Austin voters vote to recriminalize homeless activities.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

is this accurate?
https://twitter.com/ccass357/status/1388730918618152964?s=20

[parochial boy]

Yeah the issue is actually very little to do with house prices as such and far, far more to do with the absence of a social safety net to stop people falling through the cracks. There are plenty of cheap cities around the developed world with dreadful homelessness, and also extremely expensive ones with next to no homelessness. The solution in these sorts of cases is having the welfare state and social support to stop people from falling into the sorts of situations where they lose their homes. It's not surprising that a city like London saw it's homeless population explode, not while house prices were doing anything special, but when the government cut the services and support that was accessible to people that would stop them becoming homeless.

Trying to claim that homelessness would only go away if housing became a bit cheaper is just - genuinely just not seeing the woods for the trees.

[John Dule]

People are homeless because left-wing cities have made it illegal to provide them with housing at a price they could possibly afford.

You neglect to mention that sometimes, the private housing market doesn’t want to serve these types of tenants, because each tenant’s income is low. So, you’re forced to play for volume, and hope to make a small profit off of each tenant. The problem with that is that  entails higher electricity, water, and gas utility bills, which also eats into revenues.

More tenants also means more liabilities, more opportunities for damage, and higher costs of repair, which makes it even more difficult for an aspiring landlord to make money this way. So, you’re forced to use flimsier materials, less noise insulation, skimp on safety systems, and a whole host of other problems that can actually make these buildings dangerous to inhabit.

Tell me, what landlord would want to accept this level of risk? Also, who’s going to finance the project? When the tenants’ incomes may be insecure, the construction loan company might charge higher interest rates, which makes it even more difficult to turn a profit.

What you actually need is traditional public housing, built and operated by the state, to take up the slack. Private actors face a multitude of challenges and simply refuse to serve this market segment, which makes state intervention the only option left.

I find it amazing that people still, to this day, support government housing projects. Public housing has been a blight on American cities for fifty years; it serves as a haven for drugs and crime, and it shows no signs of improving. Why do you continue to promote this failed policy?

And in any case, "traditional public housing" still requires its tenants to pay rent, and many homeless people are in no position to do that. There are two homelessness crises in America-- the unhoused people who have lost their jobs, and the unhoused people who are unemployable due to mental illness and/or drug addiction. The first group can definitely be helped through the market; the second needs more care than simple government housing can provide.

[Alcibiades]

People are homeless because left-wing cities have made it illegal to provide them with housing at a price they could possibly afford.

You neglect to mention that sometimes, the private housing market doesn’t want to serve these types of tenants, because each tenant’s income is low. So, you’re forced to play for volume, and hope to make a small profit off of each tenant. The problem with that is that  entails higher electricity, water, and gas utility bills, which also eats into revenues.

More tenants also means more liabilities, more opportunities for damage, and higher costs of repair, which makes it even more difficult for an aspiring landlord to make money this way. So, you’re forced to use flimsier materials, less noise insulation, skimp on safety systems, and a whole host of other problems that can actually make these buildings dangerous to inhabit.

Tell me, what landlord would want to accept this level of risk? Also, who’s going to finance the project? When the tenants’ incomes may be insecure, the construction loan company might charge higher interest rates, which makes it even more difficult to turn a profit.

What you actually need is traditional public housing, built and operated by the state, to take up the slack. Private actors face a multitude of challenges and simply refuse to serve this market segment, which makes state intervention the only option left.

I find it amazing that people still, to this day, support government housing projects. Public housing has been a blight on American cities for fifty years; it serves as a haven for drugs and crime, and it shows no signs of improving. Why do you continue to promote this failed policy?

And in any case, "traditional public housing" still requires its tenants to pay rent, and many homeless people are in no position to do that. There are two homelessness crises in America-- the unhoused people who have lost their jobs, and the unhoused people who are unemployable due to mental illness and/or drug addiction. The first group can definitely be helped through the market; the second needs more care than simple government housing can provide.

Building more social housing is one of the best ways to solve housing shortages. Margaret Thatcher’s disastrous right-to-buy policy has been a major driver of the UK’s housing crisis.

(Not that this has much to do with the homeless; homelessness is an often avoidable tragedy, but it ultimately involves very small numbers of people compared to more ubiquitous housing issues.)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But with regards to this, Austin certainly does have a serious homeless problem. My family went on a roadtrip to Texas back in 2017, and we visited both Austin and San Antonio. I recall seeing a homeless person lying under a highway bridge near downtown. Hopefully, this policy will be paired with an effort to get more homeless into shelters and to connect them with services that will give them job and housing opportunities.

If there was a homeless person under a highway bridge around here, everyone would want to know since a lot more than one homeless person fits under a bridge.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Homelessness is not a problem you can blame on the left or the right. It really is a "both sides" issue if I've ever seen one.

It’s incompetence that leads to everyone not wanting to deal with the problem. It’s not ideological

[Damocles]

I find it amazing that people still, to this day, support government housing projects. Public housing has been a blight on American cities for fifty years; it serves as a haven for drugs and crime, and it shows no signs of improving. Why do you continue to promote this failed policy?

And in any case, "traditional public housing" still requires its tenants to pay rent, and many homeless people are in no position to do that. There are two homelessness crises in America-- the unhoused people who have lost their jobs, and the unhoused people who are unemployable due to mental illness and/or drug addiction. The first group can definitely be helped through the market; the second needs more care than simple government housing can provide.

Ah yes. Let’s not invest in any startup companies, or extend capital to promising entrepreneurs! It’s just a waste of time, they don’t show any signs of improving, and most of them will fail anyway. What’s the point in trying to innovate? Who’s gonna give some upstart young kid some money? They’re stupid, anyway.

Your arguments are also factually incorrect, and facetious at best. It is not homeless people who cannot pay rent. Rather, it is those without a source of income who cannot pay rent. Those are two different things. The first group, as stated earlier, is a group who the private market has, time and time again, refused to serve. The second group needs advanced care services, but they also need basic necessities in order to make their recovery possible.

Your argument against providing for the general welfare of the population will essentially guarantee, for many of our most vulnerable citizens, the type of life your very username implies. Is provision for general welfare not one of the foremost duties of any government? Did you somehow miss that in the preamble? Is this somehow news to you? Why do you support failed policies which punch down on others, not through active malice, but through neglect?

[dead0man]

The virtue signalling at 2:15

I am probably going to vote against reinstating the ban but I hope it passes

but as your safety declines, so does your compassion.  Every time I have to pick up human sh**t, my liberalness goes down a notch.

indeed

[John Dule]

Ah yes. Let’s not invest in any startup companies, or extend capital to promising entrepreneurs! It’s just a waste of time, they don’t show any signs of improving, and most of them will fail anyway. What’s the point in trying to innovate? Who’s gonna give some upstart young kid some money? They’re stupid, anyway.

What on Earth are you on about? You're clearly trying to make a point here, but I fail to see how this has any relevance to my comment.

Your arguments are also factually incorrect, and facetious at best. It is not homeless people who cannot pay rent. Rather, it is those without a source of income who cannot pay rent. Those are two different things. The first group, as stated earlier, is a group who the private market has, time and time again, refused to serve. The second group needs advanced care services, but they also need basic necessities in order to make their recovery possible.

The market refuses to serve these people because the government has made it illegal for developers to provide them with housing they could afford. A company could probably make decent money converting shipping containers into housing, charging exceedingly low rental fees to the people who live there until they can get back on their feet. However, we'll never know if this kind of model would work, because again, it is illegal for a company to do this due to living standards/habitability warranties, etc.

When the housing market fails-- whether we're talking about the 2008 bubble or the current housing crisis-- it is consistently the fault of misguided government policies, not the market itself.

Your argument against providing for the general welfare of the population will essentially guarantee, for many of our most vulnerable citizens, the type of life your very username implies. Is provision for general welfare not one of the foremost duties of any government? Did you somehow miss that in the preamble? Is this somehow news to you? Why do you support failed policies which punch down on others, not through active malice, but through neglect?

I am proposing solutions that I believe would best help these people, and I think your solutions would harm them because you haven't thought them through very well. You are not morally superior to me. Rather, you are just unwilling to listen to any ideas that clash with your worldview.

[dead0man]

If we were putting people first, there would be no problem with public safety and quality of life because of the encampments. We would be taking care of everyone. I do agree that compassion goes just so far, then it's time for action.

People deserve to have roofs over their heads, and those who buy their own homes and rent apartments etc deserve to have good clean neighborhoods that are free from the blight of those living on the street. It's an awful situation that is not going to go away on its own.

We need compassionate forward thinkers as leaders. Where are they? I don't have answers but some people do...let's listen to them.

I’ll take a shot. Congress should create a special purpose chartered corporation, which I’ll call the Essential Housing Service. Its mandate would be to build, expand, renovate, and maintain public housing units - prioritizing equality of access, affordable rent prices, quality living conditions, and convenient amenities. Profits aren’t necessarily mandatory, but if they are made, they are to be reinvested in improving the quality of the housing units, updating them to meet federal standards, and developing new building types.

In this respect, it would operate kind of like the United States Postal Service, as an autonomous corporation free from political interference. It would be free to issue its own debt instruments to finance new projects, so that it doesn’t have to run to Congress every single time new housing units are needed.

this might work, but only if they have the power to kick bad tenants out.....and not after years of paperwork, right now.

[Former President tack50]

People are homeless because left-wing cities have made it illegal to provide them with housing at a price they could possibly afford.

You neglect to mention that sometimes, the private housing market doesn’t want to serve these types of tenants, because each tenant’s income is low. So, you’re forced to play for volume, and hope to make a small profit off of each tenant. The problem with that is that  entails higher electricity, water, and gas utility bills, which also eats into revenues.

More tenants also means more liabilities, more opportunities for damage, and higher costs of repair, which makes it even more difficult for an aspiring landlord to make money this way. So, you’re forced to use flimsier materials, less noise insulation, skimp on safety systems, and a whole host of other problems that can actually make these buildings dangerous to inhabit.

Tell me, what landlord would want to accept this level of risk? Also, who’s going to finance the project? When the tenants’ incomes may be insecure, the construction loan company might charge higher interest rates, which makes it even more difficult to turn a profit.

What you actually need is traditional public housing, built and operated by the state, to take up the slack. Private actors face a multitude of challenges and simply refuse to serve this market segment, which makes state intervention the only option left.

Worth noting the 2 aren't exclusionary. You can both deregulate housing regulations to encourage private developments and embark on big public housing projects at the same time.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Fantastic policy.  Would be great if West Coast cities followed suit.

I hope the next time you need help that you receive the the same amount of empathy you're expressing right now.

Long Post Fuzzy but you raise a point. Although Dule is right in that certain policies can create too expensive housing I wouldn't say those policies are the root cause of the homeless issue.

I took out the post to redo it.  I'll sum up my point more succinctly.

Much of the homeless is the Behavioral Poor.  Alcoholics, Drug Addicts, and people with various forms of Sociopathy that keeps these people from keeping jobs and getting along with families to the point where their families will give them assistance.  Even NAMI says 38% of homelessness is due to substance abuse.  (I'm not including the chronic mentally ill in this discussion; that is a different discussion.

Lots of these people are homeless because they can't or won't (A) pull their weight (i. e. hold a job), (B) follow reasonable rules (in group home settings, and (C) stop their antisocial behaviors which make their own familiy members feel unsafe when these people reside with them.  Lots of the homeless have had numerous chances at programs that would lead to housing but they choose to not submit to the rules of that problem.

We need to be honest with ourselves.  A large percentage of the "homeless" are the Behaviorally Poor and they are in that condition due to their their own behaviors and/or their refusal to participate in any kind of intervention/remediation offered to address their dysfunctions.  Many choose homelessness over a program because "No one's going to tell (them) what to do!".  I have experience as a Discharge Planning Counselor at a Public Detox and I can assure you that a lot of homelessness is by choice.

When we stop pretending that the homelessness problem is due to Government not being big and Liberal enough and start recognizing the fact that a good portion of our homeless are Behaviorally Poor, we will then begin to have a grownup discussion on the subject.  Issues with zoning are issues that address the problems of functional people facing skyrocketing housing prices.  That, too, is another issue. I'm for compassion, but I'm not for subsidizing pathology endlessly.  For this discussion, I'd simply request the Virtue Signalers to get a tad real as to who's footing the bill.

[It’s so Joever]

Fantastic policy.  Would be great if West Coast cities followed suit.

I hope the next time you need help that you receive the the same amount of empathy you're expressing right now.

Long Post Fuzzy but you raise a point. Although Dule is right in that certain policies can create too expensive housing I wouldn't say those policies are the root cause of the homeless issue.

I took out the post to redo it.  I'll sum up my point more succinctly.

Much of the homeless is the Behavioral Poor.  Alcoholics, Drug Addicts, and people with various forms of Sociopathy that keeps these people from keeping jobs and getting along with families to the point where their families will give them assistance.  Even NAMI says 38% of homelessness is due to substance abuse.  (I'm not including the chronic mentally ill in this discussion; that is a different discussion.

Lots of these people are homeless because they can't or won't (A) pull their weight (i. e. hold a job), (B) follow reasonable rules (in group home settings, and (C) stop their antisocial behaviors which make their own familiy members feel unsafe when these people reside with them.  Lots of the homeless have had numerous chances at programs that would lead to housing but they choose to not submit to the rules of that problem.

We need to be honest with ourselves.  A large percentage of the "homeless" are the Behaviorally Poor and they are in that condition due to their their own behaviors and/or their refusal to participate in any kind of intervention/remediation offered to address their dysfunctions.  Many choose homelessness over a program because "No one's going to tell (them) what to do!".  I have experience as a Discharge Planning Counselor at a Public Detox and I can assure you that a lot of homelessness is by choice.

When we stop pretending that the homelessness problem is due to Government not being big and Liberal enough and start recognizing the fact that a good portion of our homeless are Behaviorally Poor, we will then begin to have a grownup discussion on the subject.  Issues with zoning are issues that address the problems of functional people facing skyrocketing housing prices.  That, too, is another issue. I'm for compassion, but I'm not for subsidizing pathology endlessly.  For this discussion, I'd simply request the Virtue Signalers to get a tad real as to who's footing the bill.

And that is why we should bring back large scale public mental health facilities (asylums, but that’s a loaded word because of poor historical connotations) A lot of the “behaviorally poor” do have underlying mental problems which can be addressed, but ignoring that like we are doing now simply will only lead to their further decline and the homelessness problem increasing over time.

[John Dule]

And that is why we should bring back large scale public mental health facilities (asylums, but that’s a loaded word because of poor historical connotations) A lot of the “behaviorally poor” do have underlying mental problems which can be addressed, but ignoring that like we are doing now simply will only lead to their further decline and the homelessness problem increasing over time.

I have to agree-- and for the record, it was Governor Reagan who ruined the mental health care system in California. I think the criminalization of "public camping" would work if the consequences weren't prison. Someone who is arrested for this reason should be taken somewhere that they can be put under observation; if they are clearly addicted to drugs or mentally ill, they should be then transferred to a government-run facility where they can be properly treated. This is a much better alternative to either (1) Rounding up people who seem to be mentally ill and putting them away, or (2) Waiting for these people to commit themselves to an institution (because they lack the ability to do that).

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Another bad policy courtesy of the lockdown crowd.

[Real Texan Politics]

Honestly surprising how such a woke progressive city like Austin actually passed something like this.

[It’s so Joever]

Another bad policy courtesy of the lockdown crowd.

What the-
I-
How-

Forget it, Bandit gonna Bandit.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Fantastic policy.  Would be great if West Coast cities followed suit.

I hope the next time you need help that you receive the the same amount of empathy you're expressing right now.

Long Post Fuzzy but you raise a point. Although Dule is right in that certain policies can create too expensive housing I wouldn't say those policies are the root cause of the homeless issue.

I took out the post to redo it.  I'll sum up my point more succinctly.

Much of the homeless is the Behavioral Poor.  Alcoholics, Drug Addicts, and people with various forms of Sociopathy that keeps these people from keeping jobs and getting along with families to the point where their families will give them assistance.  Even NAMI says 38% of homelessness is due to substance abuse.  (I'm not including the chronic mentally ill in this discussion; that is a different discussion.

Lots of these people are homeless because they can't or won't (A) pull their weight (i. e. hold a job), (B) follow reasonable rules (in group home settings, and (C) stop their antisocial behaviors which make their own familiy members feel unsafe when these people reside with them.  Lots of the homeless have had numerous chances at programs that would lead to housing but they choose to not submit to the rules of that problem.

We need to be honest with ourselves.  A large percentage of the "homeless" are the Behaviorally Poor and they are in that condition due to their their own behaviors and/or their refusal to participate in any kind of intervention/remediation offered to address their dysfunctions.  Many choose homelessness over a program because "No one's going to tell (them) what to do!".  I have experience as a Discharge Planning Counselor at a Public Detox and I can assure you that a lot of homelessness is by choice.

When we stop pretending that the homelessness problem is due to Government not being big and Liberal enough and start recognizing the fact that a good portion of our homeless are Behaviorally Poor, we will then begin to have a grownup discussion on the subject.  Issues with zoning are issues that address the problems of functional people facing skyrocketing housing prices.  That, too, is another issue. I'm for compassion, but I'm not for subsidizing pathology endlessly.  For this discussion, I'd simply request the Virtue Signalers to get a tad real as to who's footing the bill.

And that is why we should bring back large scale public mental health facilities (asylums, but that’s a loaded word because of poor historical connotations) A lot of the “behaviorally poor” do have underlying mental problems which can be addressed, but ignoring that like we are doing now simply will only lead to their further decline and the homelessness problem increasing over time.

Wyatt v. Stickneymade bringing this back nearly impossible.

The 1999 Olmstead case mandates that the mentally ill receive the "least restrictive" modality of treatment imagineable.

There is a tension between the principle of not forcibly confining people who are mentally ill but not a danger to themselves or others and ensuring that such people (who, for the most part, are disabled and unable to hold down full-time employment).  I'm not opposed to the highlighted idea, but there are legal barriers to bring it to pass.  I will say that the these decisions drive the level of homelessness upward.

[Badger]

People are homeless because left-wing cities have made it illegal to provide them with housing at a price they could possibly afford.

And yet homelessness is still a major problem in right-wing cities, or left-wing cities that don't have tight housing access end markets like Detroit.

Hmmmm. It's almost as if local city codes aren't even close to the only driving force behind homelessness.

[lfromnj]

People are homeless because left-wing cities have made it illegal to provide them with housing at a price they could possibly afford.

And yet homelessness is still a major problem in right-wing cities, or left-wing cities that don't have tight housing access end markets like Detroit.

Hmmmm. It's almost as if local city codes aren't even close to the only driving force behind homelessness.

Agreed here. Although housing shortages can be caused by either bipartisan issues like Nimbyism causing lack of high density zoning or just left wing stuff such as rent control, homelessness has different causes where fuzzy is closer to nailing the head on.

[Stranger in a strange land]

People are homeless because left-wing cities have made it illegal to provide them with housing at a price they could possibly afford.

Housing markets in metros generally don't exist along municipal lines — left-wing cities and their right-wing suburbs are both culpable here, and the latter is where you get the real excesses. You can't build a new house in Pflugerville [Austin burb] without a minimum 9000 sq ft lot; some of the nicer suburbs require a 2 acre minimum for every new unit.

Disgusting: who needs or even wants a lot that big in this day and age? As an aside, I bet these are the same people who complain about illegal immigrants taking all the jobs, but someone has to mow the grass. And as another aside, lawns are incredibly wasteful and harmful to the environment.

[lfromnj]

People are homeless because left-wing cities have made it illegal to provide them with housing at a price they could possibly afford.

Housing markets in metros generally don't exist along municipal lines — left-wing cities and their right-wing suburbs are both culpable here, and the latter is where you get the real excesses. You can't build a new house in Pflugerville [Austin burb] without a minimum 9000 sq ft lot; some of the nicer suburbs require a 2 acre minimum for every new unit.

Disgusting: who needs or even wants a lot that big in this day and age? As an aside, I bet these are the same people who complain about illegal immigrants taking all the jobs, but someone has to mow the grass. And as another aside, lawns are incredibly wasteful and harmful to the environment.

Donerail really exaggerated that .

Idk the local partisanship of Pflugerville but I don't think it voted R in any statewide race last decade that was contested. Its also less white than Austin as a whole and that isn't due to a super high Asian population either although its a bit more Asian than Austin.

[Alcibiades]

People are homeless because left-wing cities have made it illegal to provide them with housing at a price they could possibly afford.

Housing markets in metros generally don't exist along municipal lines — left-wing cities and their right-wing suburbs are both culpable here, and the latter is where you get the real excesses. You can't build a new house in Pflugerville [Austin burb] without a minimum 9000 sq ft lot; some of the nicer suburbs require a 2 acre minimum for every new unit.

Disgusting: who needs or even wants a lot that big in this day and age? As an aside, I bet these are the same people who complain about illegal immigrants taking all the jobs, but someone has to mow the grass. And as another aside, lawns are incredibly wasteful and harmful to the environment.

Donerail really exaggerated that .

Idk the local partisanship of Pflugerville but I don't think it voted R in any statewide race last decade that was contested. Its also less white than Austin as a whole and that isn't due to a super high Asian population either although its a bit more Asian than Austin.

My cousin and her husband live in Pflugerville and they say it has a pretty liberal atmosphere overall.