QuoteIs it meant to cure only the homeless people equation, versus the homeless and addicted to drugs part?

It is interesting the bicameral conservative mind always has a speaking voice to find problems with any proposal that benefits other people.  Of course free housing has to be managed properly or there will be abuses.  People never stop doing bad shit, that is a true fact.  But to find fault with a social program that does not even exist yet is unreasonable projection, and a negative judgement.

QuoteA problem of course, but most people wouldn't risk giving up their digs to qualify, since the waiting list would force them to live homeless likely at least 6 months to get a placement.

A good answer to a spurious question, ⬆️ but the point of the question was to put you on the defensive and 'explain'.  But why should you.  Not every question deserves an answer.

Advocating housing requires no explanation.

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 13, 2025, 06:28 AMAdvocating housing requires no explanation.

It should be self-evident that a society that provides affordable housing for everyone would be safer and way more pleasant for everyone to live in.  Unfortunately, the property ownership  and rentier model goes back to the very beginning of civilization, and the profiteering core to the model is a foundation of capitalism.  The biggest obstacle in changing this model is not Mickey Ds workers, but Banks and REITs which would see a devaluation of RE as a capital asset.  Maintaining a shortage of affordable housing  keeps the property values up, thus all the obstacles to building it.

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 13, 2025, 06:28 AM

QuoteIs it meant to cure only the homeless people equation, versus the homeless and addicted to drugs part?

It is interesting the bicameral conservative mind always has a speaking voice to find problems with any proposal that benefits other people.

Good thing  this exclusive albeit small forum has fully qualified registered independents, and certified and proven professional critical thinkers with decades of experience so we don't have any of these "bicameral" (had to look it up!) conservatives hanging around!

In th real world sometimes critical thinking through a concept isn't called "finding problems", it is considered "stress testing" an idea. For example, lots of folks would LOVE the government to give them all a "do with it as you please" cash award of $50,000 every year! Isn't that a great idea! I like it! But someone in the government looks at this wildly popular idea and says..."and how do we refill the government coffers!". And they raise taxes higher than all the free money they just handed out!

So was the idea a good one or a bad one? Dunno. But SOMEBODY has to ask obvious question.

Quote from: K-DogOf course free housing has to be managed properly or there will be abuses.  People never stop doing bad shit, that is a true fact.  But to find fault with a social program that does not even exist yet is unreasonable projection, and a negative judgement.

"Finding fault" isn't not asking a logical question BEFORE a good sounding idea becomes a boondoggle. For example, "has to be managed properly". WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT. What in the WORLD do they have to do with "managed properly" 90% of the time? Is that not a reasonable question, BEFORE A PROGRAM EXISTS?

Quote from: K-Dog

QuoteA problem of course, but most people wouldn't risk giving up their digs to qualify, since the waiting list would force them to live homeless likely at least 6 months to get a placement.

A good answer to a spurious question, ⬆️ but the point of the question was to put you on the defensive and 'explain'.  But why should you.  Not every question deserves an answer.

Advocating housing requires no explanation.

Quite true. BUT HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING IT...AND IF THAT CAN SUCCEED.....IS

QuoteNot asking a logical question BEFORE a good sounding idea becomes a boondoggle.

Is your intent to establish that public housing for homeless people is a boondoggle.  This is a yes or no question.  Any elaboration at all dodges the question and will be considered evasive.

Quote from: RE on Nov 13, 2025, 10:48 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 13, 2025, 06:28 AMAdvocating housing requires no explanation.

It should be self-evident that a society that provides affordable housing for everyone would be safer and way more pleasant for everyone to live in.

Didn't the Russians try that out during the Stalin era and...."safer" might have worked out...and by pleasant did you perhaps mean....meager? Small? Cold?

Quote from: REThe biggest obstacle in changing this model is not Mickey Ds workers, but Banks and REITs which would see a devaluation of RE as a capital asset.

Not just them. You think k-Dog would be thrilled to see a major capital asset of his suddenly be worth a bunch less? Or me? We EARNED the value of these assets, loved how they appreciated, watching it all go up in smoke might be more than a little disconcerting.

Quote from: REMaintaining a shortage of affordable housing  keeps the property values up, thus all the obstacles to building it.
RE

Zoning and building laws that discourage/slow down new home building does the same. Great article recently on housing making a good argument that as suburbanites build out suburbia, and like it, they don't want just MORE folks building shit around them, so they pass local construction and zoning requirements that push new home builders further down the road because they can make more money in a less stringent regulatory environment. Add that on top of private equity making homes rentals (we've got one of those in our neighborhood, the place was built this spring, sold to a company, rented out to a nice couple) and it all adds up to faux shortage, or semi-induced, rather than malevolent behavior as opposed to just the market doing what the market does. And me and K-Dog sure like what the market does when it comes to our major physical assets!

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 13, 2025, 12:57 PMQuite true. BUT HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING IT...AND IF THAT CAN SUCCEED.....IS

You have a better idea?

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 13, 2025, 01:46 PM

QuoteNot asking a logical question BEFORE a good sounding idea becomes a boondoggle.

Is your intent to establish that public housing for homeless people is a boondoggle.
This is a yes or no question. 

No.

How about I get to ask a yes or no question?

Has anyone posting on this forum ever experienced homelessness before, for a significant period of time? Say, 3-6 months?

That way those who have can discuss it from a common perspective. And maybe pass along tips and tricks!

Quote from: RE on Nov 13, 2025, 01:47 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 13, 2025, 12:57 PMQuite true. BUT HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING IT...AND IF THAT CAN SUCCEED.....IS

You have a better idea?

RE

I am not who I am without having better ideas.

As these ideas relate to homelessness, maybe?. But my ideas would be probably considered more draconian than are generally acceptable, primarily because they might butt right up against individual liberties.

For example, the entire drug component of homelessness. When I was homeless, it was entirely an economic issue, it started off as living in car homeless, and that didn't last a week, it being a bitch sleeping in a car. But there were no drugs involved, or crime, so I wasn't afraid of being kicked out of parking somewhere, I had money for food, the entire point was trying to SAVE money to move elsewhere.

I can see housing, similar to a dormitory that worked fine for college kids, 4 rooms on a common hall, common bathroom at the end. No drugs, no animals, a place to sleep, a fridge and hot plate for basic meals. No Taj Mahal needed.

The instant drugs and families and animals become involved it gets trickier. And once the minor drug users are in jail you'll need "bigger than a college dorm room" housing for families". And those might look more like the pictures posted, small self contained apartments.

And of course to pay for it I'm sure the oligarchs will happily raise taxes on all those making less than $100k/yr and require that construction of these new facilities are steered to their wholly owned affiliate businesses.

QuoteThe entire drug component of homelessness.

Won't qualify for housing.  All they get is a free rehab.  There are plenty of other homeless to help before the drug component of homelessness is a concern.


Now isn't it something to ignore millions in need and concentrate on the Ne'er-do-wells.  Which are a small minority that will never really go away.

It takes serious mental gymnastics.     

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 14, 2025, 01:26 PM

QuoteThe entire drug component of homelessness.

Won't qualify for housing.  All they get is a free rehab.  There are plenty of other homeless to help before the drug component of homelessness is a concern.

Depends on how often the drug addicted ones break into your house, sleep on YOUR street corner (ever had that in your neighborhood K-Dog...we have) drop those little empty bottles of whiskey near the local elementary along with the needles they use...and so on and so forth.

I understand, and agree with the idea that getting the others handled first is far more reasonable, but they aren't usually the ones giving homeless folks a bad name.

Quote from: K-DogNow isn't it something to ignore millions in need and concentrate on the Ne'er-do-wells.  Which are a small minority that will never really go away.

So if they are a small minority than what is the objection to locking them up for whatever law they happen to be breaking?

Do the drunk/high homeless in your neighborhood ever spit on your windshield, wipe it off with a sleeve and then begin hammering on your car window for compensation? I watched that one down in Houston with fascination, wondering at what point it might reach the level of some crime or another, or inadvertently turn deadly when the terrified car occupant felt threatened enough to defend themselves with that firearm they kept under the seat.