Oregon homeless camp bill

HGCC

Well-Known Member
I think you may want to consider looking up what they did in those institutions….or maybe you know and that’s why you want it ?
Yes, they had issues, how far back you go with them will determine the atrocities. However, do you think leaving them in tents is reasonable? Just scrounging out of the garbage for food. That seems far less humane than providing a place to live with treatment. What we do now is nothing.

I would also point out most people viewed Regan cutting people off from services as a shitty and cruel conservative policy. Allowing tent cities isn't the solution.
 

HGCC

Well-Known Member
Gov. Kotek ran on addressing Oregon's out of control housing problem. She is willing to work with Oregon's cities and smaller communities to find answers to not only the growing number of unhoused but also making housing affordable for those who find making the rent harder and harder year by year.

Fun facts about people who are unhoused.

Each person has their own story.​
Most are locals​
Some have jobs that don't pay enough,​
a majority of chronic unhoused have mental problems,​
some have drug problems,​
some have both,​
most are unhoused for less than two years,​
some are troubled vets,​
some have pets​
some have partners​
some are kids who ran away from abusive parents.​

They all are US citizens and have the right to sleep. Oregon's communities aren't taking responsibility to provide shelter and housing to enable the unhoused to exercise that right. They, as you say, think it's a bad idea to have homeless camps. I don't want homeless camps in my parks either but I recognize the right of the unhoused to find shelter where they can rest, sleep and recover.

Regarding the bill that @Dr.Amber Trichome referenced; I see it as helpful. It takes away the option of cities and other Oregon communities to harass and prosecute unhoused people in the attempt to make them "go away". Removing that option, provides motivation for reluctant communities to work with the Oregon State government to find solutions that work for them and the unhoused. Because every unhoused person has a different story to tell, there isn't one answer, but everybody has a legal right to sleep. That is the minimum humane solution that Oregon must find.

I think you need to reconsider placing the unhoused in compounds. I call them compounds because about a third of Oregon's unhoused aren't mentally ill. That suggestion is more like a prison than some kind of humane answer.
So, my seeing it as three distinct overarching issues wasn't apparent? Mental institutions for the truly crazy. Tiny houses and various services for the down on their luck. Fuck the junkies stealing people's bikes.

1/3 seems really high, more along the lines of 5-10% of the homeless population have mental health issues (or disabilities) that are going to prevent them from ever taking care of themselves.

Again, was not at all proposing tossing all the homeless in camps.
 

buckaclark

Well-Known Member
So, my seeing it as three distinct overarching issues wasn't apparent? Mental institutions for the truly crazy. Tiny houses and various services for the down on their luck. Fuck the junkies stealing people's bikes.

1/3 seems really high, more along the lines of 5-10% of the homeless population have mental health issues (or disabilities) that are going to prevent them from ever taking care of themselves.

Again, was not at all proposing tossing all the homeless in camps.
If someone has mental health issues,it becomes Less likely they will resist the drug epidemic
I believe they are one problem,unfortunately drug addicts are hard to house.A member of my extended family was sterilized in the late 50s in an institution as part of a mass effort to sterilize anyone unfit of mind.I have a couple apartments and they are not fancy but have gotten at least 8 folks off the street.I find they have a huge desire to live a better life but following through is more of a chore for them.Its hard to provide service to someone who says one thing,yet does another.This doesn't mean I will stop trying to help.
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Sunni has a point re jobs and how easy they were to get back in the day. From the day I turned 14 I had jobs (part time) due to the fact that if I didn’t work I didn’t get shit. I was raised with the ideal that if I wanted stuff I had to pay for it (other than food and needed clothing), so I worked. Even when I was temporarily homeless I worked and saved to afford a room. Now just getting a job is not enough for most locations to afford lodging ……. shits gone crazy! No longer is it the third world countries that are dealing with this!
 

buckaclark

Well-Known Member
Sunni has a point re jobs and how easy they were to get back in the day. From the day I turned 14 I had jobs (part time) due to the fact that if I didn’t work I didn’t get shit. I was raised with the ideal that if I wanted stuff I had to pay for it (other than food and needed clothing), so I worked. Even when I was temporarily homeless I worked and saved to afford a room. Now just getting a job is not enough for most locations to afford lodging ……. shits gone crazy! No longer is it the third world countries that are dealing with this!
Alot of the apathy in cities is a result of the decimation of the manufacturing base in the urban centers. Outsourcing labor to other countries became popular .People with good manufacturing jobs sent up competent, optimistic leaders that furthered the advancement of all involved.
 

sunni

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, they had issues, how far back you go with them will determine the atrocities. However, do you think leaving them in tents is reasonable? Just scrounging out of the garbage for food. That seems far less humane than providing a place to live with treatment. What we do now is nothing.

I would also point out most people viewed Regan cutting people off from services as a shitty and cruel conservative policy. Allowing tent cities isn't the solution.
i didnt say that was the solution but i dont believe throwing them in psychiatrics facilities is the solution
 

HGCC

Well-Known Member
What do you think might work then? Again, this would be for the people with severe mental illness. How do you care for them outside of a controlled setting? We wait until they commit some crime now and then put them in actual jail.
 

HGCC

Well-Known Member
Regarding housing affordability and people being pushed out of housing due to economic reasons, I would propose a massive public works project to create a lot of well paying jobs. The project would be to build the infrastructure and then develop new sustainable cities in unpopulated areas. It's a wild pie in the sky idea. Housing would all be federal loan based, payment on those loans adjusted for wages/COL in the area.

I don't think housing should be a burden on people. Only way I can see to do it is to remove the capitalist profit incentive.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Cities with high numbers of people who are experiencing homelessness have robust economies, high rates of employment and relatively low rates of drug addicted people. They have no higher rates of mental illness or drug addiction than other areas, they have high cost of housing.

The crisis we are experiencing in our cities is due to too few affordable homes.


It is true that many people who become homeless are mentally ill. It is also true that becoming homeless exposes people to a range of traumatic experiences, which can create new problems that housing alone may not be able to solve. But the claim that drug abuse and mental illness are the fundamental causes of homelessness falls apart upon investigation. If mental-health issues or drug abuse were major drivers of homelessness, then places with higher rates of these problems would see higher rates of homelessness. They don’t. Utah, Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, West Virginia, Vermont, Delaware, and Wisconsin have some of the highest rates of mental illness in the country, but relatively modest homelessness levels. What prevents at-risk people in these states from falling into homelessness at high rates is simple: They have more affordable-housing options.

Which gets to the point of what Oregon's Governor Tina Kotek is trying to do, address the crisis by changing the political landscape in our cities. If interested, this is her policy statement: https://www.tinafororegon.com/housing/ and here is an interview that she did on npr regarding her plans:

From the same Atlantic article I linked to above:

A contradiction at the core of liberal ideology has precluded Democratic politicians, who run most of the cities where homelessness is most acute, from addressing the issue. Liberals have stated preferences that housing should be affordable, particularly for marginalized groups that have historically been shunted to the peripheries of the housing market. But local politicians seeking to protect the interests of incumbent homeowners spawned a web of regulations, laws, and norms that has made blocking the development of new housing pitifully simple.

I can't speak for other states, but I can say that Oregon has very strict development laws that have succeeded in many ways; to prevent sprawl, keep small farmers close to local markets, keeps its planning departments focused on efficient use of land within its boundaries. Oregon is a very desirable place to live if one has a great job. But it sucks for half of the state's population within those urban boundaries who don't have that kind of income.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Regarding housing affordability and people being pushed out of housing due to economic reasons, I would propose a massive public works project to create a lot of well paying jobs. The project would be to build the infrastructure and then develop new sustainable cities in unpopulated areas. It's a wild pie in the sky idea. Housing would all be federal loan based, payment on those loans adjusted for wages/COL in the area.

I don't think housing should be a burden on people. Only way I can see to do it is to remove the capitalist profit incentive.
Agree that larger projects of affordable housing would be a good public investment. But not sure about removing the capitalist profit incentive. A lot can be done to make building affordable housing more attractive to builders. Right now, a builder makes more by building one expensive home instead of a hundred affordable ones. Also need to shift public attitudes from NIMBY to YIMBY.
 

Dr.Amber Trichome

Well-Known Member
Gov. Kotek ran on addressing Oregon's out of control housing problem. She is willing to work with Oregon's cities and smaller communities to find answers to not only the growing number of unhoused but also making housing affordable for those who find making the rent harder and harder year by year.

Fun facts about people who are unhoused.

Each person has their own story.​
Most are locals​
Some have jobs that don't pay enough,​
a majority of chronic unhoused have mental problems,​
some have drug problems,​
some have both,​
most are unhoused for less than two years,​
some are troubled vets,​
some have pets​
some have partners​
some are kids who ran away from abusive parents.​

They all are US citizens and have the right to sleep. Oregon's communities aren't taking responsibility to provide shelter and housing to enable the unhoused to exercise that right. They, as you say, think it's a bad idea to have homeless camps. I don't want homeless camps in my parks either but I recognize the right of the unhoused to find shelter where they can rest, sleep and recover.

Regarding the bill that @Dr.Amber Trichome referenced; I see it as helpful. It takes away the option of cities and other Oregon communities to harass and prosecute unhoused people in the attempt to make them "go away". Removing that option, provides motivation for reluctant communities to work with the Oregon State government to find solutions that work for them and the unhoused. Because every unhoused person has a different story to tell, there isn't one answer, but everybody has a legal right to sleep. That is the minimum humane solution that Oregon must find.

I think you need to reconsider placing the unhoused in compounds. I call them compounds because about a third of Oregon's unhoused aren't mentally ill. That suggestion is more like a prison than some kind of humane answer.
I see it as helpful as well. How is the majority of the population supposed to afford buying a house? I have been looking at the prices across the country and it’s near impossible to find anything under $300,000. Even the remote shitty little town I currently call home with crappy houses , they ask so much money for a shack. I will never own a home at this rate . Renting is so expensive. How can I save money? What other choices do we have? Buy an RV? By a mobile home? I never thought I would consider buying a trailer but … I could save for retirement and retirement might be a a real possibility one day if I found a cheaper way to keep a home. I hate renting and dealing with landlords. They are a pain in the ass.
 

doughper

Well-Known Member
I would also point out most people viewed Regan cutting people off from services as a shitty and cruel conservative policy. Allowing tent cities isn't the solution.
He had the idea, the one that's still popular now:
Code:
https://www.sfweekly.com/archives/the-great-eliminator-how-ronald-reagan-made-homelessness-permanent/article_92c9b2ac-e881-502a-ae9d-5266cac03404.html
The Great Eliminator: How Ronald Reagan Made Homelessness Permanent

By SF Weekly Staff Jun 29, 2016

Ronald Reagan used a recession as an excuse to cut spending on social services –– like the safety net that existed since the Great…

At Christmastime 1982, fed-up religious leaders called a press conference.

The Rev. Paul Moore, New York City's Episcopal bishop, was furious. Standing next to Methodist and Catholic bishops, a rabbi and a Muslim, Moore laid into the source of his ire: President Ronald Reagan.

At the time, there were 36,000 homeless people on New York's streets, a scene repeated in cities across the country, including San Francisco. But this new wave of needy was different. Instead of the single men with drinking problems who'd populated the hotels and alleys of South of Market after World War II, there were factory and office workers who had lost their jobs in the recent global recession slumped in doorways next to Vietnam War veterans. There were women, children, families.

During a speech at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in 1981, his first year in office, the new president — who would use the recession as an excuse to cut taxes and slash government spending to spark growth, the infamous “Reaganomics” — presented a solution to homelessness, an issue seen at the time as a temporary problem that would soon cycle itself away, just as it had several times before.

In classic small-government fashion, Reagan's fix did not involve government. If only “every church and synagogue would take in 10 welfare families” each, the president said, the problem could be weathered until it passed. It was a truly conservative approach, reminiscent of how homelessness was addressed in the 19th century.
 

UncleJesse

Well-Known Member
I think they should start a government program and make a voluntary contribution system so that anyone who wants to can send in money and support some government built and operated facilities. This way, anyone who wants can help out and they can also feel secure their money is being spent and used wisely by the government. Anyone who doesn't want to help out, can just not send in anything. I would think those who care would end homelessness quickly this way.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I think they should start a government program and make a voluntary contribution system so that anyone who wants to can send in money and support some government built and operated facilities. This way, anyone who wants can help out and they can also feel secure their money is being spent and used wisely by the government. Anyone who doesn't want to help out, can just not send in anything. I would think those who care would end homelessness quickly this way.
You misused the second word in your post. What you said was just right wing libertarian BS. Right wingers are for cancelling any government program that they don't benefit from. If you were getting rent subsidy, you'd be all about how important it is to keep. Spare us your hypocrisy.
 

UncleJesse

Well-Known Member
You misused the second word in your post. What you said was just right wing libertarian BS. Right wingers are for cancelling any government program that they don't benefit from. If you were getting rent subsidy, you'd be all about how important it is to keep. Spare us your hypocrisy.
I started working at 13 and n
You misused the second word in your post. What you said was just right wing libertarian BS. Right wingers are for cancelling any government program that they don't benefit from. If you were getting rent subsidy, you'd be all about how important it is to keep. Spare us your hypocrisy.
No, that's not hypocrisy on my part, it's in line with my beliefs. I have never been unemployed since 13 and have never applied for any government assistance. Don't need it and would do anything I can to not need it. These things should be voluntary for people. Why not? BECAUSE NONE OF YOU WOULD SEND IN A DAMN THING!
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I started working at 13 and n

No, that's not hypocrisy on my part, it's in line with my beliefs. I have never been unemployed since 13 and have never applied for any government assistance. Don't need it and would do anything I can to not need it. These things should be voluntary for people. Why not? BECAUSE NONE OF YOU WOULD SEND IN A DAMN THING!
Stay off roads built by government funds, hypocrite.
 

UncleJesse

Well-Known Member
Not saying all government is unwanted, just saying this help all utopian idea doesn't work. Covid lock downs showed everyone when humans can sit on their ass and collect easy money, they are all hypocrits. I know a bunch who milked it all out as long as possible. Same for the unemployment. Tons of workers milk out the unemployment as long as possible. That stuff just isn't right
 

doughper

Well-Known Member
Right here is where I started to have a big problem with Christians. See what the demon recommends as follows:
Reagan is lauded as “the great communicator,” but he sometimes used his rhetorical skills to stigmatize the poor. During his stump speeches while dutifully promising to roll back welfare, Reagan often told the story of a so-called “welfare queen” in Chicago who drove a Cadillac and had ripped off $150,000 from the government using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards and four fictional dead husbands. Journalists searched for this “welfare cheat” in the hopes of interviewing her and discovered that she didn’t exist.
It's the politics of hate. He also was great at pandering to peoples' fear. Fear and greed, greed and fear, that's what gets you elected, duh.

edit: I should've included attribution for the quote above.
Code:
https://shelterforce.org/2004/05/01/reagans-legacy-homelessness-in-america/
 
Last edited:

doughper

Well-Known Member
Tons of workers milk out the unemployment as long as possible.
Whattaya gotta say about corporate welfare, then? And something I could never
understand about people who had jobs, and bitched like crazy about somebody who did not.
"Don't give 'em anything," they said. "I work hard for my money," they said. Well, would they
want to trade with somebody who was getting food stamps, had no job and no hope of getting
a job. This shit was during the worst economic time in US history, other than the Depression.
18% prime lending rate, 11 to 20% unemployment across the board. It was called "stagflation".
Stagnant economy with inflation. And people with jobs hated those w/o them, like they were
jealous or some shit. Trade with them, then. Give 'em your job, have no hope of getting one yourself.
See what you say then. No walking a mile in anybody's shoes with these dis-compassionate hypocrites.
 
Top