A home for the homeless discussion (a thread about it)

[urbancore]

Anyone who has hiked Waller Creek in the last 20 years knows what’s been going on.

Yes on Prop B.

[StoOgE]

Camping is already banned in city parks. I invite you to check our Republic Square at night.

The city is generally anti-camping ban so why would they "wait" to open a park because of the pending result of an election where they wish to maintain the status quo.

If this has been an issue on waller creek for "20 years" it predates the city council action.

I swear there are people on this forum that think the encampments were on the grassy knoll. The park isn't open bc it looks like they are still doing some work on it.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I swear there are people on this forum that think the encampments were on the grassy knoll. The park isn't open bc it looks like they are still doing some work on it.

it was simply a question, lord. calm down, sir. it isn't that serious.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

it was simply a question, lord. calm down, sir. it isn't that serious.

It was a pointed question (I'd actually call it a speculative statement, but YMMV) with a clear implication of blaming the homeless population for a delayed park opening.

As far as the tone policing goes, by the time I responded a second time there was a multi-post anti homeless pile on on a thread that is theoretically about a flood diversion tunnel.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

If this has been an issue on waller creek for "20 years" it predates the city council action.

That’s my point. Our feckless council has ignored this problem for decades. No amount of tax money will take the place of leadership. Waller Creek deserves better, it always has.

But really, it’s not the council’s fault. It’s our fault.

[nixcity]

^Lol, the feckless republican council of SLC looks to Austin for solutions, again, lol. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/11...exas-solutions
And again, I ask; are you willing to take strong democratic socialist actions to curve or completely eradicate the issue as has only been done in Finland??

[Maximusx1]

Originally Posted by nixcity

^Lol, the feckless republican council of SLC looks to Austin for solutions, again, lol. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/11...exas-solutions
And again, I ask; are you willing to take strong democratic socialist actions to curve or completely eradicate the issue as has only been done in Finland??

NO!

And you're feckless!

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

a brand new multi-million dollar state of the art park in the middle of the city? yea, i think they may see a few tents pop up.

I've seen some tents at Butler Park over by the train tracks, but I didn't see any yesterday. And the playground was open.

Originally Posted by urbancore

Anyone who has hiked Waller Creek in the last 20 years knows what’s been going on.

Yes on Prop B.

Originally Posted by urbancore

That’s my point. Our feckless council has ignored this problem for decades. No amount of tax money will take the place of leadership. Waller Creek deserves better, it always has.

But really, it’s not the council’s fault. It’s our fault.

Oh, it's been going on longer than that. lol I saw homeless people bathing in the creek as far back as 1990 when my brother and I used to go screening for coins and trinkets down there with our dad. What bothers me the most about the homeless camps is that there are people finding themselves living that way. Not that I'm really worried about my safety. I go for bike rides sometimes on the trail way over into Southeast Austin over by the dam and I've never been bothered - even 10 o'clock at night. My biggest complaint with it is the trash blowing around and finding its way into our waterways.

[drummer]

I'm torn on the Proposition. I don't think what is currently happening can continue but I don't see a positive solution in the works on the scale that is needed to solve the problem. There ARE certainly some good things happening and I've worked with several non-profit, ministries, and social work organizations over the years to that end...but they're fighting an uphill battle with little support, relatively speaking. And I can attest to the fact that every country I have traveled to around the world has a large problem. Some are just better at hiding the problem (i.e., human beings) away. Finland's solution isn't a bad one, but how sustainable or scalable is it? I don't have the answers, just asking a question.

[nixcity]

Some are just better at hiding the problem (i.e., human beings) away.

If your version of hiding them away is housing then it sounds like they don't have a huge problem. If all of our homeless people were "hidden away" then there would be nothing to talk about right now.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by nixcity

If your version of hiding them away is housing then it sounds like they don't have a huge problem. If all of our homeless people were "hidden away" then there would be nothing to talk about right now.

I mean, Prop B isn't doing that, it has no funding for housing, it has no funding for anything. It's just making it illegal to sleep outside and says that homeless people should have permanent housing. Which, I mean yeah.

There are other initiatives that the city and private groups are working towards for permanent housing for the homeless, and those are bearing a lot of fruit (Foundational Communities, tiny houses, buying hotels, etc.), but obviously we are well short of housing everyone.

I think we are all going to wake up after Prop B is passed (which I expect it to) and a lot of people are going to be very disappointed that it didn't remove homeless people from sight in the city. Even on this forum people are for prop B because of things that are presently still illegal (like camping in parks). I mean, the signs and messaging from the pro prop B people is *extremely* promissory about what the post-prop B future looks like and I am sure the people who vote for it will just get angrier and continue pushing more and more restrictive measures against the homeless population when this plan also doesn't get rid of homeless people.

I would *still* love for someone to go to Republic Square or Wooldridge Square and show me the dystopian hellscape that I keep hearing about vs what both of those parks looked like a decade ago.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by nixcity

If your version of hiding them away is housing then it sounds like they don't have a huge problem. If all of our homeless people were "hidden away" then there would be nothing to talk about right now.

Nope, I don't personally have a version. I was merely observing trends that I've seen working among the poor throughout the world.

In most of these cases to which I'm referring, folks are in slums surrounding (or in the middle of) cities. However, in many cases, these are conveniently located away from high visibility areas (i.e., tourists, foreign businesses, etc.). This is appalling and I'm in no way supporting the practice, but it is happening. I don't want to see that here nor do I want to see the issue swept under the rug. But I also want the city to be able to function. Hence why I'm torn. I support finding solutions but my question was what is sustainable in our current reality as a city, state, and country.

[KevinFromTexas]

The thing that gets me is when the opportunity arises to buy a hotel to house the homeless, the neighborhoods fight it saying they don't want the homeless housed in their neighborhood. To that I say, but are you ok with them camping on the sidewalk in your neighborhood? And peeing in the bushes and cooking their food in the woods with campfires that might become wildfires? And they'll never get on their feet without an address. Those quarters should also not be permanent - and that needs to be made clear to everyone, both the homeless who would be living there and the taxpayers who would likely have participation in funding it. I just think the camping ban is premature since we don't yet have a solution. And if the state government wants to mandate a camping ban then they can also help fund housing for the homeless in the state's big cities.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The thing that gets me is when the opportunity arises to buy a hotel to house the homeless, the neighborhoods fight it saying they don't want the homeless housed in their neighborhood. To that I say, but are you ok with them camping on the sidewalk in your neighborhood? And peeing in the bushes and cooking their food in the woods with campfires that might become wildfires? And they'll never get on their feet without an address. Those quarters should also not be permanent - and that needs to be made clear to everyone, both the homeless who would be living there and the taxpayers who would likely have participation in funding it. I just think the camping ban is premature since we don't yet have a solution. And if the state government wants to mandate a camping ban then they can also help fund housing for the homeless in the state's big cities.

Yep, I am looking at the (mostly) NIMBY neighborhood associations on that one. They truly can't have it both ways....

Maybe it's blind optimism, but I think this will all be much better within a few years. We're shining the LIGHT on this finally.....for the good of every Austinite, with or without an address/roof over their heads.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Yep, I am looking at the (mostly) NIMBY neighborhood associations on that one. They truly can't have it both ways....

Maybe it's blind optimism, but I think this will all be much better within a few years. We're shining the LIGHT on this finally.....for the good of every Austinite, with or without an address/roof over their heads.

Agreed - conversations are happening and they can't be ignored anymore. I consider that a step in the right direction. Bottom line, solutions are needed, and solutions require compromise. A tad bit of humility and compassion couldn't hurt either.

[Global]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I mean, Prop B isn't doing that, it has no funding for housing, it has no funding for anything. It's just making it illegal to sleep outside and says that homeless people should have permanent housing. Which, I mean yeah.

There are other initiatives that the city and private groups are working towards for permanent housing for the homeless, and those are bearing a lot of fruit (Foundational Communities, tiny houses, buying hotels, etc.), but obviously we are well short of housing everyone.

I think we are all going to wake up after Prop B is passed (which I expect it to) and a lot of people are going to be very disappointed that it didn't remove homeless people from sight in the city. Even on this forum people are for prop B because of things that are presently still illegal (like camping in parks). I mean, the signs and messaging from the pro prop B people is *extremely* promissory about what the post-prop B future looks like and I am sure the people who vote for it will just get angrier and continue pushing more and more restrictive measures against the homeless population when this plan also doesn't get rid of homeless people.

I would *still* love for someone to go to Republic Square or Wooldridge Square and show me the dystopian hellscape that I keep hearing about vs what both of those parks looked like a decade ago.

I have been communicating with my city council rep (Tovo), and I haven't gotten one hint of a long-term plan (her vision at least) for addressing homelessness in Austin. While I also don't think we need to criminalize homelessness, clearly the status quo isn't working. (Why can't we ban camping in some areas, but allow it in designated other areas?) And when I say it isn't working, it isn't working for me. My neighborhood has always had a few homeless folks who here and there, but in the last year we've had homeless folks wake us in the middle of the night -- apparently they were fighting and spending the night in the the little greenway near the house. Other mornings we've found a man sleeping on the tiny slice of green outside the back fence on the back alley of the house.

I get it, it's a minor inconvenience compared to the struggles a homeless person faces, and I know I will come across as tone-deaf, privileged...but if you had my commute and see the slums that are growing under the elevated portions of i-35, 183, and increasingly so many other places...with intoxicated homeless people crossing 3 lanes of traffic in the dark of night...and city council has no real long term plan, how am I suppose to oppose Prop B?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Global

and city council has no real long term plan, how am I suppose to oppose Prop B?

Because that's not true.

We do have a long term plan. And we'd be a lot further along with it if:

A) Covid hadn't severely reduced shelter capacity
and
B) Williamson County, the State, etc. wouldn't keep fighting hotel purchases.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Because that's not true.

We do have a long term plan.

Source?

If council had a plan, then why did the Mayor recently tweet about the urgency to develop a plan?

Council has platitudes, but no long term plan. I’ve spoken to Kitchen at length about this. They have zero plan.

And buying a few hotels is hardly a “long term plan”.

My sources tell me the council expects the prop to pass, but that council will direct the police to not enforce it. I doubt much will change.

[Myomi]

Can I ask you guys that are "Vote Yes on Prob B" what you think you are actually voting on?

Ok, so we criminalize homelessness. We write them a ticket? We throw them in jail? We take all their property and resources away from them (which in itself is a unfunded mandate which will cause tense interactions between police and a desperate group of people...sounds like a great idea). I guess that will force all these people to just decide to not be homeless. Right?

Since people are complaing that there isn't a plan, how is this a plan? Are we saying clear them (human beings) away so I don't have to see them, even though they exist and often are a result of the explosive growth we cheer about on this forum?

Reduced parking requirements, CodeNext, allowances for granny flats and other things cheered for on this page should be the answers we seek for this problem, amongst others. Not sweeping people away because we don't like the look. Yes the camps are unsafe. Hiding them isn't the solution. The visibility of them should force all of us to examine how we together can work to eliminate the underlying systemic issues causing people to live in such desperate situations.

Or maybe we can ignore the reality so we can enjoy what we have? I guess there is a little NIMBY in all of us...

[mercury6]

Originally Posted by Myomi

Can I ask you guys that are "Vote Yes on Prob B" what you think you are actually voting on?

Ok, so we criminalize homelessness. We write them a ticket? We throw them in jail? We take all their property and resources away from them (which in itself is a unfunded mandate which will cause tense interactions between police and a desperate group of people...sounds like a great idea). I guess that will force all these people to just decide to not be homeless. Right?

Since people are complaing that there isn't a plan, how is this a plan? Are we saying clear them (human beings) away so I don't have to see them, even though they exist and often are a result of the explosive growth we cheer about on this forum?

Reduced parking requirements, CodeNext, allowances for granny flats and other things cheered for on this page should be the answers we seek for this problem, amongst others. Not sweeping people away because we don't like the look. Yes the camps are unsafe. Hiding them isn't the solution. The visibility of them should force all of us to examine how we together can work to eliminate the underlying systemic issues causing people to live in such desperate situations.

Or maybe we can ignore the reality so we can enjoy what we have? I guess there is a little NIMBY in all of us...

there's a thread for this somewhere, probably shouldn't be here where people are looking for pics and updates of the Waller Creek Flood Tunnel