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

[Maximusx1]

Here watch how easy this is:

Originally Posted by Novacek

But it was lies/propaganda.



Lie



Lie




Lie


etc.


Edit/Add:

In the past two years, they searched for, found, and hired Harris as the homeless director. That's not nothing/no effort.
They then had to do another search for the position. That's not nothing/no effort
They hired Gray in December 2020, which means it was in the process long before then.

It certainly wasn't because " it looked like Prop B had enough signatures to make the ballot,". Prop B's signatures weren't even submitted until January.

Lie, Lie, Lie.... Lie, Lie

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by txtriathlete

Austin residents: Votes for Prop B letting COA know that we don't want homeless people under every overpass in the city and the sidewalks all around downtown and town lake.

City of Austin: Ok, we'll just equally distribute them around the city and put them in several public parks then, problem solved!

My goodness.... Welcome to Austin, where your taxes go up while the quality of life dwindles because of "compassion."

I don't totally disagree with this statement.

If that happens, city council will be metaphorically burned at the stake.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by urbancore

now we will see how progressive Austin really is.....

https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/do...e7d4e-54093457

Sanctioned Encampment Strategy
Land Options


Walter E. Long 11455 Decker Lake Rd
• John Trevino 9501 FM 969
• Walnut Creek Sports Park 7800 Johnny Morris Rd
• Given Recreation Center 3811 E. 12th Street
• Fleet Service Yard, 8401 Johnny Morris Road
• Colony Park land
• 3511 Manor Road
• Tannehill Lane
• Onion Creek Metro North
• 7720 ½ Kellam Rd
• 5400 E. William Cannon, Decommissioned WWTP
• FM 812 at FM 973
• Eco-Park at FM 973
• W. Slaughter and 8908-8916-9006 Cullen Road

• Parque Zaragoza Recreation Center 2609 Gonzales St
• South Austin Recreation Center 1100 Cumberland Rd
• Roy G Guerrero 400 Grove Blvd
• 6700 Bolm Road District Park
• Edward Rendon Dellgado Pavilion
• 4800 - 4906 Bolm Road
• Levander Loop
• 1311 Tillery Street
• Gus Garcia 1201 E Rundberg Ln
• 7211 N IH35
• 7309 N IH 35
• Mary Moore Searight 907 W. Slaughter Ln
• Lakeline Neighborhood Park
• 12101 Anderson Mill Road

• 10900 FM 2222 (WWT)
• Commons Ford Park 614 N. Commons Ford Rd
• Walnut Creek/Havens
• Northwest Recreation Center
• Sir Swante Palm Neighborhood Park East 3rd
Street
• Duncan Park 900 W. 9th Street
• San Beach on Cesar Chavez
• Patterson Park 4200 Brookview Rd

• Bull Creek Park Lakewood Dr
• Ryan Drive Warehouse
• Circle C
• Dick Nichols 8011 Beckett Rd
• 11800 FM 1826
• 9513 Circle Drive
• 4905 Convict Hill Rd
• Norwood Tract
• Austin Recreation Center

I just doubt that the city wanting to go this route will be accepted by anyone. Circle C? Not gonna happen. Ever. Some of those make sense, but nimbys are going to be nimbys. I don't think they should be setting up in parks either since that's part of what the election was about. I'd rather see them allowed to stay on other city owned land that isn't a developed park, but it has to be watched. And I'm not sure them just camping on public land even if it isn't a park, is better. It's not giving these people a way to get back on their feet, it's just hiding them from the public. It's not addressing the humanitarian crisis that it is. And it isn't exactly safe either. My main opposition to the camping ban was that the alternative could mean in the woods where wildfire danger is way worse than the unsightliness of bums and tents.

That's where the hotel idea was a good one. But, I do remember a lot of neighborhood opposition to the hotel option even threatening lawsuits against the idea. They were understandably against the idea, but I always asked the question, "So, you don't want people staying in rundown hotels in your neighborhood because you're worried about the safety of the neighborhood, but you're ok with them roaming the streets like zombies? Camping on the streets, in the woods or even on city owned land will never get them back on their feet. It just sweeps the issue under a rug so we can't conveniently ignore it.

The one good thing about having them on city owned land is it forces the city to be somewhat responsible for the issue, but it's laughable to think that any of the people who would be staying there would have any sort of legal representation or voice whenever something bad pops up there like crime. And since it would be the city's responsibility to "maintain" they'd likely want to keep it hushed. That is if you agree that the city wasn't already motivated to actually do something.

And I don't know why this is such a hot button issue with some people. Believe me, none of the people who put up the money to support the campaign on this care much about what people in Central Austin think.

[Global]

Originally Posted by Maximusx1

Here watch how easy this is:


Lie, Lie, Lie.... Lie, Lie

Certainty in one's beliefs, convictions and assumptions is a dangerous thing. I certainly don't think I've got it all figured out. I'm a left-leaning voter, certainly not Republican, I don't live in the suburbs, and I'm also not upper middle class - and I DID vote for Prop B. I have my reasons, they're not perfect, I don't pretend that I'm 100% altruistic, (suspicious of anyone who would claim they are purely altruistic) but I have spent significant time with Austin's homeless population, and taken a couple of homeless families under my wing in terms of financial assistance, and easily found my neighbors sympathetic and compassionate and willing to help out financially (and yes, some of them also voted for Prop B).

[the Genral]

I was once homeless for about 6 months so I am a qualified sympathetic to their situation.
The hardest part, for me, was finding a place to spend the night, more so then what I was going to eat. But regardless of everything mention here, you just can't set up camp anywhere you want. It should never have been allowed in the first place. I just can't rap my brain around the camps sites along 1st Street, the trails, around the fire tower, on Riverside east, ect...
The COA task at hand is huge, but it didn't have to be this way. Their poor decisions in the past will cost taxpayers and the homeless dearly. My clearly unqualified solution would be to use an existing parking garage as a vertical tent city.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I was once homeless for about 6 months so I am a qualified sympathetic to their situation.
The hardest part, for me, was finding a place to spend the night, more so then what I was going to eat. But regardless of everything mention here, you just can't set up camp anywhere you want. It should never have been allowed in the first place. I just can't rap my brain around the camps sites along 1st Street, the trails, around the fire tower, on Riverside east, ect...
The COA task at hand is huge, but it didn't have to be this way. Their poor decisions in the past will cost taxpayers and the homeless dearly. My clearly unqualified solution would be to use an existing parking garage as a vertical tent city.

I'm glad you're in a better place now, Gen. Thanks for sharing that. I cannot imagine what these Austinites must be going through....hope my comments on supporting the ban have never offended (anyone else on here for that matter).

I know someday we will have a much more permanent solution to this, along with a bigger net for affordable housing. But yeah, city parks ain't gonna happen.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I just doubt that the city wanting to go this route will be accepted by anyone. Circle C? Not gonna happen. Ever. Some of those make sense, but nimbys are going to be nimbys. I don't think they should be setting up in parks either since that's part of what the election was about. I'd rather see them allowed to stay on other city owned land that isn't a developed park, but it has to be watched. And I'm not sure them just camping on public land even if it isn't a park, is better. It's not giving these people a way to get back on their feet, it's just hiding them from the public. It's not addressing the humanitarian crisis that it is. And it isn't exactly safe either. My main opposition to the camping ban was that the alternative could mean in the woods where wildfire danger is way worse than the unsightliness of bums and tents.

That's where the hotel idea was a good one. But, I do remember a lot of neighborhood opposition to the hotel option even threatening lawsuits against the idea. They were understandably against the idea, but I always asked the question, "So, you don't want people staying in rundown hotels in your neighborhood because you're worried about the safety of the neighborhood, but you're ok with them roaming the streets like zombies? Camping on the streets, in the woods or even on city owned land will never get them back on their feet. It just sweeps the issue under a rug so we can't conveniently ignore it.

The one good thing about having them on city owned land is it forces the city to be somewhat responsible for the issue, but it's laughable to think that any of the people who would be staying there would have any sort of legal representation or voice whenever something bad pops up there like crime. And since it would be the city's responsibility to "maintain" they'd likely want to keep it hushed. That is if you agree that the city wasn't already motivated to actually do something.

And I don't know why this is such a hot button issue with some people. Believe me, none of the people who put up the money to support the campaign on this care much about what people in Central Austin think.

I don't think this list is actually where camping is going to be allowed. I think this is a list of sites that *could* be used. I presume we'll see this winnowed down to a handful of sites.

If I was council and I was about to do something potentially unpopular I would come up with a list of "oh my god, the local park!" and then pick Decker Lake and call it a day. They can then campaign on how they stopped Duncan Park or Onion Creek from becoming a homeless site.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I don't think this list is actually where camping is going to be allowed. I think this is a list of sites that *could* be used. I presume we'll see this winnowed down to a handful of sites.

If I was council and I was about to do something potentially unpopular I would come up with a list of "oh my god, the local park!" and then pick Decker Lake and call it a day. They can then campaign on how they stopped Duncan Park or Onion Creek from becoming a homeless site.

Don’t forget Walnut Creek, which would be a really bad idea for the local water runoff with litter.

[KevinFromTexas]

https://austin.towers.net/[email protected]

That actually was a really neat idea. I just refuse to believe that Austin, which is great at being innovative and setting trends and all, can't figure this out or that the money isn't available to help ease the problem, if we're really buying into the idea that the business community cares about that, well, let's see some investment in that direction. And while we're having the conversation about loving this place and not wanting to see it trashed and polluted, something I most certainly do care about as the litter issue is something that really bothers me, I certainly take offense to the state government and the rest of the state blaming Austin for what is partially something those other parties have contributed to. Specifically, by dropping off their homeless here and then blaming Austin for "its problems" when they were either unwilling or unable to do the same for their own. Affordability is part of it, of course, but I also see plenty of homeless in the suburbs where everything is supposedly all roses.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

https://austin.towers.net/[email protected]

That actually was a really neat idea. I just refuse to believe that Austin, which is great at being innovative and setting trends and all, can't figure this out or that the money isn't available to help ease the problem, if we're really buying into the idea that the business community cares about that, well, let's see some investment in that direction. And while we're having the conversation about loving this place and not wanting to see it trashed and polluted, something I most certainly do care about as the litter issue is something that really bothers me, I certainly take offense to the state government and the rest of the state blaming Austin for what is partially something those other parties have contributed to. Specifically, by dropping off their homeless here and then blaming Austin for "its problems" when they were either unwilling or unable to do the same for their own. Affordability is part of it, of course, but I also see plenty of homeless in the suburbs where everything is supposedly all roses.

Yeah, I wish that home depot would become a homeless center. It's such a giant site.

Also agree with other towns/cities dropping people off here. It isn't ALL on us. I cannot imagine the shit storm that would occur should city council choose city parks for this. Seems like total political suicide. I went to the gym off cesar chavez today and walked out to a dumped sofa where someone was in the middle of shooting up. No joke. It's a new era for Austin....

[austlar1]

I'd like to see the Home Depot site used for temporary housing (dorm style), storage lockers, and sanitation facilities. I think it would be a suitable location for a relocated ARCH and possibly a Salvation Army component. Some limited (lottery/waiting list) outdoor tents should be allowed in the parking lot with a 24 hour security presence. More importantly, I'd like to see a sophisticated triage operation set up on site where psycho-social assessments could be made on a large scale in order to determine the actual needs of homeless individuals. This would only prove useful, if there were actually various agencies and facilities funded and in place to provide assistance with mental health services, addiction services, job rehabilitation, and programs designed to get people into more permanent housing situations. The homeless population is very diverse. There is no one size fits all solution, but as things now stand few homeless persons are ever given an actual needs assessment based on their particular circumstances. A massive triage operation is one way to begin to make a difference.

[DaveinWimberley]

I hear LA's nice, this time of year.

[lonewolf]

you got to love euphemisms.. like "sanctioned campgrounds" I wonder how much they paid for that beauty or if it was a city employee that came up with that. No sweetie, these lawless, trash filled, violent, drug encampments filled with homeless people are not to be called that. We call them "sanctioned campgrounds" coming to a city park near you!


Obviously I would hate to see them attempt that but a very small part of me would enjoy the biblical shit storm that would surely rain down on each member of city council. (and by that i mean after 5 years of debate maybe 160k austinites will vote on the measure"

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

you got to love euphemisms.. like "sanctioned campgrounds" I wonder how much they paid for that beauty or if it was a city employee that came up with that. No sweetie, these lawless, trash filled, violent, drug encampments filled with homeless people are not to be called that. We call them "sanctioned campgrounds" coming to a city park near you!


Obviously I would hate to see them attempt that but a very small part of me would enjoy the biblical shit storm that would surely rain down on each member of city council. (and by that i mean after 5 years of debate maybe 160k austinites will vote on the measure"

So what's your solution?

Throw everyone in jail?

[drummer]

I actually like the Home Depot idea as well. Unsure of where that is on the list of possibilities.

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So what's your solution?

Throw everyone in jail?

it should be illegal to camp on public property.

and i don't accept the framing of folding the homelessness issue into whether or not camping should or shouldn't be legal on public property. they are two distinct issues.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

it should be illegal to camp on public property.

and i don't accept the framing of folding the homelessness issue into whether or not camping should or shouldn't be legal on public property. they are two distinct issues.

If you think that, you should write up, pay for, and pass a proposition for that.

Austin just passed a proposition that explicitly allows camping in designated areas.

[JAM]

As far as the downtown problem goes, I'd bet half of these folks were already living downtown. All the wonderful development that everyone here just loves has pushed them out into the open. lets count, Waller Creek, River St/East Ave, 98 Red River just to name a few spots where they used to live. So council approves all these projects, but is clueless on the homeless situation? Tells you how much the really know what is going on, or just pushed it under the rug. Time for them to do their jobs, listen to their constituents, and quick farting around with their pet projects that none of us care about.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by drummer

I actually like the Home Depot idea as well. Unsure of where that is on the list of possibilities.

I think both the Home Depot site and the underpasses of highways (not near intersections) are both pretty decent completely underutilized land. I think the state won't allow the latter more than likely.

Do we know what the cities "plans" for that home depot are? It seems like its always not an option for every potential city-project for some reason.

[StoOgE]

Answered my own question:

1) They are turning into a VMU
2) The building is in disrepair and doesn't have water, power or wastewater at the moment.
3) The neighborhood doesn't want it.

https://www.kxan.com/investigations/...not-an-option/