Do you think the homeless situation in west coast cities will ever get better?

[Shawn]

I remember when Foxboro State Hospital was partially closed in 1994 and then fully closed in 1996. Overnight, there were dozens of formally-institutionalized wandering around neighborhoods and walking into unlocked houses.

They literally closed the place up and plopped people who a few hours ago were deemed incapable of taking care of themselves out onto the suburban streets of a 16,000 person Boston suburb.

Flashlight Lou was the name we gave to a particularly curious old fellow who rode his bike around town with a flash light duct-taped to a batting helmet he wore, day or night.

What they did to those people was a shameful tragedy.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by craigs

There is no way to hold 9th Circuit Court judges accountable; they serve for life. And they have ruled that cities on the West Coast cannot enforce laws related to homelessness until and unless they have a bed for every head. The irony is that any West Coast city that could house every unsheltered homeless person would immediately attract enough homeless people from the rest of the country to fill all the shelter beds and invoke the 9th Circuit Court's ruling against enforcing homeless laws.

Chicago doesn't have to live under that ruling.

You are 100% correct about that and unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the Boise suit on appeal.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I remember when Foxboro State Hospital was partially closed in 1994 and then fully closed in 1996. Overnight, there were dozens of formally-institutionalized wandering around neighborhoods and walking into unlocked houses.

They literally closed the place up and plopped people who a few hours ago were deemed incapable of taking care of themselves out onto the suburban streets of a 16,000 person Boston suburb.

Flashlight Lou was the name we gave to a particularly curious old fellow who rode his bike around town with a flash light duct-taped to a batting helmet he wore, day or night.

What they did to those people was a shameful tragedy.

Yeah that’s as bad as leaving people without the capacity to fend for themselves. It’s just sad.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I remember when Foxboro State Hospital was partially closed in 1994 and then fully closed in 1996. Overnight, there were dozens of formally-institutionalized wandering around neighborhoods and walking into unlocked houses.

They literally closed the place up and plopped people who a few hours ago were deemed incapable of taking care of themselves out onto the suburban streets of a 16,000 person Boston suburb.

Flashlight Lou was the name we gave to a particularly curious old fellow who rode his bike around town with a flash light duct-taped to a batting helmet he wore, day or night.

What they did to those people was a shameful tragedy.

Being in Tokyo, what is the Japanese attitude to homelessness? I've heard there is a population there.

[Pedestrian]

1970s New York got better so anything can. But as in New York, it will take an end to foolish "progressivism" brought about by a population finally fed up and new mayors who will to get tough about public behavior and crime while also reforming the effort to provide housing "of last resort". That starts by cutting the professional "homeless advocates" off from the public trough and spending the horrendous amounts of money already being spent (and wasted) on actual housing.

[Silewe]

Is forced institutionalism a right wing or left wing issue? Ive heard noise from both sides.


My opinion is this. You go to a shelter, an institution, or you are given a knife and dropped off in the woods.


Cities have no obligation to support a bum lifestyle.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

1970s New York got better so anything can. But as in New York, it will take an end to foolish "progressivism" brought about by a population finally fed up and new mayors who will to get tough about public behavior and crime while also reforming the effort to provide housing "of last resort". That starts by cutting the professional "homeless advocates" off from the public trough and spending the horrendous amounts of money already being spent (and wasted) on actual housing.

The beginnings of this is happening already.

I don’t know about that worthless douche DeBlasio, but in Chicago Mayor Lightfoot is getting a huge dose of reality after last year. Pie in the sky progressivism just doesn’t appeal to the masses who want schools open, are fed up with crime and a recent spate of carjackings, and other practical “livability” matters. When there is a huge economic downturn like the one we are experiencing, people don’t have the luxury of ideals. Safety and food on the table take precedence.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The beginnings of this is happening already.

I don’t know about that worthless douche DeBlasio, but in Chicago Mayor Lightfoot is getting a huge dose of reality after last year. Pie in the sky progressivism just doesn’t appeal to the masses who want schools open, are fed up with crime and a recent spate of carjackings, and other practical “livability” matters. When there is a huge economic downturn like the one we are experiencing, people don’t have the luxury of ideals. Safety and food on the table take precedence.

Lori Lightfood is not a progressive lol. She's not being attacked for her progressive policies.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

1970s New York got better so anything can. But as in New York, it will take an end to foolish "progressivism" brought about by a population finally fed up and new mayors who will to get tough about public behavior and crime while also reforming the effort to provide housing "of last resort". That starts by cutting the professional "homeless advocates" off from the public trough and spending the horrendous amounts of money already being spent (and wasted) on actual housing.

I'm pretty sure New York is the most progressive it's been in it's entire history right now, which admittedly is not saying much. But it doesn't support your logic here.

Your whole ideology is severely warped if you honestly believe "progressivism" is the cause of homelessness in California or anywhere for that matter. Also the current mayor of San Francisco is a staunch neoliberal who lied to citizen's faces about building new housing.

And what do you mean by "actual housing"? This doesn't make any sense.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Lori Lightfood is not a progressive lol. She's not being attacked for her progressive policies.

Yeah I don't know who in their right mind would consider Lightfoot a progressive. I guess compared to the literal devil that was Rahm Emanuel, but he'd make Republicans look progressive.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Lori Lightfood is not a progressive lol. She's not being attacked for her progressive policies.

I sort of think that was the point I was trying to make. Anybody with any prior ideologies is going to get a harsh dose of reality when trying to Govern a major city, particularly in these difficult times

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by The North One

to the literal devil that was Rahm Emanuel, but he'd make Republicans look progressive.

Rahm was one of Chicago’s greatest recent Mayors

[The North One]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Rahm was one of Chicago’s greatest recent Mayors

He tried to cover up the murder of a teenager...

And that hardly even scratches the surface of his awfulness. I wasn't joking when I said he's a devil.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by The North One

He tried to cover up the murder of a teenager...

And that hardly even scratches the surface of his awfulness. I wasn't joking when I said he's a devil.

He’s apparently not alone. Lightfoot recently was found to have helped the police in a recent cover up.

Putting aside Laquan McDonald, how else was Rahm “awful”? I take it you are a die hard progressive? Because that would pretty much explain why you don’t like him. He worked hard to bring investment to Chicago like it’s nobody’s business, he correctly had the balls to close 50 schools in districts with declining population, he promoted Chicago as well as he could. He invested in transit, bike lanes, and created the city’s first TOD ordinance. He rebuilt the Red Line. He incited confidence from the private sector in Chicago, in a way that we aren’t seeing today.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

1970s New York got better so anything can. But as in New York, it will take an end to foolish "progressivism" brought about by a population finally fed up and new mayors who will to get tough about public behavior and crime while also reforming the effort to provide housing "of last resort". That starts by cutting the professional "homeless advocates" off from the public trough and spending the horrendous amounts of money already being spent (and wasted) on actual housing.

this is 100% factual. Its already happening in LA. Garcetti is hated by most at this point. People are sick and tired of the BS

[The North One]

Garcetti is NOT a progressive either. He's a moderate establishment Democrat.

You guys seriously don't know what that word means. Just because a politician doesn't flirt with fascism doesn't mean they're progressive.

[the urban politician]

^ Disagree

Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden are moderate Democrats. Probably Lori Lightfoot too. She would not put up with homeless occupying streets indefinitely.

When you put pie in the sky ideals celebrated by 33 year old women with Sociology degrees above the practical needs of the taxpaying public, you are progressive and basically out of touch with reality.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Disagree

Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden are moderate Democrats. Probably Lori Lightfoot too. She would not put up with homeless occupying streets indefinitely.

When you put pie in the sky ideals celebrated by 33 year old women with Sociology degrees above the practical needs of the taxpaying public, you are progressive and basically out of touch with reality.

Allowing homeless people to live on the streets in not progressive policy. That's literally the opposite of what progressives advocate.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by The North One

I'm pretty sure New York is the most progressive it's been in it's entire history right now, which admittedly is not saying much. But it doesn't support your logic here.

Your whole ideology is severely warped if you honestly believe "progressivism" is the cause of homelessness in California or anywhere for that matter. Also the current mayor of San Francisco is a staunch neoliberal who lied to citizen's faces about building new housing.

And what do you mean by "actual housing"? This doesn't make any sense.

Amen. Just saying it has to do with progressive policies is scapegoating. They didn't become homeless because of progressive policies. At the same time once they become homeless this homeless advocate bullshit isn't helping matters either.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by The North One

I'm pretty sure New York is the most progressive it's been in it's entire history right now, which admittedly is not saying much. But it doesn't support your logic here.

NYC's hard left turn began when AOC won and shocked the local democratic machines. All of the sudden, every council member, state assemblyman and others turn the dials to 11 afraid of being primaried to their left. DeBlasio governed somewhat more from the center during his first term (He had Bratton has his police commish) but dropped the pretentions of sane policy once he won re-election.

In other words, NYC is still riding off of 25 years of either hard right (Guiliani) Center right (Bloomberg) or Center Left (1st Term DeBlasio) thought processes. If we get a hard left mayor this year, then you'll see what Pedestrian is talking about.