HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 12:17 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,673
I don't want whole areas of my city trashed by homeless encampments. I am pretty sure about that. There will always be homeless people, and many or most will eschew shelter environments unless they are forced to use them. Some of these people need in- patient mental health care and compulsory medication regimens. Others need drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. Most of these people did not end up in the streets due to a scarcity of affordable housing. Most of them lacked the emotional and mental stability needed to maintain themselves in housing of one kind or another. There is a portion of the homeless population that ended up in the streets due to loss of employment or high housing costs. Here in Austin there are programs that actually do help these individuals and families to find housing options. Motivated individuals and families are able to find a way out of homelessness using these programs. Most of the people I observe on the streets will tell you they want employment and housing. I am not convinced they mean it. Yeah, they'd like a motel room or a cheap crib somewhere, but most would use it to maintain a lifestyle of drug abuse and other illegal activities. The mentally ill would mostly continue to avoid psychiatric drugs and self medicate. The true drug addicts would continue doing what they do. Letting this population more or less take over streets, underpasses, parks, and trails does not solve the homeless problem, but it does alienate residents of the city who do not want to be confronted with lawlessness and squalor at every turn of the corner. Giving this population carte blanche to do as they please is not a compassionate response; it is really just ignoring the problem and hoping that it will somehow go away.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 12:52 AM
Qubert Qubert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
But it's exactly what a culture like ours, which has religious and moral views descended from those held by a bunch of scraggly low class settlers from the British Isles, would do.

Not a history expert, but IIRC starting in the middle age, England had poor houses and in some eras even had the death penalty for "vagabonds". In the 1700s and 1800s because of economic changes creating mass migrations of peasants they got even more strict and people were pressed into manual labor at these institutions if they were found to not be employed or living outside the area they had residency in. The design of modern prisons owes a lot to these places. The panopticon concept, the striped prisoner clothes, etc. Those were invented by "liberals" of the era like Jeremy Bentham. The term used for people who lived in the poor houses was literally "inmates". Their living conditions were deliberately meant to be as punitive and unpleasant as possible. Families were broken up and children were institutionalized too.

Sometimes when I argue online with very conservative people here in 21st century USA I get the feeling that if they had their way this old system would come back. If you ask them where should homeless or poor people go, they have no answer, but they don't want to see them. If you say we should help people they say they don't deserve it. All they really want is for people they see as scum to punished.
Blaming phantom Fox News boogeymen isn't going to get a single one of those souls off the street. Do you think the Soviet Union would've allowed someone to shuffle through Red Square with their pants down their ankles?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 1:33 AM
llamaorama llamaorama is online now
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,443
Quote:
Yeah, they'd like a motel room or a cheap crib somewhere, but most would use it to maintain a lifestyle of drug abuse and other illegal activities.
So what? Better that than being on the street. Are you saying that everyone who can't get by independently has to be locked up in an austere clinical setting?

What's wrong with a middle path, where marginal people get enough help where they can semi-independently in a dorm like setting and have some kind of basic job. Or is that too good for them? Should someone who is suffering from clinical depression or bipolar disorder now be terrified to seek help because they'll get marked a crazy and lose their freedom?

This can't be a one sized fits all situation.

Quote:
Most of these people did not end up in the streets due to a scarcity of affordable housing. Most of them lacked the emotional and mental stability needed to maintain themselves in housing of one kind or another.
I never believed this. You are creating two groups - crazy bums and normal people. In reality I imagine its a spectrum where people with a wide range of issues may run the risk of becoming homeless based on certain circumstances.

A middle class apartment complex will evict someone if they become a nuisance, have suspicious friends over and do drugs, fall behind on rent, etc. At the same time these people can survive in trailers or slum housing where there are fewer rules or limits on roommates, etc.Homeless doesn't necessarily mean living on the street, it can mean couch surfing or having unstable living situation. That's harder to do in expensive places. Some of these people can scrape money together to live on their own in a cheap place, but not in an expensive place.

Another issue I see is that it makes it impossible to get back on your feet without moving. In order to afford rent in Los Angeles, you would have basically take someone off the streets and send them to earn a master's degree and become a software engineer making 100k a year. That's just silly. In a city like Houston you could rehabilitate someone to a point where they got a job as a construction worker and they could move in with a roommate and be on their own.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 2:56 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
So what? Better that than being on the street. Are you saying that everyone who can't get by independently has to be locked up in an austere clinical setting?

What's wrong with a middle path, where marginal people get enough help where they can semi-independently in a dorm like setting and have some kind of basic job. Or is that too good for them? Should someone who is suffering from clinical depression or bipolar disorder now be terrified to seek help because they'll get marked a crazy and lose their freedom?

This can't be a one sized fits all situation.



I never believed this. You are creating two groups - crazy bums and normal people. In reality I imagine its a spectrum where people with a wide range of issues may run the risk of becoming homeless based on certain circumstances.

A middle class apartment complex will evict someone if they become a nuisance, have suspicious friends over and do drugs, fall behind on rent, etc. At the same time these people can survive in trailers or slum housing where there are fewer rules or limits on roommates, etc.Homeless doesn't necessarily mean living on the street, it can mean couch surfing or having unstable living situation. That's harder to do in expensive places. Some of these people can scrape money together to live on their own in a cheap place, but not in an expensive place.

Another issue I see is that it makes it impossible to get back on your feet without moving. In order to afford rent in Los Angeles, you would have basically take someone off the streets and send them to earn a master's degree and become a software engineer making 100k a year. That's just silly. In a city like Houston you could rehabilitate someone to a point where they got a job as a construction worker and they could move in with a roommate and be on their own.
Man, I was just writing a really long response to your post and managed to lose the whole thing. I probably don't have it in me to try to re-write it. Briefly though, I got a Masters in Social Work at USC in the mid 1980s and worked with the chronic mentally ill outpatient population in LA and in the DC metro for the next 8 years. My information is dated, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of the complexities involved. Up until around 1985, due to generous federal grants, most states (and especially California) had significant outpatient mental health services and a wide variety of housing options available to treat the chronic mentally ill population following court ordered de-institutionalization. These programs started in the early 1970s when the hospitals started to empty out. The belief was that a medication compliant mentally ill population could get the services it needed in the community. Almost immediately there was a very visible increase in the number of homeless people on the streets of major US cities. Why? The simplest answer is that these people were not medication compliant and drifted away from the system in ever increasing numbers. After the federal government cut funding in the Reagan years, the problem became much worse. Local outpatient services deteriorated or disappeared. Patients who were not medication compliant or otherwise unable/unwilling to abide by the rules of independent or semi-independent living facilities pretty much were left to fend for themselves.

I did my Masters writing project on one such person, a woman named Ruby who lived in the bus shelter on West Third St. and South Kingsley in front of the 7/11 store on the near westside of LA. Ruby was determined to stay on the streets, and she only left her shelter every now and then for what she described as a "rest cure". She would check herself into or be taken by police to emergency psych services at County General Hospital where she would get 10 days or so in-patient care. This went on for years. She was still living in her bus shelter talking all night to the people in the advertising posters on the shelter wall when I moved to DC in the late 80s. I went to work in DC (suburban Maryland) in an outpatient clinical facility. Funding was cut with each new budget. More and more of our clients began to have dicey housing arrangements, and keep in mind our clients were at least somewhat compliant with medication and treatment. Many disappeared into a life of self medication and crack cocaine addiction. Meanwhile, the visible homeless population continued to grow and grow. The population I am describing is just one component of the homeless population, but it is a major component. I reluctantly have come to the conclusion that mandatory medication compliance, regular clinical care, and supervised housing of some sort are the only realistic solutions for this group of homeless. All that costs a ton of money, so I don't see it happening. If you can find a hotel or motel that is willing to provide housing for these folks in the interim, more power to you and to the housing providers as well.

The drug addicted homeless population is probably divided between the psychotic and near psychotic self medication group and another large cohort of mostly younger (but not all young by any means) hard core drug users. Some of them have been addicted since their teen years. Others came back from the military in pretty bad shape and took to life on the streets. Employment is usually not part of their repertpoire. Scoring the next hit of crack or a syringe full of heroin, coke, or meth is their priority. This crowd loves a good motel room, but they won't put it to good use. My knowledge of this population stems from my participation in a 12 step program (I am not allowed to say which one but it involves drugs) where I have met dozens of young and not so young people who are trying to get clean and, in many instances, get off the streets. If they are genuinely motivated, there is a reasonable chance that they might succeed, but timing is everything with this endeavor because the rate of failure is very, very high. How does it usually end? Well, in the rooms where I hang out once or twice a week, the word is that it ends in "jails, institutions, and death". I believe that to be true for the most part. Community or government funding for drug treatment programs and half way or 3/4 housing would be very useful, but most of the problem will remain unless drugs disappear or law enforcement really comes down hard on this group with sentencing options that include mandatory treatment and ongoing drug testing.

There are some good programs in Austin for homeless individuals and families who are willing and able to work with they systems that are in place. Foundation Communities is one program that has provided housing for various different types of homeless individuals and families, including large numbers of medication/treatment compliant mentally ill. Still, what Foundation and other programs can offer is a drop in the bucket. The overall problem of homelessness is so multi-faceted. Affordable housing is certainly an issue, but it is NOT the root cause of homelessness in Austin or in most cities. The causes are much more systemic and complex. There is no one solution.

My fear here in Austin is that that we are quickly going to become known nationwide as a all-weather mecca for homeless living. If you can stand the summer heat, Austin is certainly more congenial in the wintertime than places like Portland, Seattle, or Olympia. If we do end up with several thousand homeless living all over town in tents and encampments, there is likely to be some very unpleasant political fallout. Austin is liberal, but it's not that liberal.

Last edited by austlar1; Jul 8, 2019 at 4:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 3:25 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,416
Construction workers make $100k in major cities. I mean a journeyman carpenter.

As for that apartment, if you're homeless I'd guess three to a unit would be great as long as necessary.

And yes, the report is by the local "Sinclair" fox equivalent...there's a lot of truth in it, but it's a hit piece by the right wing media.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 3:53 AM
AviationGuy AviationGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
Austin just made it LEGAL for homeless people to sleep in the street, parks, or public property as long as they are not obstructing traffic. It is a boneheaded move. For the past year or two, tent communities of varying size have been showing up underneath freeways and in vacant nearby land. There are people flying signs at every busy intersection. The population is not your old school skid row crowd. It is a mix of young and middle aged people who seem to have a host of substance abuse and mental health issues. I predict that Austin will have a set of problems similar to those found in West Coast cities in the near future. The decision to make this behavior legal seems motivated by the fact that it was already happening, and there is a strong desire to encourage the highly visible homeless population in a certain corner of downtown to gravitate further out away from downtown. Most homeless services are still downtown and draw a large crowd that sleeps on the sidewalks and underpasses nearby.

We're even seeing camps setting up under freeways in affluent areas of Austin, notably the Arboretum area. The trash and debris are building up. I feel that the mayor and city council should go out daily and clean up all the garbage all over Austin from these camps. Even the intersections are getting trashed out. It's becoming a political issue, and although I have generally supported the mayor and council, I will vote against every one of them next time.

Yesterday, one of the transients was blocking traffic on Capital of Texas by the Arboretum, and when motorists started yelling at him, he yelled even more and stood right in front of the vehicles, causing quite a jam.

Austin may seem like an easy going place, but I don't know anyone who is happy about these camps and all the garbage strewn about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 4:53 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by AviationGuy View Post
We're even seeing camps setting up under freeways in affluent areas of Austin, notably the Arboretum area. The trash and debris are building up. I feel that the mayor and city council should go out daily and clean up all the garbage all over Austin from these camps. Even the intersections are getting trashed out. It's becoming a political issue, and although I have generally supported the mayor and council, I will vote against every one of them next time.

Yesterday, one of the transients was blocking traffic on Capital of Texas by the Arboretum, and when motorists started yelling at him, he yelled even more and stood right in front of the vehicles, causing quite a jam.

Austin may seem like an easy going place, but I don't know anyone who is happy about these camps and all the garbage strewn about.
I'm afraid that our wonderful system of hike and bike and running trails is going to get trashed. That seems to be a favorite setting for homeless camps in the Pacific Northwest. Take a tour on YouTube for a first hand look. Olympia, WA, seems to be especially hard hit. Here is a two year old clip about a camp not far from my house in SW Austin. This camp was/is deep in the woods, but soon they are going to be setting up tents right along the pathways and trails because it is now legal as long as traffic is not obstructed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfeYIF8jJ3k
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 5:05 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
Man, I was just writing a really long response to your post and managed to lose the whole thing. I probably don't have it in me to try to re-write it. Briefly though, I got a Masters in Social Work at USC in the mid 1980s and worked with the chronic mentally ill outpatient population in LA and in the DC metro for the next 8 years. My information is dated, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of the complexities involved. Up until around 1985, due to generous federal grants, most states (and especially California) had significant outpatient mental health services and a wide variety of housing options available to treat the chronic mentally ill population following court ordered de-institutionalization. These programs started in the early 1970s when the hospitals started to empty out. The belief was that a medication compliant mentally ill population could get the services it needed in the community. Almost immediately there was a very visible increase in the number of homeless people on the streets of major US cities. Why? The simplest answer is that these people were not medication compliant and drifted away from the system in ever increasing numbers. After the federal government cut funding in the Reagan years, the problem became much worse. Local outpatient services deteriorated or disappeared. Patients who were not medication compliant or otherwise unable/unwilling to abide by the rules of independent or semi-independent living facilities pretty much were left to fend for themselves.

I did my Masters writing project on one such person, a woman named Ruby who lived in the bus shelter on West Third St. and South Kingsley in front of the 7/11 store on the near westside of LA. Ruby was determined to stay on the streets, and she only left her shelter every now and then for what she described as a "rest cure". She would check herself into or be taken by police to emergency psych services at County General Hospital where she would get 10 days or so in-patient care. This went on for years. She was still living in her bus shelter talking all night to the people in the advertising posters on the shelter wall when I moved to DC in the late 80s. I went to work in DC (suburban Maryland) in an outpatient clinical facility. Funding was cut with each new budget. More and more of our clients began to have dicey housing arrangements, and keep in mind our clients were at least somewhat compliant with medication and treatment. Many disappeared into a life of self medication and crack cocaine addiction. Meanwhile, the visible homeless population continued to grow and grow. The population I am describing is just one component of the homeless population, but it is a major component. I reluctantly have come to the conclusion that mandatory medication compliance, regular clinical care, and supervised housing of some sort are the only realistic solutions for this group of homeless. All that costs a ton of money, so I don't see it happening. If you can find a hotel or motel that is willing to provide housing for these folks in the interim, more power to you and to the housing providers as well.

The drug addicted homeless population is probably divided between the psychotic and near psychotic self medication group and another large cohort of mostly younger (but not all young by any means) hard core drug users. Some of them have been addicted since their teen years. Others came back from the military in pretty bad shape and took to life on the streets. Employment is usually not part of their repertpoire. Scoring the next hit of crack or a syringe full of heroin, coke, or meth is their priority. This crowd loves a good motel room, but they won't put it to good use. My knowledge of this population stems from my participation in a 12 step program (I am not allowed to say which one but it involves drugs) where I have met dozens of young and not so young people who are trying to get clean and, in many instances, get off the streets. If they are genuinely motivated, there is a reasonable chance that they might succeed, but timing is everything with this endeavor because the rate of failure is very, very high. How does it usually end? Well, in the rooms where I hang out once or twice a week, the word is that it ends in "jails, institutions, and death". I believe that to be true for the most part. Community or government funding for drug treatment programs and half way or 3/4 housing would be very useful, but most of the problem will remain unless drugs disappear or law enforcement really comes down hard on this group with sentencing options that include mandatory treatment and ongoing drug testing.

There are some good programs in Austin for homeless individuals and families who are willing and able to work with they systems that are in place. Foundation Communities is one program that has provided housing for various different types of homeless individuals and families, including large numbers of medication/treatment compliant mentally ill. Still, what Foundation and other programs can offer is a drop in the bucket. The overall problem of homelessness is so multi-faceted. Affordable housing is certainly an issue, but it is NOT the root cause of homelessness in Austin or in most cities. The causes are much more systemic and complex. There is no one solution.

My fear here in Austin is that that we are quickly going to become known nationwide as a all-weather mecca for homeless living. If you can stand the summer heat, Austin is certainly more congenial in the wintertime than places like Portland, Seattle, or Olympia. If we do end up with several thousand homeless living all over town in tents and encampments, there is likely to be some very unpleasant political fallout. Austin is liberal, but it's not that liberal.
Great post. Completely agree. In California, we need to amend the lanterman act to allow for involuntary mental holds for 60 or 90 days. We also need to build thousands of mental hospital beds /treatment centers. A majority of the chronically homeless in skid row and downtown are either mentally ill or drug induced mentally ill, and they cause a disproportionate amount of the issues down here related to crime /quality of life issues / etc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 5:07 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by AviationGuy View Post
We're even seeing camps setting up under freeways in affluent areas of Austin, notably the Arboretum area. The trash and debris are building up. I feel that the mayor and city council should go out daily and clean up all the garbage all over Austin from these camps. Even the intersections are getting trashed out. It's becoming a political issue, and although I have generally supported the mayor and council, I will vote against every one of them next time.

Yesterday, one of the transients was blocking traffic on Capital of Texas by the Arboretum, and when motorists started yelling at him, he yelled even more and stood right in front of the vehicles, causing quite a jam.

Austin may seem like an easy going place, but I don't know anyone who is happy about these camps and all the garbage strewn about.
Yup, that's just the start.. Wait till the aclu gets involved and the homeless advocacy groups start pandering for more money. It will only get worse
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 5:09 AM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,490
even during the worst of the recession, point in time surveys didnt increase dramatically and have actually gone down. the phony housing "emergency" enacted by the l.a. mayor and every other large west coast mayors manufactured the tent problem. expensive housing does not beget automatic homeless meltdowns, it makes people move to a cheaper neighborhood first. highly potent, easy to obtain opiates mixed with a lax enforcement environment begets tent crisis! legalizing tent camping in west coast cities gave junkies a safe place to shoot up.
__________________
Portland!! Where young people go to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 5:10 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
I'm afraid that our wonderful system of hike and bike and running trails is going to get trashed. That seems to be a favorite setting for homeless camps in the Pacific Northwest. Take a tour on YouTube for a first hand look. Olympia, WA, seems to be especially hard hit. Here is a two year old clip about a camp not far from my house in SW Austin. This camp was/is deep in the woods, but soon they are going to be setting up tents right along the pathways and trails because it is now legal as long as traffic is not obstructed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfeYIF8jJ3k
Not really in Seattle. The Burke Gilman and I-90 trails, the two I ride frequently, are both pristine.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 5:26 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,673
Glad to hear that. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Seattle PD and Health Dept. regularly evict camps and do clean ups of large or seemingly out of control encampments? I know that happens in other NW cities, but it is kind of like playing whack a mole in many instances. I hope Austin authorities will have the legal authority to do the same. The new ordinance is rather vague in that regard. Our reactionary Governor Abbott has already indicated that he and his Repug legislature will over-ride the Austin ordinance at the first opportunity. That won't happen until the next session of the leg meets in a year and a half since the state leg only meets every other year. That's right, the second most populous state has a legislature that meets every other year unless a special session is called. Usually we regard that as a blessing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 9:03 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Construction workers make $100k in major cities. I mean a journeyman carpenter.

As for that apartment, if you're homeless I'd guess three to a unit would be great as long as necessary.

And yes, the report is by the local "Sinclair" fox equivalent...there's a lot of truth in it, but it's a hit piece by the right wing media.
I wish you'd get who authored it out of your system and address what it's saying. I don't even care if you deal with the situation in Seattle. If you agree the situation is serious in some other city--call it San Francisco--I'm fine with that. Stop being so single-mindedly defensive ('cause everybody knows Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, LA all have the same problem).

The fundamental point here is that the governments of American cities have lost control of public decorum either because they don't give a damn or because they consider the rights of the crazy and addicted to act out and do drugs and move their bowells in public to be more sacred than the right of taxpayers to have clean/clear sidewalks and needle-free parks for their kids to play in.

For two days running now, while patronizing a restaurant in my city, I have watched as a deranged, disheveled person barged in and created chaos. It's gotten to be practically the norm. Burger joints are having to hire security guards and bouncers. I know of at least one Subway that closed after there was a murder inside it. In another thread we've discussed how public transit has become a zoo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 12:06 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 17,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
Half crazy addicts have always existed. In the past they generally lived in the cheapest apartments in the worst neighborhoods. What has changed is that they can't afford those places anymore. There is a strong correlation between high rents and people living on the fringes being homeless. Part of the reason it seems like a west coast problem is that the cities of the west coast are expensive.

One of the perverse things about modern America that we have become numb to is that generally our wealthiest cities are the ones with the worst homelessness. Something has become fundamentally broken in our housing markets. All of our more prosperous cities are slowly turning into San Francisco.
I don’t think this is correct. Most chronic homeless (as opposed to those temporarily homeless) will have addiction or mental health issues. Even in places where there are ample shelters and a legal obligation to house the homeless (like NYC), a lot of people sleep on the street because that’s what they choose to do. They aren’t of sound mind to make that decision, but the state has no legal authority to force them into shelters.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 12:33 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 39,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post

And yes, the report is by the local "Sinclair" fox equivalent...there's a lot of truth in it, but it's a hit piece by the right wing media.
Isn't KOMO an ABC affiliate? (As per the logo in the video.)

I didn't think ABC was alt-right/Trumpist media.
__________________
I really should be getting paid for this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 12:57 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 39,847
Biased or not (the title of the report/thread for starters just sucks and is way too hyperbolic), but there is stuff in there that you just can't make up and for me it was quite eye-opening.

Over here on the other side of the continent and north of the border, people tend to have an idealized view of certain American cities, and Seattle is often one of those cities. (Vancouverites may have a different view, as they're a lot closer in all ways than I am.)

I've read in other forums about concerning stuff going on in Portland (OR) as well.

I am not going to get into the social policy implications and effects in this post, but it's a bit depressing to see this happening to cities that have been so often cited as American urban success stories.

(San Francisco's star has also become noticeably dimmer in recent years as well - in its case the word has gotten out. It's still a gold star U.S. city in many ways but the classic big city problems, while always more present there than in Seattle/Portland, seem to be getting a bit out of control.)
__________________
I really should be getting paid for this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 5:27 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Isn't KOMO an ABC affiliate? (As per the logo in the video.)
It can be Sinclair owned and also an ABC affiliate. Affiliate just means there is an agreement to broadcast ABC network programming.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 5:39 PM
AviationGuy AviationGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
Glad to hear that. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Seattle PD and Health Dept. regularly evict camps and do clean ups of large or seemingly out of control encampments? I know that happens in other NW cities, but it is kind of like playing whack a mole in many instances. I hope Austin authorities will have the legal authority to do the same. The new ordinance is rather vague in that regard. Our reactionary Governor Abbott has already indicated that he and his Repug legislature will over-ride the Austin ordinance at the first opportunity. That won't happen until the next session of the leg meets in a year and a half since the state leg only meets every other year. That's right, the second most populous state has a legislature that meets every other year unless a special session is called. Usually we regard that as a blessing.
In general, I can't stand Gov Abbott or any of the Texas GOP, but if Abbott can save Texas cities from the filth from the camps, I'll vote for him if he runs again. Everyone has hot button issues. This is one of mine. I like a clean environment (I spent a career in that field), and I'll be damned if I'll stand by and let this happen to our cities (any more than it already has).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 5:42 PM
AviationGuy AviationGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I wish you'd get who authored it out of your system and address what it's saying. I don't even care if you deal with the situation in Seattle. If you agree the situation is serious in some other city--call it San Francisco--I'm fine with that. Stop being so single-mindedly defensive ('cause everybody knows Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, LA all have the same problem).

The fundamental point here is that the governments of American cities have lost control of public decorum either because they don't give a damn or because they consider the rights of the crazy and addicted to act out and do drugs and move their bowells in public to be more sacred than the right of taxpayers to have clean/clear sidewalks and needle-free parks for their kids to play in.

For two days running now, while patronizing a restaurant in my city, I have watched as a deranged, disheveled person barged in and created chaos. It's gotten to be practically the norm. Burger joints are having to hire security guards and bouncers. I know of at least one Subway that closed after there was a murder inside it. In another thread we've discussed how public transit has become a zoo.
I'm definitely with you on this. Austinites are so upset about what's happening that social media is full of photographs of the camps and filth, and the mayor and city council are taking a big hit as well (e.g., on Twitter).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2019, 6:34 PM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,490
I think alot of this is the aftermath of occupy still falling out. Weve had slow recovery in middle america, rapid recovery on the coasts, an unpopular presidency and socially minded mayors trying to tie the progressive line and solve every social ill under the sun. Most west coast cities already had anti camping laws which we happily enforced. A few highly publicized police shootings and suddenly cops were pressured into not doing routine tasks...its not hard to see how we got here...
__________________
Portland!! Where young people go to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:32 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.