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

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

156k people voted???! lmaooooo I don't ever want to hear anyone complain about this ever again

Hey, its like 40% more than voted for the ride share fight 4 years ago. I wish we could bump these ordinances to at least congressional mid-terms for turnout.

[urbancore]

They question for me is....will we vote in council members who will LEAD on this issue?

I would imagine the council understands this could be a 3rd rail issue if they try to undermine the will of the voters. Maybe that will incentivize them to get a workable plan together and implement it .

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by urbancore

They question for me is....will we vote in council members who will LEAD on this issue?

I would imagine the council understands this could be a 3rd rail issue if they try to undermine the will of the voters. Maybe that will incentivize them to get a workable plan together and implement it .

I'm pretty sure no one on council is ever going to touch this issue again at all and punt it to APD/city manager and wash their hands of it nearly completely. Adler will likely try and get his large package through and my gut is the moment the plan goes from theoretical to selecting locations it'll become insanely toxic fight and it'll turn into a game of councilmembers pushing against implementation of anything in their districts and it'll die.

I mean, the big fight 4-5 years ago was attempting to relocate ARCH.

[KevinFromTexas]

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...te/5074550001/
Tourism, safety concerns spurred Austin's elite to support camping ban PAC in Prop B race

Ryan Autullo and Laura Morales
Austin American-Statesman

Financial support for Proposition B — the ballot initiative that targeted Austin's poorest residents by reinstating a criminal ban against camping in public — included contributions from many of the city's wealthiest residents and business leaders.

An examination of campaign finance records revealed Save Austin Now — the political action committee behind the successful push to bring back the ban — tapped into the wallets of dozens of local millionaires and billionaireswith financial stakes in the city's economic success.

In total, Save Austin Now raised $1.9 million in support of Prop B — the second largest amount ever in a city of Austin election. It received about 4,100 donations. Of them, 71 were for $5,000 or more and 47 for $10,000 or more.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...te/5074550001/
Tourism, safety concerns spurred Austin's elite to support camping ban PAC in Prop B race

Ryan Autullo and Laura Morales
Austin American-Statesman

Financial support for Proposition B — the ballot initiative that targeted Austin's poorest residents by reinstating a criminal ban against camping in public — included contributions from many of the city's wealthiest residents and business leaders.

An examination of campaign finance records revealed Save Austin Now — the political action committee behind the successful push to bring back the ban — tapped into the wallets of dozens of local millionaires and billionaireswith financial stakes in the city's economic success.

In total, Save Austin Now raised $1.9 million in support of Prop B — the second largest amount ever in a city of Austin election. It received about 4,100 donations. Of them, 71 were for $5,000 or more and 47 for $10,000 or more.

.......and even without this $1.9M it still would have passed so what is the point of this article? It's just sour grapes/hurt feelings and sense of loss at for not finding a solution worthy of Portlandia.

[KevinFromTexas]

No. The problem is the issue still exists. Some people seem to feel warm and fuzzy now thinking it's been solved. Where will these homeless people go? Will other communities automatically stop dumping their homeless here? And if no, shall we slap them with lawsuits? Will the homeless actually go anywhere? Is it better that they camp in the woods and start fires there, rather than create unsightly scenes on our sidewalks? For the business owners in the room, here's a question, how many of you will be willing to hire those people? It's not about feelings. Also, Portlandia sucks. From what I've heard, it's a weird place.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

No. The problem is the issue still exists. Some people seem to feel warm and fuzzy now thinking it's been solved. Where will these homeless people go? Will other communities automatically stop dumping their homeless here? And if no, shall we slap them with lawsuits? Will the homeless actually go anywhere? Is it better that they camp in the woods and start fires there, rather than create unsightly scenes on our sidewalks? For the business owners in the room, here's a question, how many of you will be willing to hire those people? It's not about feelings. Also, Portlandia sucks. From what I've heard, it's a weird place.

I think some people mistakenly push the narrative that Prop B was about 'solving the homeless issue.' They are 2 different things. Politically I'm independent, and about 2/3ds of my friends are republican. None of them thought voting for Prop B was a solution to homelessness. My democratic friends (who are white, middle-to-upper class, so yeah) voted for Prop B as well. Most of 'em voted for it to make the city appear safer but also to get the City Council to move on the issue, not to solve the issue.

The council stalled and/or was hamstrung by bureaucracy - choose your own adventure - for more than 2 years. They bought hotels and did nothing with them, blocked sanctioned camps as unworkable, didn't make any effort to fill the city's homeless director position. As soon as it looked like Prop B had enough signatures to make the ballot, the council quickly did a 180. Hired a homeless director, started working on those hotels, reversed their position on sanctioned camps, etc. Imagine how many vulnerable people could have been helped if they had started 2 years ago - especially during the snowpocalpyse?

Statesman: Why Didn't Austin Have A Better Plan To House The Homeless?
https://www.statesman.com/story/news...an/4980315001/

Prop B is no solution, but you have to start somewhere and strive toward positive progress. If nothing else, it gave the city council some momentum to start.

Edited to add:

Also, Portlandia sucks. From what I've heard, it's a weird show.

[Global]

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...ome-expansion/

I'm sure many of you on this thread are already aware of this, but Community First is planning a massive 1400 home expansion for it's tiny home community for Austin's formerly homeless population. I've spent some time with Mobile Loaves and Fishes' Alan Graham- and I think he is a bright shining example of someone not getting caught up in politics and making a huge impact. If there were easy solutions, other cities would have figured them out.

The homeless issues in America is a symptom of our culture as a whole. There is no use pointing fingers, since we are all part of this culture, and we value our individuality. Speaking to my chinese friends, they all point out that community-oriented Asian cultures would tend to intervene much more heavily (yes, against the individual's own objections possibly) in ways that prevent an individual from ending up homeless.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

I think some people mistakenly push the narrative that Prop B was about 'solving the homeless issue.' They are 2 different things. Politically I'm independent, and about 2/3ds of my friends are republican. None of them thought voting for Prop B was a solution to homelessness. My democratic friends (who are white, middle-to-upper class, so yeah) voted for Prop B as well. Most of 'em voted for it to make the city appear safer but also to get the City Council to move on the issue, not to solve the issue.

The council stalled and/or was hamstrung by bureaucracy - choose your own adventure - for more than 2 years. They bought hotels and did nothing with them, blocked sanctioned camps as unworkable, didn't make any effort to fill the city's homeless director position. As soon as it looked like Prop B had enough signatures to make the ballot, the council quickly did a 180. Hired a homeless director, started working on those hotels, reversed their position on sanctioned camps, etc. Imagine how many vulnerable people could have been helped if they had started 2 years ago - especially during the snowpocalpyse?

Glad you posted this. I'm a Democrat and supported Prop B. I have no illusions about what it will and won't solve. I supported it solely to spur Council to take action.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

As soon as it looked like Prop B had enough signatures to make the ballot, the council quickly did a 180. Hired a homeless director, started working on those hotels, reversed their position on sanctioned camps, etc. Imagine how many vulnerable people could have been helped if they had started 2 years ago - especially during the snowpocalpyse?

This is a level of gaslighting that I actually have to stop and applaud.

[We vs us]

Point of order: It's only gaslighting if it's done with malice. Pretty sure this post does not have that intention. Just happens to be contra your political position. Worth making the distinction between that and lies/propaganda, so we don't have bullshit political yelling matches here.

Please and thank you.

[Sigaven]

Lol that article....

Concerns about safety and litter are pretty much across the economic spectrum and not just concerns of the rich and spoiled. We love our city just as much as the wealthiest here and hate to see it trashed.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Point of order: It's only gaslighting if it's done with malice. Pretty sure this post does not have that intention. Just happens to be contra your political position. Worth making the distinction between that and lies/propaganda, so we don't have bullshit political yelling matches here.

Please and thank you.

But it was lies/propaganda.

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

They bought hotels and did nothing with them,

Lie

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

didn't make any effort to fill the city's homeless director position.

Lie

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

started working on those hotels,

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.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But it was lies/propaganda.



Lie



Lie




Lie


etc.

Please make an effort to distinguish intent. Political disagreements aren't lies.

I think those are pretty legit interpretations of how things went.

EDIT: Some irons were in the fire with Council but many were not. The May vote has certainly spurred action as well as some future commitments with a timeline, none of which has been the case up till now. I'm sympathetic to the Council in a lot of ways, but they bungled this badly from the start, and dithered while the situation has gotten palpably worse.

I don't particularly like the coalition that this built, and also don't think it's durable (Matt Mackowiak and I agree on exactly nothing other than something had to be done) -- but it also shows that this question isn't just a GOP hobby horse. It's a genuine problem that needs more action.

[StoOgE]

Implying that council and anti-ptop B activists didn't care about the homeless during the ice storm is gaslighting bullshit.

And yes, there is malice behind lying about councils inaction and crediting a law that is 2 weeks old with years and years of activists work.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

No. The problem is the issue still exists. Some people seem to feel warm and fuzzy now thinking it's been solved. Where will these homeless people go? Will other communities automatically stop dumping their homeless here? And if no, shall we slap them with lawsuits? Will the homeless actually go anywhere? Is it better that they camp in the woods and start fires there, rather than create unsightly scenes on our sidewalks? For the business owners in the room, here's a question, how many of you will be willing to hire those people? It's not about feelings. Also, Portlandia sucks. From what I've heard, it's a weird place.

I don't have feel "warm and fuzzy" but do feel that I participated in making a statement as to the limits the 99% of us who are not homeless must endure.

Probably to the same locations as before the ban was put in place.

I don't see a legal argument that can be made against municipalities furnishing bus, plane, or rail tickets to those who want to travel. I have never seen a city sued for providing a free product or service, e.g. free syringes. I also see no legal requirement, with the exception of the state of New York, for municipalities to be obligated to provide living quarters for anyone that requests it.

Actually it seems like there have been many more fires since the ban was lifted than the time before it. It used to be a rare event, but when you basically tell the homeless population "do what you want" the problem spirals out of control.

I'm not a business owner, but from what I've heard many are desperate for employees at the lower skill levels.

Maybe you would feel differently if you had homeless people going into your backyard and stealing your property (this happened to me just last week).

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Implying that council and anti-ptop B activists didn't care about the homeless during the ice storm is gaslighting bullshit.

And yes, there is malice behind lying about councils inaction and crediting a law that is 2 weeks old with years and years of activists work.

I apologize if I sounded like I was gaslighting or sounded malicious - for the record I am not. But I also didn't say that the council didn't care about the homeless during the snowstorm or otherwise. They opened a lot of temporary shelters and did all they could to help. My point was imagine how much more helpful they could have been if all the resources would have been available at that time.

Whether you believe the council was stalling or hamstrung by bureaucracy is, as I said, a personal choice. I'm sure its way more complicated than I could possibly know. But I was only referring to the article I linked to, and honestly, whether or not the council was working on these issues before the ballot measure or not, they did a bad job of communicating that and the public perception was that they didn't pay attention to anything until the prop was looming. I think that perception helped Prop B.

Ultimately I believe our City Council as a whole does care about Austin more than their individual politics. But I do think (personal opinion alert!) that they spend too much time digging in and defending past decisions - good, bad and meh ones - rather than being proactive in their approach. The Adler/Abbott feud doesn't help, unfortunately. But that defensive position is inherent in all of politics, not just Austin's CC.

I don't think all of those things are outright lies, nor are they 100% truth either. I respect your opinions and hopefully you can tolerate mine. Discussing these issues with folks who have different opinions is a great way to open minds and shake loose prejudices - so I do appreciate your comments StoOge, as well as everyone else's.

[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

[StoOgE]

I mean, I think this is just a list of city owned land being considered. Several of these sites are those that proponents of Prob B were pushing for.

I assume we're another month away from actual sites.

[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."