AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Novacek

No, you posted an article that showed the total homeless population increased 17%. Not that there was a 17% increase in moves to Austin.

And it was 2016, not 2017.

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/hom...kets-to-austin



For the first time in _7 years_.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...him-to-austin/

oh, and that article directly disproves your earlier claim that:





Now who's being dishonest and acting in bad faith.

16 v 17 is a typo. also nitpicking, not engaging with my main point. doesn't make a difference.

I was referring to the 17% rise in homelessness, not bussing. Thought that was obvious.

interesting graph. more info on that here including the PIT study itself

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200...red-population

https://1zdndu3n3nla353ymc1h6x58-wpe...d-7.9.2020.pdf

first off from what I can tell everybody sources the PIT study. That almost seems insane to me. Maybe the most talked about issue in our city and the data we use is based off of a 1 night a year poll where a few hundred people go out and count all homeless people they can find and survey them. seriously look at our cities website https://www.austintexas.gov/homelessness it's all data from the 2020 PIT study.

secondly 2,506 homeless people is probably 1/3 what i would have guessed the population is of homeless in this city. that's not an incredibly huge number. this can be good news or bad news.

thirdly, i can now tell all of the "11, 17, x% increase in homeless population" articles you have read over the years are all bs and more reflective of the limitations of the study itself and ECHO says as much. see fig. 2 on page 4 in the PIT pdf


Earlier in this thread the thought that homeless people were 1 way bussed in this country was called a "conspiracy". When I illustrated it was very real and how to find more info the goalposts were moved to "but it doesn't happen in austin" when I proved it does happen in austin the goalpoasts were moved to "but that was 5 years ago" when someone pointed out a homeless man bussed in last week the goalposts became "well that's too small a sample size" This is when I ended my dialogue with that person and told them I did not think they were interested in having a good faith argument.

It looks like you think me being wrong about >50% of homeless being from outside of the city is enough to accuse me of acting in bad faith and dishonest. Not how this works.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by JAM

for those who dont oppose this situation, is what we have now works. tough titties if its in your backyard or causing damage to your business.

The other side: city hall, do your job, apply some rules to this, get it fixed, its not working.

Sorry, this is disingenuous as all get out and frankly insulting.

Like, engage in a conversation or don't, but engaging in straw-man arguments that no one has made and propping up the opposition as *only* unreasonable and your side as the ones that are reasonable isn't a discussion. Debate the people in the thread, not your imaginary opposition in your head.

Especially when I have seen multiple drive-by posts from the pro Pro-B crowd making various claims that when challenged are ignored.

Saying "some bussing of homeless to Austin" is not the same as claiming "50% are not even from here" and then telling me repeatedly to "talk to the cops, they'll tell you" and when I said I literally volunteer with the homeless population it was crickets.

The homeless population is an issue and dont think I've seen anyone in this thread that thinks the status quo is fine and "tough tiddies" if you think its not. The vast majority of the anti-Prop B side (both here and in the activists community) don't think the current situation is the end-game, but a step towards more humane treatment of people experiencing homelessness while the city works towards longer-term goals of rehousing and re-employment.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

16 v 17 is a typo. also nitpicking, not engaging with my main point. doesn't make a difference.

It's just one of a multitude of examples of you not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

Originally Posted by lonewolf

Earlier in this thread the thought that homeless people were 1 way bussed in this country was called a "conspiracy".

Your post is literally the first instance of the word "conspiracy" in this entire thread.

Originally Posted by lonewolf

When I illustrated it was very real and how to find more info the goalposts were moved to "but it doesn't happen in austin"

No one said "it doesn't happen in Austin".

There isn't any evidence that it happens frequently or is in any way a contributor to the overall problem we're having in Austin.

And yes, 2 examples in 5 years isn't evidence of such. *

What evidence we do have in fact suggests the opposite (that a supermajority of the homeless in Austin are from Austin).


*Actually 0 examples, of the original claim of "cities buying bus tickets".

Again, it's probably happened at least once, but we've given you days and there's still 0 concrete examples of it happening.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

secondly 2,506 homeless people is probably 1/3 what i would have guessed the population is of homeless in this city. that's not an incredibly huge number. this can be good news or bad news.

I think trying to count homeless people is a fools errand for a lot of reasons.

1) Who is "homeless" is really up for debate and depending on how you measure you can get very high or very low numbers. If we are talking about people who have been living on the street for some amount of time its probably not a that high of a number. But if you include people in shelters/on the street for a few nights here and there/living in cars/couch surfing/in places illegally (squatting/overstayed leases/going through eviction) it probably gets much bigger.

2) Like you said, going out one night to count people isn't going to do it. Its a snapshot in time, its who you can find/reach and its just going to be hard to do scientificlly.

3) I would imagine the numbers "jumping" 17% could at least partially be attributed to the camping ordinance as it stands. People are easier to find now and that could lead to over polling vs previous years.

Its probably one of those things that is worth doing because it gives you *some* level of baseline data to use, but you have to throw an * on it. I'm with you, I seriously doubt there are only 5K people in Austin living on the streets. I'd be thrilled if those numbers were real because that seems like a frankly solvable issue if its even close to true.

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It's just one of a multitude of examples of you not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

Your post is literally the first instance of the word "conspiracy" in this entire thread.


No one said "it doesn't happen in Austin".

There isn't any evidence that it happens frequently or is in any way a contributor to the overall problem we're having in Austin.

And yes, 2 examples in 5 years isn't evidence of such. *

What evidence we do have in fact suggests the opposite (that a supermajority of the homeless in Austin are from Austin).


*Actually 0 examples, of the original claim of "cities buying bus tickets".

Again, it's probably happened at least once, but we've given you days and there's still 0 concrete examples of it happening.

you are not engaging with my main point. you are nitpicking ie "actually it's 2016, not 2017" "you're the first person to use the word conspiracy" "we have some people from out of state but they're not a supermajority" this means that you are either very poor at arguing your point or you have none.


Let me make this easy for you. I will make a very clear, broad statement that I think reflects the points I have been trying to make in this thread:
I think that homeless people are bought one way tickets all the time in this country. I think the general trend is cities and towns that don't have robust homeless services send them to cities that do. I think Austin turned a corner within the last ten years and ended up being moreso on the receiving end of these tickets. I think this dynamic is obviously additive by nature and thusly would strain the services and funds dedicated to our cities homeless. Here are some relevant news clippings.

here is an article from homeless directors on both coasts saying they move homeless people into texas and specifically austin. one of them says they have relocated 230 people to austin since 2015. also quotes our mayor as saying such practices are an "urban myth" (i'm not talking to you right now, mr adler, am I?)

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/prog...d-other-states

here is an article of a man from armarillo being relocated to austin via a church program. they also say that they bought another homeless person a ticket to austin that month.

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/hom...0city%20offers.


here is an article from last week of a homeless man from giddings being moved here by their police dept bc they lack the homeless services we provide here

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...him-to-austin/

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I think trying to count homeless people is a fools errand for a lot of reasons.

1) Who is "homeless" is really up for debate and depending on how you measure you can get very high or very low numbers. If we are talking about people who have been living on the street for some amount of time its probably not a that high of a number. But if you include people in shelters/on the street for a few nights here and there/living in cars/couch surfing/in places illegally (squatting/overstayed leases/going through eviction) it probably gets much bigger.

2) Like you said, going out one night to count people isn't going to do it. Its a snapshot in time, its who you can find/reach and its just going to be hard to do scientificlly.

3) I would imagine the numbers "jumping" 17% could at least partially be attributed to the camping ordinance as it stands. People are easier to find now and that could lead to over polling vs previous years.

Its probably one of those things that is worth doing because it gives you *some* level of baseline data to use, but you have to throw an * on it. I'm with you, I seriously doubt there are only 5K people in Austin living on the streets. I'd be thrilled if those numbers were real because that seems like a frankly solvable issue if its even close to true.

1) agreed. they do try try to count "sheltered" and "unsheltered" and i imagine the latter number is verrry hazy

2) Agreed but I think 4 PIT surveys (if thats what they're going to rely on) would be wayyyy better than 1. I have a hunch there's a seasonal pattern to some degree.

3) ehhh I really think just the nature of how they conduct survey would result in fluctuations >10%. if you look at figure 2 on page 4 it really seems it's how many they "found" any given year.

It's just really illuminating to me in how much our city cares about the problem they are relying on that data. To me it indicates an incredible amount of unseriousness.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

you are not engaging with my main point. you are nitpicking ie "actually it's 2016, not 2017" "you're the first person to use the word conspiracy" "we have some people from out of state but they're not a supermajority" this means that you are either very poor at arguing your point or you have none.

My point is that you keep making statements that are false. Not only making statements without any evidence (though you do plenty of that) but you make claims that are easily disproved.

Originally Posted by lonewolf

Let me make this easy for you. I will make a very clear, broad statement that I think reflects the points I have been trying to make in this thread:
I think that homeless people are bought one way tickets all the time in this country. I think the general trend is cities and towns that don't have robust homeless services send them to cities that do.

Maybe. But apparently very, very rarely to Austin.

Since
A) you haven't been able to produce any examples of such.
B) if it happened with any great frequency, way more of the homeless in Austin would be from outside Austin.

We don't have a homeless problem in Austin because of "1 way buses". Our problem is homegrown.


For there to be a "trend", it would have to happen at least somewhat often.

Originally Posted by lonewolf

Here are some relevant news clippings.

Which you apparently didn't even bother to read.

Originally Posted by lonewolf

here is an article from homeless directors on both coasts saying they move homeless people into texas and specifically austin. one of them says they have relocated 230 people to austin since 2015.

Again with the lies.

That's 230 people to _All of Texas_.

And there's a substantial and fundamental difference between "buy someone a ticket because you don't have homeless services, so you send them to a city that does" (your claim) and helping them relocate "where they have family or friends that can help them find housing" (the program referenced in the article).

Both NYC and SF have homeless services.

[StoOgE]

This is a good article on homeless bussing that is pretty informative.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-country-study

The vast majority of people who are bussed are sent where they have family and almost all people are being bussed to lower-cost areas. That's not to say of course that 100% of homeless people that go where family are don't wind up experiencing homelessness again, but there is no strong data to suggest that bussing homeless people to Austin is a strong contributor. I think if you are going to make policy claims there needs to be a substantive study that shows something is a strong contributing factor and data to show it. Those (poorly written) local stories are not statistically meaningful in any way and certainly not the "50% of homeless aren't from here, ask anyone" we were getting 2 pages ago.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Debate the people in the thread, not your imaginary opposition in your head.

You took my statement out of context. I'm not debating. Just making an observation. BTW - I wouldn't consider your Seattle point downtown Seattle. Now that is a debate.

[KevinFromTexas]

There's a cool Austin mention in this video, and also a view of the Pennybacker Bridge. The mention comes at 59 minutes in, so pretty much at the end of it.

• Video Link

• Video Link

[kingkirbythe....]

This Photo Has Everything You Need To Know About Sixth Street in the 1970s

https://austin.towers.net/this-photo...-in-the-1970s/

The stretch of Sixth Street running east of Congress Avenue in downtown Austin has enjoyed many colorful lives over the 180-odd years since the city’s founding — periods of boom and bust motivated by surrounding growth and changing transportation systems have taken this street from an enclave of minority-friendly immigrant-owned retail stores

[paul78701]

Mobile Loaves & Fishes plans to quadruple its Community First Village for homeless Austinites:
https://www.statesman.com/story/news...in/7202865002/

[JAM]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Mobile Loaves & Fishes plans to quadruple its Community First Village for homeless Austinites:
https://www.statesman.com/story/news...in/7202865002/

Great to hear. 1400 homes for 119M. seems cost effective. be sure to donate. https://mlf.org/community-first/

Here is a non paywall article on it.
https://www.northwestgeorgianews.com...017f83537.html

[ahealy]

So... I think thanks to Austin FC, I've become more interested in major league sports as of late. What would be the chances of Austin getting an MLB team in our lifetimes? Baseball seems to be relatively big with my circle of friends (along with soccer).

Is it an Austin sport? Could we support MLS AND MLB? Just Friday morning can kickin' here....

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by ahealy

So... I think thanks to Austin FC, I've become more interested in major league sports as of late. What would be the chances of Austin getting an MLB team in our lifetimes? Baseball seems to be relatively big with my circle of friends (along with soccer).

Is it an Austin sport? Could we support MLS AND MLB? Just Friday morning can kickin' here....

I would say: "Yes, it's an Austin sport." Absolutely.

And, IF there was another major league sport to plant a flag in Austin, I believe it would be MLB. In any case, I also believe any new major league franchise to call Austin home would be a relocation of an existing one. None of the legacy leagues are expanding at the moment. Plus, any expansion fee will be astronomical compared to the MLS.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

I would say: "Yes, it's an Austin sport." Absolutely.

And, IF there was another major league sport to plant a flag in Austin, I believe it would be MLB. In any case, I also believe any new major league franchise to call Austin home would be a relocation of an existing one. None of the legacy leagues are expanding at the moment. Plus, any expansion fee will be astronomical compared to the MLS.

I agree with this assessment.

[Novacek]

I think MLB is also the league that could most feasibly expand beyond the 32 team number that most of the leagues seem to be gradually converging on. It's easier to handle a few more teams when you play 162 games per year than when you play 16(17)


I think Austin is either going to lose out on teams or get them way later than it otherwise would due to our growth coming later than most cities.

Say in 20 years when we're a metro of 4M. There will be NFL and NHL teams in cities _way_ smaller, but they'll be there because they landed there when Austin wasn't big enough to compete.

Edit/add: found this fun wiki chart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rts_franchises

We're by far the largest city on there with none of the big 4, and by far the largest with only 1 big 6. And that's just today, much less in 20 years.

[wwmiv]

I think football is out of the question here, as Longhorn football, Cowboys, and Texans will compete with eyeballs. I don’t think the local culture is as appreciative of baseball as some here believe. Basketball is dominated by the Spurs and the Austin market, when at 4 million, is going to even more integrated with San Antonio’s market, socially and economically.

Austin tends to prefer oddball sports. Biking, racing, rowing, swimming, tennis, rugby, soccer... hockey? I think the Ice Bats are more likely simply because of the culture to become a major league sports team than we get one of the other big 4. Gaming is also becoming more and more professionalized in sports-like leagues, and Austin is well primed to become a center for that, as well. Austin is simply the preeminent “alternative sports” city in the country. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

[Echostatic]

I think in a decade or so the Austin-San Antonio market could definitely support a NFL team. The Cowboys are popular, certainly, but Texans love football. San Antonio's AAFL team was the most attended for the few weeks that league existed. The problem of course is that no teams are ever being added, so somebody'd have to relocate here, which I doubt Jerry Jones would be happy with/allow.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I think football is out of the question here, as Longhorn football, Cowboys, and Texans will compete with eyeballs. I don’t think the local culture is as appreciative of baseball as some here believe. Basketball is dominated by the Spurs and the Austin market, when at 4 million, is going to even more integrated with San Antonio’s market, socially and economically.

Austin tends to prefer oddball sports. Biking, racing, rowing, swimming, tennis, rugby, soccer... hockey? I think the Ice Bats are more likely simply because of the culture to become a major league sports team than we get one of the other big 4. Gaming is also becoming more and more professionalized in sports-like leagues, and Austin is well primed to become a center for that, as well. Austin is simply the preeminent “alternative sports” city in the country. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

I think hockey is on the possible list as well, but I put it slightly below MLB, mostly due to other dynamics at play.
If and when Texas gets a second hockey team, I think it's undoubtedly going to Houston. They're by far the biggest city without all 4 big ones.

The NHL is also about to expand to 32, and I'm not sure they're ever going beyond that, taking away the expansion option for Austin. Plus there's way more Canadian teams (expectedly so) in the NHL, leaving fewer US spots.