Nope, it's good to think through these things on both sides and avoid the polar tropes of angry old white-man and naive "everyone is a shining light of pure wonderful and only "the man" brings everyone down.rsmurphy wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:07 pmGeiginni wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 6:09 pm I think part of the problem is the very notion of personal liberty. It's hard to help the most vulnerable when: A) You refuse to differentiate between those who are acting in good-faith and those who are acting in bad-faith, or simply bad-actors. You only hurt the most vulnerable when you allow criminals and victimizers to live in proximity to them.I think the issue is in treating both groups as one and the same. I think it takes a different, possibly more gentle, possibly more coercive approach to help those whom have felt abandoned by the 'system' and have resorted to whatever means possible to survive, as opposed to those whom are still trying to stay within the law and be good citizens regardless of their situation. When someone feels abandoned by society, the social contract has been broken from their viewpoint, and once the anti-social genie is out of the bottle, there's no easy time putting it back in. I think the "one size fits all" approach that advocacy groups here are using is entirely the wrong approach. Everyone needs help, some people need more encouragement (or coercion) than others.The situation has become so dire that making such distinctions does more harm. Is the point you are trying to make is that we shouldn't be helping bad homeless people? I'd think that experiencing homelessness causes some people to do very bad things. Of course, there are also bad people who become homeless, but as a society shouldn't all of us - especially those who have the power - figure out a way to help everyone? If I have misconstrued anything you've posted let me know. Not my intent.
B) You give the most vulnerable choice in the matter. I feel that if you've landed in a place where you're living in desperation, you've run out of choices. You have become, or rather should become, under such circumstances, a ward of the state. As a ward of the state there must be certain rules and expectations set for being relieved of a life of desperation.Not here. If those in dire circumstances were wards of the state, then presumably they'd be getting the help they need. Also an important distinction: The help they "need" is not necessarily or always the help the "want". The breakdown in the social contract is also the loss of trust that the system is going to actually "help" rather than failing as it has.This already happens, n'est-ce pas?
C) "Free stuff" alone won't solve the issues at the heart of this. Too much trauma and hopelessness leads to the inability to plan and assess risk and make good decisions for oneself. The "nanny state" as it were is a necessity for many people, and in the interest of those who foot the bill for the social safety net, some often very strong strings must be attached and are a necessary thing for the social contract to work for everyone.You're absolutely right here. The city and county is trying to pick up the pieces of a failed state and national response. Cities and counties are too small to take this on alone, and in doing so end up overwhelmed when word gets out that "city A is a much better place to be destitute than cities "B" or "C"".I'm not talking about free stuff. Bettered safety net programs, including rules and expectations, should be paramount. I just think that those in power don't care and/or don't wish to expend the energy and money to make it work for everybody.
Our leaders have continuously failed in their responsibilities and commitments. Every small failure results in a cascade of worse outcomes. Leaders have made a habit of half-assing every response so that the intended outcomes are never realized. Numerous attempts at rent control and freezes failed, with predictable outcomes that now carry a higher price tag and worse outcomes for all citizens. Penny wise and pound foolish - except where abdicating responsibility to poorly managed non-profit partners is concerned. Non-profit advocacy groups here are a crutch for the state eschewing accountability onto those without the means to be accountable at the level required.
From what I see in our society, nobody wants to be accountable for anything anymore. There's no accountability at the top and it only trickles downhill. At this point the need for AI overlords would be mainly to have some entity that is actually accountable and responsive to problems and commensurate responses/solutions.
It's not enough to just say "we need to provide more services, more outreach, more counseling, more options, more....", when there are those who will still elect to live in a tent fortress by the highway smoking meth and being the King Faizal of stolen bike parts and cat converters, while at the same time making life more difficult for those on the street who desperately want to get off the streets. At some point it's not about "more [blank]" being necessary, but simply not being given the choice. The state will dictate the terms of getting you off the streets, with the terms moving from more humanitarian and generous to more onerous and punitive if you refuse to comply.Abosofuckinglutely agree on this point, particularly your last sentence. Again, the problem is half-assing the solution. We decriminalized hard drugs here. Great. Now we've got a bunch of addicts still taking black-market mystery fentanyl and P2P meth which leaves them non-functioning at best and fucking dissociative and psychotic at worst. Decriminalization alone is weak-ass bullshit. We need to fully legalize everything and make it available by prescription at the rates basic generic narcotics go for. That way you kill the black market dead, regulate dosage, make it dirt cheap (a friend who was addicted to oxy used to get it by prescription for $8 for a giant bottle and would hum happily to work every day. It was only after he got cut off by the liability panic of the medical industry that he lost everything buying mystery pills off the goddamn street), and keep tabs on people that are getting their oxy or adderall fix, but are also - hopefully being maintained as functional citizens. It takes medical professionals to monitor and manage these addictions. The stigma of being high needs to go away and emphasis be placed on remaining functional while managing your intake, just like any other potentially dangerous prescription medicine (statins anyone? how many people are dropping dead because of poorly managed or mis-prescription statins?)As a *crosses fingers* former user I can honestly say that I know more addicts and those in recovery that live in high rises in wealthy neighborhoods than those that live in tent cities. One is privileged and is privy to a multitude of options, the other isn't. We need to destigmatize addiction, especially within the lower classes.
Also, if we're not going to enforce the law equally, then the law should be repealed or rewritten. As much as we hate to see the wealthy treated as "above the law", I hate to see the desperate as somehow being "below the law" and therefore immune from its enforcement. The working and middle class just end up getting fucked from both ends.If you're on the streets here you can get away with pretty much whatever the fuck you want. Nobody is going to do anything about it.Is this really happening? I'd think that the desperate are rounded-up more than the wealthy. Being sympathetic to one's plight isn't the same as giving them immunity.
If I plant the wrong kind of tree on the shared right-of-way in front of your yard, the Portland municipal tree nazis will show up and possibly cost you thousands of dollars in fines and remediation. Don't even think about coppicing a tree in front of your house!
Agree 100% again. I think part of the problem is relying upon private partnerships to solve problems. The government avoids direct responsibility, and every private partner/contractor gets their cut of the pie so that we end up with the "trickle-down" economics of charity and non-profits. I see the solution as the state forming the agencies that need to do the work themselves and managing themselves to provide the most benefit at the lowest cost, with nobody taking a "cut" of the action. Robust public oversight and independent auditing is all that is needed to keep the state honest.Homelessness is just one part of the problem. There is also hunger. Lots of hungry families with homes will be going to bed hungry tonight, not because of war or lack of agriculture, but because they just don't have enough money. Then there's our shit education system and lack of mental health services. It's all one big mess of a ball of yarn that I would think at least start to become untangled if as much care was spent on the less fortunate than the really fortunate. But I don't think this will happen, at least in our lifetime.
Again, if I misconstrued anything, my bad. I'm better at dissecting a record than politics.
At this point, the city and state have seemingly abdicated their responsibilities to all citizens who aren't making for than $250k/yr. The overly dogmatic ultra left here is useless. They're only a polarizing force for idiots and have nothing to offer in terms of real workable solutions either.