Page 1 of 2
Is your city mean to Homeless?
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:43 am
by TexasStooge
Survey: Dallas streets mean for homeless
Dallas: Miller says advocates' label doesn't consider all city efforts
By KIM HORNER / The Dallas Morning News
DALLAS, Texas - Dallas ranked as the nation's sixth "meanest city" for enforcing laws that target the homeless, according to a report national advocacy groups released Wednesday.
Full story in the "News From The Lone Star State" thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOUGH CITIES:
A report released Wednesday by advocacy groups targeted the "meanest" cities when it comes to handling the homeless:
1. Sarasota, FL
2. Lawrence, KS
3. Little Rock, AR
4. Atlanta, GA
5. Las Vegas, NV
6. Dallas, TX
7. Houston, TX
8. San Juan, PR
9. Santa Monica, CA
10. Flagstaff, AZ
11. San Francisco, CA
12. Chicago, IL
13. San Antonio, TX
14. New York City, NY
15. Austin, TX
16. Anchorage, AK
17. Phoenix, AZ
18. Los Angeles, CA
19. St. Louis, MO
20. Pittsburgh, PA
SOURCES: National Coalition for the Homeless; National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:10 pm
by gtalum
Mine is the meanest! Sweet!
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:18 pm
by Pburgh
I'm surprised that mine is 20th. I thought we were very kind to the homeless.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:34 pm
by gtalum
It's amusing that San Francisco is on the list. They actually pay their homeless people something like $300 a month just for being homeless.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:06 pm
by kevin
Really? How do you collect the checks and verify it? I am wondering because I'm sure I could recruit a group of homeless people here in Ocala and them take them over to San Francisco. In exchange for the trasportation I'd get 50 dollars a month in reimbursement for a contract no less than three years in length. It would pay for my education......
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:09 pm
by gtalum
I don't know how they keep track of who gets paid, but they actually hand them cash once a month.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:14 pm
by gtalum
I stand corrected:
The ranks of homeless people on welfare in San Francisco shrank 84 percent over the last 18 months through the city's Care Not Cash program, and by next May, there should be no homeless people left on the rolls at all, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced Tuesday in his second annual State of Homelessness address.
The best news about that development, he told a cheering crowd of city workers, homeless people and social service providers, is that about half of the 2,106 homeless people who left welfare -- 1,101 of them to be precise -- are now living in newly created housing, Newsom said.
And at a time when crucial federal funding for housing and other social programs is either being cut or put in danger of cuts, that's "not bad," he said.
"I remember my critics saying there is no way there will be a decline in (welfare) rolls with Care Not Cash," Newsom said. "Well, now that's 84 percent. ... We've done a very good job with that program."
The voter-approved Care Not Cash overcame court challenges and premiered in May 2004, when 2,497 homeless people were receiving monthly welfare checks of as much as $410. Those checks are cut to $59 under the program, and the homeless are offered housing or shelter instead -- partially paid for by the money cut from the individual's welfare check. Today, there are just 391 homeless people left on the rolls. The rest were moved into housing or emergency shelter or left the program altogether.
more...
It was actually $410 per month, and they've severely cut the program. that's proabbly why they showed up on the "mean " list.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:29 pm
by kevin
Crap, I missed out on a great opportunity.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:31 pm
by MiamiensisWx
gtalum wrote:Mine is the meanest! Sweet!
You don't mean it seriously, do you?
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:26 pm
by gtalum
CapeVerdeWave wrote:You don't mean it seriously, do you?
Actually I do. I'm not a big fan of having homeless people roaming around my town. I'd rather be inhospitable and move them along somewhere else.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:49 pm
by MiamiensisWx
gtalum wrote:Actually I do. I'm not a big fan of having homeless people roaming around my town. I'd rather be inhospitable and move them along somewhere else.
Yes, but then they'd encounter more people who wouldn't want them as well. What would be a good solution? Concentration camps?
My point is that life isn't fair. Moving them somewhere else won't solve the problem for everyone, including the homeless.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:55 pm
by Skywatch_NC
What an attitude gtalum
...many who are homeless are that way due to no fault of their own.
Where I used to live my folks and I donated items to our city's rescue mission thrift store. The mission has helped many with spiritual needs, too...not just physical ones.
Here in north Raleigh we give items to a Goodwill Industries store.
Eric
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:02 pm
by MiamiensisWx
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:31 pm
by gtalum
Skywatch_NC wrote:...many who are homeless are that way due to no fault of their own.
Agreed. Most of them should be in institutions. However, if you put them there, peopel freak out that you're taking away someone's freedom. So forget it. In the meantime I'd prefer they not be in my town.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:46 pm
by JQ Public
you sir are the reason there are so many homeless people. no one helps them. then they dump them on other cities and towns b/c their town is too good for them.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:54 pm
by Terrell
What exactly are the categories for meaniest to homeless? I don't support arresting them unless they are committing an actual crime. I don't think that a city has a right to make being homeless a crime.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:01 pm
by Skywatch_NC
Most of them should be in institutions...
It so happens that many homeless out there aren't mentally ill.
That seems to be a big thing with Hollywood though as producers portray homeless alot of the time as being mentally ill...guess they wouldn't do as good in the ratings without doing that.
Eric
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:55 pm
by gtalum
Skywatch_NC wrote:Most of them should be in institutions...
It so happens that many homeless out there aren't mentally ill.
The vast majority of chronicly homeless adults are in fact mentally ill. There are systems in place to house the poor. The mentally ill are generally the only ones incapable of navigating the system to get the housing, so they get dumped on the streets.
The mentally ill homeless should be in institutions. The fact that they're not in institutions is why they're homeless. "COmpassionate" bleeding-heart liberalism has sentenced them to a life in the street.
How many of you have sat down, bought homeless people lunch, served food in food kitchens, or even just had a conversation with them? I have done it frequently. When you do so it becomes clear that almost all of them are very ill.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:00 pm
by gtalum
BTW, Sarasota is on top because we passed a "no camping within the city limits" law. It was batted down by an appeals court. But that's why we get the meanest city title.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:48 pm
by kevin
The homeless are mostly crazy. The rates of mental illness in this country are vastly downplayed. This is one thing Hollywood is not misrepresenting. There are so many jobs out there for the picking that the only people I've met who were homeless at least had some sort of mental disorder. Many of the temporary employees we use are borderline homeless and a good number of them also seem to exhibit signs of mental illness. Of course I don't know to what degree drug use causes these symptoms, so now that I think about it I cannot really speak definitively from personal experience.
I am all but certain science supports the idea that a good number of the homeless are mentally handicapped however.