.979% Las Vegas, Nevada
0.925% Boston, Massachusetts
0.919% New York City, New York
0.794% Miami, Florida
0.793% San Francisco, California
0.784% Metropolitan Denver, Colorado
0.740% Sacramento, California
0.732% Minneapolis, Minnesota
0.709% San Jose, California
0.661% Atlanta, Georgia
0.638% Portland, Gresham, Oregon
0.617% San Diego, California
0.413% Fresno, California
0.405% Baltimore, Maryland
0.400% Phoenix, Arizona
0.398% Long Beach, California
0.369% Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
0.351% Nashville, Tennessee
0.345% Colorado Springs, Colorado
0.317% Dallas, Texas
0.306% New Orleans, Louisiana
0.305% Omaha, Nebraska
0.270% Tulsa, Oklahoma
0.260% Detroit, Michigan
0.260% Tucson, Arizona
0.241% Fort Worth, Arlington, Texas
0.241% Albuquerque, New Mexico
0.234% Austin, Texas
0.219% Raleigh, North Carolina
0.212% Columbus, Ohio
0.210% San Antonio, Texas
0.207% Jacksonville-Duval, Florida
0.202% Charlotte, North Carolina
0.200% Chicago, Illinois
0.197% Indianapolis, Indiana
0.188% Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
0.187% Memphis, Tennessee
0.183% Houston, Pasadena, Conroe, Texas
0.150% Louisville, Kentucky
0.147% Wichita, Kansas
0.145% Milwaukee, Wisconsin
0.132% El Paso, Texas
0.054% Virginia Beach, Virginia

It should also be noted that in general, the red cities have far less of a percentage of unsheltered homeless.
 
Highest to lowest of the "unsheltered" homeless:

0.951% Los Angeles, California
0.925% Oakland, Berkeley, California
0.918% Seattle, Washington
0.625% Las Vegas, Nevada
0.533% San Jose, California
0.504% San Francisco, California
0.419% Sacramento, California
0.359% San Diego, California
0.324% Fresno, California
0.265% Portland, Gresham, Oregon
0.257% Long Beach, California
0.233% Miami, Florida
0.215% Kansas City, Missouri
0.193% Metropolitan Denver, Colorado
0.166% Phoenix, Arizona
0.159% Atlanta, Georgia
0.153% New Orleans, Louisiana
0.114% Colorado Springs, Colorado
0.111% Austin, Texas
0.103% Dallas, Texas
0.098% Minneapolis, Minnesota
0.094% Nashville, Tennessee
0.093% San Antonio, Texas
0.089% District of Columbia, District of Columbia
0.088% Baltimore, Maryland
0.081% Fort Worth, Arlington, Texas
0.071% Houston, Pasadena, Conroe, Texas
0.069% Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
0.069% Albuquerque, New Mexico
0.068% Tucson, Arizona
0.063% Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
0.056% Tulsa, Oklahoma
0.050% Chicago, Illinois
0.049% Jacksonville-Duval, Florida
0.043% New York City, New York
0.043% Raleigh, North Carolina
0.034% Columbus, Ohio
0.027% Milwaukee, Wisconsin
0.026% El Paso, Texas
0.025% Charlotte, North Carolina
0.025% Louisville, Kentucky
0.024% Boston, Massachusetts
0.023% Detroit, Michigan
0.016% Virginia Beach, Virginia
0.016% Indianapolis, Indiana
0.016% Memphis, Tennessee
0.015% Wichita, Kansas
0.014% Omaha, Nebraska

Over 9 per 1,000 unsheltered homeless in those top three liberal strongholds.
 
In general, the right does better at the percentage of homeless people they provide shelter to. Here is the list in order by highest to lowest cities and the percentage of homeless in shelters:

97.4% Boston, Massachusetts
95.5% Omaha, Nebraska
95.3% New York City, New York
91.9% Indianapolis, Indiana
91.7% Memphis, Tennessee
91.3% District of Columbia, District of Columbia
91.1% Detroit, Michigan
89.9% Wichita, Kansas
87.5% Charlotte, North Carolina
86.6% Minneapolis, Minnesota
84.1% Columbus, Ohio
83.5% Louisville, Kentucky
82.0% Kansas City, Missouri
81.5% Milwaukee, Wisconsin
81.3% Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
80.5% Raleigh, North Carolina
80.2% El Paso, Texas
79.1% Tulsa, Oklahoma
78.2% Baltimore, Maryland
76.1% Jacksonville-Duval, Florida
75.9% Atlanta, Georgia
75.4% Metropolitan Denver, Colorado
75.1% Chicago, Illinois
73.7% Tucson, Arizona
73.2% Nashville, Tennessee
71.3% Albuquerque, New Mexico
70.7% Miami, Florida
70.4% Virginia Beach, Virginia
67.5% Dallas, Texas
66.9% Colorado Springs, Colorado
66.7% Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
66.4% Fort Worth, Arlington, Texas
61.0% Houston, Pasadena, Conroe, Texas
58.5% Portland, Gresham, Oregon
58.4% Phoenix, Arizona
55.9% San Antonio, Texas
52.8% Austin, Texas
50.0% New Orleans, Louisiana
47.8% Seattle, Washington
43.3% Sacramento, California
41.8% San Diego, California
36.5% San Francisco, California
36.1% Las Vegas, Nevada
35.5% Long Beach, California
29.7% Oakland, Berkeley, California
24.9% San Jose, California
24.8% Los Angeles, California
21.6% Fresno, California
 
And these stats prove what?
 
Oceanborn said:
Chronicle receives a deluge of email every day, but one message sent to the news desk on a Saturday evening in April was particularly memorable. “There is a suitcase full of human s— on the corner of Isis and 13th,” the email read. “Last night, I had to threaten violence to a man smoking crystal meth on my front porch. This morning, my 2-year-old son and I watched a rat rummage through the trash in our gutter.

This problem has been increasing in severity for years now with no end in sight. It's an embarrassment that a once great American city is now worse than many third world slums. The far left democrats who control the city (and state) offer no viable solutions. The new governor will not penalize people who defecate on the streets and side walks or openly abuse intravenous drugs. NGOs continue to incentivize the homeless to set up camp, and now the city wants to build government funded centers for addicts to use their drugs. Insanity.

What are some of the root problems of this epidemic?

What are the solutions?
Click to expand...

What I think the major issue is, these cities are trying to get more representation. It's so much easier to attract that element of people then it is to attract more economically mobile people.
 
American said:
But you've got the richest/biggest cities, and y'all are ****ing up. :lol:
Click to expand...

I am sorry that the evidence makes you reach for appeal to ridicule arguments.
 
Nickyjo said:
And these stats prove what?
Click to expand...

The stats I presented? In post 244, Hamish Howl gave a link and suggested by his wording that conservative cities are just as bad. I broke down the numbers, showing otherwise.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The stats I presented? In post 244, Hamish Howl gave a link and suggested by his wording that conservative cities are just as bad. I broke down the numbers, showing otherwise.
Click to expand...

I still don’t understand. What policies do the stats suggest cities should establish?
 
Nickyjo said:
I still don’t understand. What policies do the stats suggest cities should establish?
Click to expand...

Not suggesting any. Just showing the the worse are liberal strongholds. The have a higher percentage of homless in general, and a lower percentage of the homeless in shelters.

I only broke down the numbers from the link in post 244.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not suggesting any. Just showing the the worse are liberal strongholds. The have a higher percentage of homless in general, and a lower percentage of the homeless in shelters.

I only broke down the numbers from the link in post 244.
Click to expand...

Maybe “the worse” are because liberal strongholds don’t tend to demonize poverty, mental illness, drug addiction, victims of spousal abuse, etc., but deal with them in a humane way. But that’s the tragedy of liberalism. And foolish things like Christianity, Judaism and Islam with their silly notions about compassion, which when practiced, even unknowingly by secular cities, tend to attract the less fortunate. Not to put down individual responsibility, but to acknowledge that runaway capitalism has its victims, which reality I presume conservative strongholds can’t accept.
 
Last edited:
Nickyjo said:
Maybe “the worse” are because liberal strongholds don’t tend to demonize poverty, mental illness, drug addiction, victims of spousal abuse, etc., but deal with them in a humane way. But that’s the tragedy of liberalism. And foolish things like Christianity, Judaism and Islam with their silly notions about compassion, which when practiced, even unknowingly by secular cities, tend to attract the less fortunate. Not to put down individual responsibility, but to acknowledge that runaway capitalism has its victims, which reality I presume conservative strongholds can’t accept.
Click to expand...

Research has shown that conservatives give more to charity than do liberals.

[h=3]Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About ... - Amazon.com[/h]
[url]https://www.amazon.com › Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatis...
[/URL]



Rating: 4.1 - ‎109 reviews
Editorial Reviews. Review. "Lucidly written, carefully distilled and persuasively cogent. ... In WHO REALLY CARES, Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the ...
 
Oceanborn said:
Chronicle receives a deluge of email every day, but one message sent to the news desk on a Saturday evening in April was particularly memorable. “There is a suitcase full of human s— on the corner of Isis and 13th,” the email read. “Last night, I had to threaten violence to a man smoking crystal meth on my front porch. This morning, my 2-year-old son and I watched a rat rummage through the trash in our gutter.

This problem has been increasing in severity for years now with no end in sight. It's an embarrassment that a once great American city is now worse than many third world slums. The far left democrats who control the city (and state) offer no viable solutions. The new governor will not penalize people who defecate on the streets and side walks or openly abuse intravenous drugs. NGOs continue to incentivize the homeless to set up camp, and now the city wants to build government funded centers for addicts to use their drugs. Insanity.

What are some of the root problems of this epidemic?

What are the solutions?
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. It should be as easy to get off the street as applying for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.
 
Jack Hays said:
Research has shown that conservatives give more to charity than do liberals.

[h=3]Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About ... - Amazon.com[/h]
[url]https://www.amazon.com › Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatis...
[/URL]



Rating: 4.1 - ‎109 reviews
Editorial Reviews. Review. "Lucidly written, carefully distilled and persuasively cogent. ... In WHO REALLY CARES, Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the ...
Click to expand...

And that proves what? Liberal governments provide more assistance than conservative ones. Go figure.
 
Nickyjo said:
Maybe “the worse” are because liberal strongholds don’t tend to demonize poverty, mental illness, drug addiction, victims of spousal abuse, etc., but deal with them in a humane way. But that’s the tragedy of liberalism. And foolish things like Christianity, Judaism and Islam with their silly notions about compassion, which when practiced, even unknowingly by secular cities, tend to attract the less fortunate. Not to put down individual responsibility, but to acknowledge that runaway capitalism has its victims, which reality I presume conservative strongholds can’t accept.
Click to expand...

It appears you are demonizing what you cannot explain to a left wing ideal.
 
Jack Hays said:
Research has shown that conservatives give more to charity than do liberals.

[h=3]Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About ... - Amazon.com[/h]
[url]https://www.amazon.com › Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatis...
[/URL]



Rating: 4.1 - ‎109 reviews
Editorial Reviews. Review. "Lucidly written, carefully distilled and persuasively cogent. ... In WHO REALLY CARES, Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the ...
Click to expand...

It's been fact for decades. Liberal want more charity given to others, they just want someone else to pay for it.
 
danielpalos said:
Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. It should be as easy to get off the street as applying for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...

Yet some will not do the simple things they must do for the charity.
 
Jack Hays said:
Do you have a metric for that claim?
Click to expand...

Oh, my mistake. I just assumed that conservative places like Mississippi provided less assistance to poor folks than liberal places like California. Quick search showed that most conservative states have no general assistance program, for example. I presume that carries over into other forms of help offered the poor, minimum wage, job safety, etc. This is not rocket science, as they say. In general conservatives tend to favor policies that benefit the more wealthy, with the notion that prosperity “trickles down” to those on the bottom so that everyone benefits. (Cf the tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.). Liberals tend to favor policies that benefit the less wealthy, with the notion that prosperity “percolates up” so that everyone benefits. If the right is wrong, at least their people get more; if the left is wrong, same thing. Good example was a decision by the Trump administration to no longer consider a firm’s safety record when awarding govt contracts. Trump provides a benefit to his class, possibly at the expense of the working class. If there are more industrial accidents as a result, at least his class benefits. (My apologies for suggesting that the US has classes.)
 
Nickyjo said:
Oh, my mistake. I just assumed that conservative places like Mississippi provided less assistance to poor folks than liberal places like California. Quick search showed that most conservative states have no general assistance program, for example. I presume that carries over into other forms of help offered the poor, minimum wage, job safety, etc. This is not rocket science, as they say. In general conservatives tend to favor policies that benefit the more wealthy, with the notion that prosperity “trickles down” to those on the bottom so that everyone benefits. (Cf the tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.). Liberals tend to favor policies that benefit the less wealthy, with the notion that prosperity “percolates up” so that everyone benefits. If the right is wrong, at least their people get more; if the left is wrong, same thing. Good example was a decision by the Trump administration to no longer consider a firm’s safety record when awarding govt contracts. Trump provides a benefit to his class, possibly at the expense of the working class. If there are more industrial accidents as a result, at least his class benefits. (My apologies for suggesting that the US has classes.)
Click to expand...

We're talking about cities, not states. And you should first define "assistance."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom