AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by Novacek

When did they "allow camping throughout parks"?

All they did was repeal one specific law. They didn't remove Austin Park's curfews or make trespassing overnight in parks legal.

In fact, during the repeal they explicitly retained camping in parks as prohibited.

https://www.kut.org/austin/2019-06-2...e-homelessness


Edit/add:
https://www.austintexas.gov/departme...90619-spec.htm
https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/do....cfm?id=321210
"Additionally, all residents
must still follow city rules as it relates to parks, sidewalks, waterways, etc. Park curfews and park rules about not
camping, for example, would still apply. "

They clearly quit enforcing that. Before the last two years I never saw tents in major parks, whereas now it's commonplace. I don't know whether it's the city or APD but I think it's an awful decision to allow our parks to become Hoovervilles. I fully support expanding our shelter capacity, because that's the moral thing to do (and in fact we live down the street from the Integral Care Oak Springs. No complaints from me.) , but I don't think the tent cities go away unless they are prohibited and that prohibition is enforced.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

I 100% agree as well. However, I also believe that simply allowing these folks to pitch tents wheverever they damn well please and do whatever the fuck they want (litter, start fires, dart across traffic, harass passers-by etc) is not fair to the rest of the city NOR is it fair to them. These are essentially little villages of anarchy - they HAVE to be held to a system of rules/laws to follow to protect others as well as themselves. A good temporary solution is designated camping areas on city-owned land with 24/7 security, access to restrooms/kitchens and counseling/services. Idk whether or not city council is working on something like that or not, but we simply cannot let the current situation continue.

Well said.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

They clearly quit enforcing that. Before the last two years I never saw tents in major parks, whereas now it's commonplace. I don't know whether it's the city or APD but I think it's an awful decision to allow our parks to become Hoovervilles. I fully support expanding our shelter capacity, because that's the moral thing to do (and in fact we live down the street from the Integral Care Oak Springs. No complaints from me.) , but I don't think the tent cities go away unless they are prohibited and that prohibition is enforced.

Which major park are you seeing this in? I was in Republic square last night and narry a tent in site. Haven't seen any in zilker or the greenbelts while climbing.

I'd wager I'm seeing less folks sleeping in greenspan's over the last 2 years than a decade ago. Hill of life used to have a huge incampment same with holding greenbelts and nada now days.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Which major park are you seeing this in? I was in Republic square last night and narry a tent in site. Haven't seen any in zilker or the greenbelts while climbing.

I'd wager I'm seeing less folks sleeping in greenspan's over the last 2 years than a decade ago. Hill of life used to have a huge incampment same with holding greenbelts and nada now days.

Do you think that is due to the fact that they don't have to "hide" in the woods anymore? They can simply drop a tent, on the sidewalk, across from City Hall now-a-days.

[zrx299]

Originally Posted by Novacek

More damaging than living in those _exact same tents_ hidden further back in the greenbelt? Or more damaging than not even having a tent at all, and crawling into a storm sewer somewhere and risking drowning?



This claim just doesn't make any sense. So we need a law to make it illegal, but we won't actually arrest anyone, we swear. We'll just ask them to move along 200 feet to another street. And this is going to somehow cleanup the streets.

If you want to clean up the streets by arresting everyone, own it. We'll debate that on its own merits.

But if you claim no one is going to be arrested, just going to "move", where are they going to move? How is that going to prevent pollution?

I see lots of rebuttal questions from you with nothing of actual substance. Is this all you do? Are you one of those people who just likes to argue and poke holes in other people’s thoughts without ever offering up your own?

Reading your posts makes me think you’re somehow in favor of keeping the current situation in tact because “doing anything will be futile.” (paraphrasing)

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

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

Sigh. So about 4.5 years ago a church bought a bus ticket to Austin for a homeless man who asked for the ticket. An anecdotal, one off story such as this still does not provide sufficient data, evidence, analysis to show that other cities have an agenda to send their homeless to Austin. If you're still intent on showing that such a thing is a problem, you need way more than just one off anecdotes. If people are going to make such claims about other cities intentions to send their homeless here, there needs to be more than just anecdotes to show that this is happening. Anecdotes are not proof of anything, anywhere at any time.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by zrx299

I see lots of rebuttal questions from you with nothing of actual substance. Is this all you do? Are you one of those people who just likes to argue and poke holes in other people’s thoughts without ever offering up your own?

Reading your posts makes me think you’re somehow in favor of keeping the current situation in tact because “doing anything will be futile.” (paraphrasing)

Nothing of substance?
I claim that living in a tent is not "more damaging" than drowning in a sewer. Are you claiming that it is?

That's a really shitty paraphrase, since I said nothing of the sort.

Buy more hotels. That's not "anything will be futile"

[zrx299]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Nothing of substance?
I claim that living in a tent is not "more damaging" than drowning in a sewer. Are you claiming that it is?

That's a really shitty paraphrase, since I said nothing of the sort.

Buy more hotels. That's not "anything will be futile"

Originally Posted by zrx299

Whatever the solution is, it needs to involve the actual individual being engaged in their recovery efforts. I'm all for helping someone who genuinely wants to get back on their feet. There's a huge % of the population that are just a string of bad luck events away from being in the exact same situation.

The others who just want a carefree life of zero responsibilities and the equivalent of a tax-free minimum wage job panhandling the highway intersections & offramps can move along. Parallel to this are other cities who take advantage of southern cities like Austin by giving their transients a free one-way bus ticket.

We as a city *cannot* solve all of the regions problems, nor should we have to bear that responsibility. Grown able-bodied, able-minded adults should not need babysitters.

Originally Posted by Novacek

So for that subset of the population, what's the solution?

Arrest them and throw them in jail ($)
Then haul them up before a judge ($)
Throw them in prison ($)
Then let them out in 30 days, and a day later, repeat the entire process over again.

Originally Posted by zrx299

If you are able-bodied/minded and you refuse help, then you get what's coming to you. The current situation has gone on long enough.

You can spend money on dual solutions at the same time: 1) helping the people who want help, and 2) stemming the flow of the "others" who just drifted here to take advantage of the current environment. The second piece is equally as important as the first, otherwise you're throwing endless money away by creating a never-ending problem with the message of "hey just go to Austin, they'll take care of all your needs and you dont have to do a thing!"

One just has to look at our southern border for a larger version of that playing out right now. No deterrent = Services get overwhelmed and things quickly spiral out of control.

Originally Posted by Novacek

To repeat, what is “what’s coming to you”?

What is “stemming the flow”?

Stemming the flow is creating policies *and* enforcement that let's the transient subset of homeless populations who have zero interest in being a productive member of society know that the current situation of enablement by city leadership is over, and if they want the hobo care-free zero responsibility camp anywhere you want lifestyle to look elsewhere.

I'm actually very much in favor of the hotel purchasing solution as it offers a path back to self sustainability for the other subset of "homeless" who are there by circumstances (job, medical, lack of family/friend support, etc).

But this can't be the single solution. If everyone gets their own hotel room no questions asked, you don't think every transient in a 1000 mile radius wouldn't descend on Austin with their hands out for free stuff? News travels fast.

And lastly, let's not gloss over the fact that some of these folks are there by their own life choices. Addiction being one of the biggest. Drug use and addiction is 100% a life choice. Not a single person on earth is forced to get hooked on drugs or anything else. Fired from a job or can't keep a job because you showed up high or drunk? Life choice.

That said, I'm also all for second (and even third) chances, but people need to take ownership of their situation if their own life choices are the main cause.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Stemming the flow is creating policies *and* enforcement that let's the transient subset of homeless populations who have zero interest in being a productive member of society know that the current situation of enablement by city leadership is over, and if they want the hobo care-free zero responsibility camp anywhere you want lifestyle to look elsewhere.

I'm actually very much in favor of the hotel purchasing solution as it offers a path back to self sustainability for the other subset of "homeless" who are there by circumstances (job, medical, lack of family/friend support, etc).

But this can't be the single solution. If everyone gets their own hotel room no questions asked, you don't think every transient in a 1000 mile radius wouldn't descend on Austin with their hands out for free stuff? News travels fast.

And lastly, let's not gloss over the fact that some of these folks are there by their own life choices. Addiction being one of the biggest. Drug use and addiction is 100% a life choice. Not a single person on earth is forced to get hooked on drugs or anything else. Fired from a job or can't keep a job because you showed up high or drunk? Life choice.

That said, I'm also all for second (and even third) chances, but people need to take ownership of their situation if their own life choices are the main cause.

So by "policies and enforcement" you mean throw them in jail? Even at tremendous expense to the Austin taxpayer.

yes or no, throw them in jail? Don't just hide behind "create policies"

What other "policy and enforcement" are you proposing? March them onto a bus at gunpoint and drop them in the desert?

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by zrx299

And lastly, let's not gloss over the fact that some of these folks are there by their own life choices. Addiction being one of the biggest. Drug use and addiction is 100% a life choice. Not a single person on earth is forced to get hooked on drugs or anything else. Fired from a job or can't keep a job because you showed up high or drunk? Life choice.

Man. What an awful statement.

We've clearly reached the endpoint of this conversation. No coming back from a statement like that unless it's via total flame war.

[zrx299]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Man. What an awful statement.

We've clearly reached the endpoint of this conversation. No coming back from a statement like that unless it's via total flame war.

Which part of that statement is factually incorrect?
You don't have to like it, but it's reality.
Empathy and stating facts are not mutually exclusive.

It's also convenient of you to ignore and cut off the part directly after that where I said I'm in favor of second and third chances.

[zrx299]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So by "policies and enforcement" you mean throw them in jail? Even at tremendous expense to the Austin taxpayer.

yes or no, throw them in jail? Don't just hide behind "create policies"

What other "policy and enforcement" are you proposing? March them onto a bus at gunpoint and drop them in the desert?

Buying every single person who shows up in town with a tent their own hotel room is equally going to be a tremendous taxpayer expense.

Making an example out of a few people, the ones who demonstrate they have no interest in being self-sufficient but who are otherwise able-bodied/able-minded, would send the message.

I'm all for whatever policy is the most effective. If it's jailing a few to make a point, so be it. Buying 5,000+ hotel rooms and blindly passing them out to the entire PEH population like candy isn't the answer.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Which part of that statement is factually incorrect?
You don't have to like it, but it's reality.
Empathy and stating facts are not mutually exclusive.

Addiction is 100% NOT a "life choice".

[shoreditch]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Which part of that statement is factually incorrect?
You don't have to like it, but it's reality.
Empathy and stating facts are not mutually exclusive.

It's also convenient of you to ignore and cut off the part directly after that where I said I'm in favor of second and third chances.

As a recovering alcoholic, I understand your good intentions, but this kind of language regarding addiction isn't helpful.

Anyone who has been on a journey of recovery understands that personal responsibility, as I believe you're implying, is one of the keys to enduring sobriety (along with community and service). But many find themselves in addiction through systemic or even abuse-driven dynamics. It's not a life choice; it's a disease and one that is irreversible and compounding. That's why you can start life (as most alcoholic or drug users might) as a managed user, and suddenly find your life being unmanageable some period later.

I do truly appreciate your intentions. But when you call something like an addiction a life choice the implication is "oh well then it should be easy for you to turn off said life choice" and that's simply not the case. Most addicts work HOUR by HOUR in order to fight their addiction and they are the bravest, hardest working people I know, even when they fail.

The point is; these are hard f*cking problems to solve, and they are harder still on the addict.

I'll be honest, I don't read the back-and-forth on this topic cause it makes my stomach turn. So allow me to just add my two cents and dip. I'm always happy to see there are some empathetic warriors here that are fighting the compassionate policy fight. Afraid at the end of the day it all comes down to dollars and cents; fighting addiction takes resources and without more of em, the problem only shifts to under-resourced prisons or another geography.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Making an example out of a few people, the ones who demonstrate they have no interest in being self-sufficient but who are otherwise able-bodied/able-minded, would send the message.

I'm all for whatever policy is the most effective. If it's jailing a few to make a point, so be it.

I just want to try and reach out to those of you in this thread that were supporting Prop B sheepishly as a policy they don't love, that *this* is the line of thinking that is actually in the hearts of the people supporting the law.

If you are ok with that, please proceed, but this isn't a law designed by people who care about those experiencing homelessness at all. Its mostly just recycled bootstrap yourself you deserve to be poor and/or being an addict is a "choice" policies.

Also, these sorts of "personal accountability" arguments descend into really problematic race-theory nonsense if you take a moment to look at who is homeless and extend the "personal responsibility" rhetoric beyond the imagined homeless hippie in the speakers mind. Black Americans represent 34% of the US homeless population which is 3.4X their representation in the population at large. This means there are other societal factors at play (mass incarceration, over policing of black communities, legal job discrimination for former felons, gentrification of formerly poor communities of color, general societal discrimination, general unequal distribution of wealth along racial lines) *or* homelessness is a personal choice and black folks at shocking high rate just personally choose not to be :clears throat: and I quote "Productive members of society".

These "personal choice" arguments are AM talk radio drive-by hot-takes that are only born out of complete ignorance of research into homelessness. It's an extraordinarily complicated cause and effect of decades of policy choices that have led us to this point, but sure. lets arrest some lazy hippies and then the rest of them will all just get jobs.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Do you think that is due to the fact that they don't have to "hide" in the woods anymore? They can simply drop a tent, on the sidewalk, across from City Hall now-a-days.

Yes. That is an intention of the law. It was to get more of the homeless population out of the green belts. Those mega-greenbelt encampments tended to be *extremely* dangerous for the people living in them and extremely difficult for social services to reach them. It was also ecologically terrible as the greenbelts are often protected watersheds.

[JAM]

How many more homeless can we park outside downtown residences and businesses before people leave for the suburbs and business shut their doors. Its not trouble free, there is a cost to those with a stake in the downtown game.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by JAM

How many more homeless can we park outside downtown residences and businesses before people leave for the suburbs and business shut their doors. Its not trouble free, there is a cost to those with a stake in the downtown game.

This is my take. The encampments all over the city is very damaging. They will never go away unless it is prohibited and the prohibition is enforced. Period. The idea that we'll convert enough hotels into homeless shelters to make these camps disappear is ridiculously naive. I'm all for continuing to expand shelter capacity but we need to end the practice of allowing camping throughout the city immediately. Basically, "house the homeless" and "clean up the streets of transient encampments" are two separate issues that need to be addressed simultaneously.

[StoOgE]

Yeah, just like how San Fran and Seattle's real estate markets collapsed and all restaurants closed.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Yeah, just like how San Fran and Seattle's real estate markets collapsed and all restaurants closed.

Do we really want to follow in the footsteps of these cities on this issue? I'm not one of the right wingers running around acting like Portland is Syria or whatever. But I'd say the homeless situation is maybe the single biggest problem in LA, SF, and Seattle right now...

When I was a kid growing up in Austin you went to a state park to go camping. It was not permissible to throw up a tent on town lake and live there. It's honestly crazy to me that this is now an issue that we debate.