Universal income for Hobos. (fit in, home, job market)

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

So people who are severely rent burdened because of insanely high rents or who earn below 60 percent of area median income are hobos?

Brilliant logic.

People who think like you are the problems, not the solutions, and why we can't have nice things like nice clean streets free of tents, like other countries have.

Short answer- yes.


But I can elaborate more

"Rent burdened" is just another lefty term used to try and obfuscate real issue of lack of accountability for bad decision making. Just like terms "houselessness" or "food challenged".



I disagree with your assessment that those of us who challenge crazy, government, socialist programs that not only do not solve problems but actively create problems; are the issue in a place like Oregon.



Indeed the USA is very much in the middle of the pack for # hobo ranking per thousand people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ess_population





I challenge your assertion that (paraphrasing) "if only we had more money wasting social programs, the streets would be clean and free of hobos."

[movedintime]

Not money Wasting, but money well spent. Take 0ne homeless, pay for training for career that pays enough to afford todays rents and col. Rinse & repeat. Money will be returned via taxs & contribution to economy.

Giving $1000 to every homeless or low income will do nothing as nothing will be produced.

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

Short answer- yes.


But I can elaborate more

"Rent burdened" is just another lefty term used to try and obfuscate real issue of lack of accountability for bad decision making. Just like terms "houselessness" or "food challenged".



I disagree with your assessment that those of us who challenge crazy, government, socialist programs that not only do not solve problems but actively create problems; are the issue in a place like Oregon.



Indeed the USA is very much in the middle of the pack for # hobo ranking per thousand people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ess_population





I challenge your assertion that (paraphrasing) "if only we had more money wasting social programs, the streets would be clean and free of hobos."

If I were to lose the politically correct "homeless" or now "unhoused" I would not call them hobos. That to me is a term used for those that travel about with a few belongings, hitching rides on freight trains, sleeping on long distance buses, and actually does some undocumented work now and then for some money. There are very few of those today.

The people we are talking about do not work, get their money by stealing or begging, and are vagrants.

There are exceptions, such as Tent City 4 and some of the "Tiny House Villages" in the Seattle area where the homeless do have actual jobs and follow camp rules, but just can't afford an apartment yet.

I'm surprised that the state of Oregon has come up with this idea before the wildly out of control Seattle City Council.

[MechAndy]

If this reduces the homeless and drug addict population for California and Washington I’m in .
I’d even be good with the one way bus tickets coming from our taxes.

I been driving through Oregon almost every 6 weeks commuting to and from Washington and California this last 4-5 years.
I always get the creeps in Oregon.
Several times we have been propositioned to buy drugs at gas stations.
There was almost fight that broke out shoulder distance from me.
One of my kids liberal friends loves to preach that the riots were peaceful protests and needed.
I even have read here that this situation had nothing to do with Walmart giving up on this area.

I know that there just has to be some really good people there but honestly it is just the creeps that comes to mind when I think of Oregon.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by movedintime

Not money Wasting, but money well spent. Take 0ne homeless, pay for training for career that pays enough to afford todays rents and col. Rinse & repeat. Money will be returned via taxs & contribution to economy.

Giving $1000 to every homeless or low income will do nothing as nothing will be produced.

Any evidence of this?



First thing: 50-80% of any "training $" is siphoned off by bureaucracy, corruption and inefficiency. Remember - the primary goal of a government program is not solving "a problem" but ensure existence and growth of the program.


Second thing: training someone who has neither the desire not aptitude IS indeed a waste of $.

[skeddy]

Abbott will create a brochure about this great news and hand them out at the bus stop.

[Kid Ashbury]

Originally Posted by skeddy

Abbott will create a brochure about this great news and hand them out at the bus stop.

As he should. Oregon voters put in place policymakers who want to make Oregon a mecca for the homeless.

As such, Abbott would be doing the homeless and Oregonians a favor by passing this info along.

[Guineas]

Seattle says thank you.

[texasdiver]

It seems like there are about four categories of homeless at present.

1. The mostly "invisible" homeless who are ordinary folks, down on their luck who might be living out of their cars, couch surfing, staying in short-term motels, maybe camping at actual campgrounds, etc. Many already have jobs. These folks are helped by additional low-income housing. But since they are mostly already invisible, people won't notice much difference in the vagrant population if they are helped.

2. Mentally ill people who can't function in society. Nothing will help these people other than being institutionalized and being given treatment. The rest is a waste of time. We need more places to institutionalize them and to make it easier to do so.

3. Drug addicts, substance abusers, etc. Often these are criminals as well as addiction drives a lot of crime. The solution for these folks is drug prisons. Basically build rehab prisons and when they break the law, send them off to a rehab prison for a year or so to get them off the street and really get clean. We already have plenty of laws on the books and most of what they are doing is illegal. Just divert them to specialized drug rehab prisons that are focused to treating them. Will cost a ton of money but every solution to this problem costs a ton of money. Some might get help, some might not, but at least they are off the streets in the mean time.

4. Predators. There are the mobile predator criminal types who might not be technically homeless, they are more mobile housed. Perhaps live in older RVs or whatever and they go from place to place engaging in rampant criminality like bike theft, drug dealing, car theft, catalytic converter theft, etc. When things get too hot someplace they just move on. More or less transient criminal gangs. Only thing to do with these folks is like them up for long sentences until they age out of criminality.

Money isn't really going to help any of these except for the first category. And what they really actually need is lower cost housing not a stipend. They can do the rest.

[rrampage]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

It seems like there are about four categories of homeless at present.

1. The mostly "invisible" homeless who are ordinary folks, down on their luck who might be living out of their cars, couch surfing, staying in short-term motels, maybe camping at actual campgrounds, etc. Many already have jobs. These folks are helped by additional low-income housing. But since they are mostly already invisible, people won't notice much difference in the vagrant population if they are helped.

2. Mentally ill people who can't function in society. Nothing will help these people other than being institutionalized and being given treatment. The rest is a waste of time. We need more places to institutionalize them and to make it easier to do so.

3. Drug addicts, substance abusers, etc. Often these are criminals as well as addiction drives a lot of crime. The solution for these folks is drug prisons. Basically build rehab prisons and when they break the law, send them off to a rehab prison for a year or so to get them off the street and really get clean. We already have plenty of laws on the books and most of what they are doing is illegal. Just divert them to specialized drug rehab prisons that are focused to treating them. Will cost a ton of money but every solution to this problem costs a ton of money. Some might get help, some might not, but at least they are off the streets in the mean time.

4. Predators. There are the mobile predator criminal types who might not be technically homeless, they are more mobile housed. Perhaps live in older RVs or whatever and they go from place to place engaging in rampant criminality like bike theft, drug dealing, car theft, catalytic converter theft, etc. When things get too hot someplace they just move on. More or less transient criminal gangs. Only thing to do with these folks is like them up for long sentences until they age out of criminality.

Money isn't really going to help any of these except for the first category. And what they really actually need is lower cost housing not a stipend. They can do the rest.

Well, 2 through 4 don't have any easy solutions. Just stop-gaps.

Number 1 does have a solution, but it seems there's far too much money involved to enforce those real estate laws.

One thing is clear, all 4 are all systemic issues that revolve around resources not successfully getting to those in need.