Hostile architecture latest movement to deter homeless, bums, and thieves

As for medians...

If the climate is right you fill this:

median-strip.jpg


With this:

Tiltshift.png


And you get this:

 
Driving by the Superdome yesterday evening when we got to New Orleans there were piles of trash, several piles of sleeping bags, blankets, etc. looking out the window from our hotel I could see a beautiful park with walking trails…and several who have staked out park benches for the night. It’s sad. And I don’t have the answers.

I have tried to help a few people back home and the bottom line is that several appear not to want help. You get them fed and cleaned up and start talking about trying to help them get to a point of being self supporting and a lot of times you get, “I could never do that” or something similar that leads you to believe they’ve given up or don’t want to start trying.

IMO, most I’ve encountered and seen need to be institutionalized for their protection and for the protection of others…but in most cases for their protection alone. The wife missed the turn to our hotel yesterday evening and had to make the block to get back to it. As we did, at the back of a restaurant I see a poor, obviously malnourished lady having an argument … with nothing. If I were king I think I’d focus on building, staffing and funding institutions to help people like her first. Sadly, most I’ve encountered or tried to help would qualify for admittance.

There is a fellow in our small community. Was a good student when he was younger, comes from a decent family, etc. He had a bad car wreck when was in his 20’s. Got hooked on prescription drugs as he was “recovering.” Never could kick it. He wanders the roads now, a man in his late 30’s, often talking to himself or no one. Were it not for his sister and brother he would not have a place to live…and sometimes he chooses to “camp” in places he shouldn’t. Most of the time he isn’t on anything but when he gets a bit of money from mowing yards or doing odd jobs you can bet he’s going to find something with which to mess himself up. If he lived in a city with no family he’d be just like some of the folks I saw yesterday. Like I said, it’s sad.

No doubt it’s sad. And when you see it to the levels we do, on a daily basis, it’s even worse. (And sadly almost desensitizes you to a degree.)

One big debate is over whether we can force clearly mentally ill people off the streets. Right now it’s very/extremely difficult to do. As bad as it is they have the right to be in the streets if they choose to refuse treatment or help. People are working on changing that law but it plays a role.
 
The Democrat controlled congress passed the 1981 Omnibus bill that Reagan signed, idiot. :palm:

I'll wait for you to frantically google it, pissant. :palm:

I pointed out Cali's pro homeless disaster. Nuff said.
Anyone can frantically google and cherry pick one article for an issue as complex as homelessness.

Your Googling skills are not compelling or convincing.

I didn't really see large numbers of homeless people on the streets until the Reagan years.

Republicans controlled the Senate it 1981, meaning they were mostly in the driver's seat of the Federal government having both White House and Senate .


So you continue to flee from the question of whether conservatives are enthusiastic supporters and funders of homeless shelters and mental health resources
 
Last edited:
Driving by the Superdome yesterday evening when we got to New Orleans there were piles of trash, several piles of sleeping bags, blankets, etc. looking out the window from our hotel I could see a beautiful park with walking trails…and several who have staked out park benches for the night. It’s sad. And I don’t have the answers.

I have tried to help a few people back home and the bottom line is that several appear not to want help. You get them fed and cleaned up and start talking about trying to help them get to a point of being self supporting and a lot of times you get, “I could never do that” or something similar that leads you to believe they’ve given up or don’t want to start trying.

IMO, most I’ve encountered and seen need to be institutionalized for their protection and for the protection of others…but in most cases for their protection alone. The wife missed the turn to our hotel yesterday evening and had to make the block to get back to it. As we did, at the back of a restaurant I see a poor, obviously malnourished lady having an argument … with nothing. If I were king I think I’d focus on building, staffing and funding institutions to help people like her first. Sadly, most I’ve encountered or tried to help would qualify for admittance.

There is a fellow in our small community. Was a good student when he was younger, comes from a decent family, etc. He had a bad car wreck when was in his 20’s. Got hooked on prescription drugs as he was “recovering.” Never could kick it. He wanders the roads now, a man in his late 30’s, often talking to himself or no one. Were it not for his sister and brother he would not have a place to live…and sometimes he chooses to “camp” in places he shouldn’t. Most of the time he isn’t on anything but when he gets a bit of money from mowing yards or doing odd jobs you can bet he’s going to find something with which to mess himself up. If he lived in a city with no family he’d be just like some of the folks I saw yesterday. Like I said, it’s sad.

I'm guessing here but for most people, unless you either live in an urban area or commute to work in an urban area, don't see or deal with much homeless during your day to day life. For us, it dominates our news on almost a daily basis.

Here's a good article refuting the lack of funding argument. As it states people can't really agree on the right approach to take. So we spend all this money while getting worse results. Homelessness will never go away. There are some people born with mental health issues and we'll never stop people from being down on their luck etc. That's just a reality of humanity as we don't live in a perfect world. But there are reasons why it's so much more prevalent in some areas than others.




California spends billions on homelessness yet the crisis keeps getting worse


California not only has the nation’s largest number of homeless people, but one of its highest rates of homelessness vis-à-vis its overall population.

The last official count found more than 181,000 Californians without homes, nearly a third of the nation’s homeless population. When new data are released later this year, the number will probably approach 200,000.

The numbers have continued to grow despite many billions of dollars in federal, state and local funds having been spent – $20 or so billion by the state alone over the last five years. As the problem worsens, it consistently ranks as one of Californians’ most pressing public policy issues, polling has found.

How is it, one might ask, that so much money could be spent with so little, if any, progress?

One factor, certainly, is that the underlying causes of homelessness, such as sky-high housing costs, family breakups, mental illness and drug addiction have not abated.

Another, probably, is that here is no consensus on what programs would be most successful and officialdom has taken a scattergun approach, providing money to a bewildering array of often overlapping programs and services in hopes of finding approaches that work.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who pledged 20 years ago to end homelessness in San Francisco when serving as the city’s mayor, is touting a measure on the March 5 ballot that would authorize bonds to build facilities for treating the mentally ill and redirect some funds from a two-decade-old special mental health tax into new programs. He’s also won legislative approval of “CARE courts” that could compel some mentally ill Californians into receiving treatment.

The multiplicity of programs to deal with homelessness cries out for some kind of independent appraisal of what’s been spent and how effective the spending has been.

We may get such an overview soon because the Legislature has approved a request from Republicans for the state auditor to delve into what’s been spent.

“Homelessness is the most urgent issue facing California,” said state Sen. Roger Niello of Roseville, one of those making the request. “Given the crisis has only worsened, we need to know what the money has accomplished and what programs have been effective in moving people to permanent housing.”

One area the state auditor should examine is what could be termed “bang-for-the-buck” – the startlingly expensive costs of providing even the most basic services to homeless Californians.

Sacramento, like other large California cities, has a large and growing homeless population and a new report from the city auditor is indicative of that aspect of the homeless crisis.

Auditor Farishta Ahrary said the city, which faces a $66 million budget deficit, spent $57 million on homelessness during the 2022-23 fiscal year, $34 million of it on maintaining about 1,300 beds of temporary shelter, or enough to house about a third of the city’s homeless people. Overall that’s about $26,000 per bed or $2,000-plus per month, which would equal the rent on a mid-range apartment.

Three contracts for shelters between the city and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency amounting to more than $10 million stand out. Two 100-bed facilities cost the city almost $7 million – well over $100 per bed per day – while the third, $3.3 million for a 24-bed shelter for young people, cost the city $373 per day for each bed.

Sacramento is not alone in paying a lot of money for rudimentary shelters, and costs of that magnitude indicate that California would have to spend much more than the current levels to put roofs over the heads of its homeless people.

Meanwhile, Newsom is proposing to pare back homelessness spending because the state faces a multibillion-dollar budget deficit.


https://calmatters.org/commentary/2024/02/california-billions-homelessness-crisis-growing/
 
"The Last Bill JFK Signed — And The Mental Health Work ...

WBUR
https://www.wbur.org › news › 2013/10/23 › communi...
Oct 23, 2013 — Kennedy signed a bill meant to free many thousands of Americans with mental illnesses from life in institutions.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2013/10/23/community-mental-health-kennedy

The 1963 CMHA act.

As normal lying. Kennedys bill was designed to move people with mental health problems to local communities where they would be treated better and hopefullly recover. The crowding inmental institutions had made them prisons with no hope. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/05/truth-about-deinstitutionalization/618986/
 
While I support such measures including piping loud classical symphony music into known homeless congregation areas, the criticism of laws that try not to punish the innocent along with the guilty is unfounded.

The right seeks to make the lives of all homeless people more difficult, even the ones who don't cause the kinds of destruction and property damage these architectural features are meant to deter.

IOW, they want to punish law abiding homeless people along with the lawbreakers.

Reminds me of the exact same argument the right always uses against stricter gun laws.

I guess it's OK to punish the innocent along with the guilty in some cases but not others.

If they are camping on the sidewalk, that's vagrancy. It's illegal in many cities.
 
It'll be interesting to see the increased level of damage to vehicles and injury to people that will occur when someone accidentally runs their car up on that median.

Hard to believe state highway building codes would even allow something like that.

Must be in some shithole redneck red state.

Don't hit 'em. They completely comply with current highway building codes.
 
Living in San Francisco I can speak first hand to the failures of progressive policies on dealing with the homeless. (And to the idea of funding, we spend billions on it, it's not a funding issue).

That said, NIMBYism may be one of the last few bi-partisan things remaining. And NIMBYism plays a huge role in the lack of development of much needed housing. Remember Trump's statement "I'll protect your suburbs"? That was a very 1960's style statement (as suburbs have greatly changed since then) stating I'll prevent more density being built in your neighborhoods. So simply putting Republicans in power isn't going to fix the problem if they have the same anti-housing/development mindset.

In San Francisco we practice NIMBYism on steroids. We passed a billion dollar bond measure for housing for the homeless and then they never build it because everyone fights against it being built. On one hand it's understandable when you pay a couple of million dollars for your home/condo that you might not want a homeless shelter next door. But it has to be built somewhere... But most Republicans aren't going to have a different reaction to that than San Francisco liberals do.

Housing for the homeless is not the answer. All that happens is that they trash the housing or simply not want to move into them (they would rather stay camping on the sidewalk).
 
I'm guessing here but for most people, unless you either live in an urban area or commute to work in an urban area, don't see or deal with much homeless during your day to day life. For us, it dominates our news on almost a daily basis.

Here's a good article refuting the lack of funding argument. As it states people can't really agree on the right approach to take. So we spend all this money while getting worse results. Homelessness will never go away. There are some people born with mental health issues and we'll never stop people from being down on their luck etc. That's just a reality of humanity as we don't live in a perfect world. But there are reasons why it's so much more prevalent in some areas than others.




California spends billions on homelessness yet the crisis keeps getting worse


California not only has the nation’s largest number of homeless people, but one of its highest rates of homelessness vis-à-vis its overall population.

The last official count found more than 181,000 Californians without homes, nearly a third of the nation’s homeless population. When new data are released later this year, the number will probably approach 200,000.

The numbers have continued to grow despite many billions of dollars in federal, state and local funds having been spent – $20 or so billion by the state alone over the last five years. As the problem worsens, it consistently ranks as one of Californians’ most pressing public policy issues, polling has found.

How is it, one might ask, that so much money could be spent with so little, if any, progress?

One factor, certainly, is that the underlying causes of homelessness, such as sky-high housing costs, family breakups, mental illness and drug addiction have not abated.

Another, probably, is that here is no consensus on what programs would be most successful and officialdom has taken a scattergun approach, providing money to a bewildering array of often overlapping programs and services in hopes of finding approaches that work.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who pledged 20 years ago to end homelessness in San Francisco when serving as the city’s mayor, is touting a measure on the March 5 ballot that would authorize bonds to build facilities for treating the mentally ill and redirect some funds from a two-decade-old special mental health tax into new programs. He’s also won legislative approval of “CARE courts” that could compel some mentally ill Californians into receiving treatment.

The multiplicity of programs to deal with homelessness cries out for some kind of independent appraisal of what’s been spent and how effective the spending has been.

We may get such an overview soon because the Legislature has approved a request from Republicans for the state auditor to delve into what’s been spent.

“Homelessness is the most urgent issue facing California,” said state Sen. Roger Niello of Roseville, one of those making the request. “Given the crisis has only worsened, we need to know what the money has accomplished and what programs have been effective in moving people to permanent housing.”

One area the state auditor should examine is what could be termed “bang-for-the-buck” – the startlingly expensive costs of providing even the most basic services to homeless Californians.

Sacramento, like other large California cities, has a large and growing homeless population and a new report from the city auditor is indicative of that aspect of the homeless crisis.

Auditor Farishta Ahrary said the city, which faces a $66 million budget deficit, spent $57 million on homelessness during the 2022-23 fiscal year, $34 million of it on maintaining about 1,300 beds of temporary shelter, or enough to house about a third of the city’s homeless people. Overall that’s about $26,000 per bed or $2,000-plus per month, which would equal the rent on a mid-range apartment.

Three contracts for shelters between the city and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency amounting to more than $10 million stand out. Two 100-bed facilities cost the city almost $7 million – well over $100 per bed per day – while the third, $3.3 million for a 24-bed shelter for young people, cost the city $373 per day for each bed.

Sacramento is not alone in paying a lot of money for rudimentary shelters, and costs of that magnitude indicate that California would have to spend much more than the current levels to put roofs over the heads of its homeless people.

Meanwhile, Newsom is proposing to pare back homelessness spending because the state faces a multibillion-dollar budget deficit.


https://calmatters.org/commentary/2024/02/california-billions-homelessness-crisis-growing/

There is so much truth and relevance in this. What to do? Where to spend the money that is allocated? Which approach helps the most? I don’t think there are any really clear answers.

Based solely on my think so alone I would work at getting the mentally ill off the streets first as I indicated in my other post. But then what? I honestly don’t know.

A fellow who is of the same religious persuasion as I and whom I listen to on sports talk radio almost every day is part of and promotes an initiative in Tulsa that builds tiny houses to try to help the situation. They use donations, any public funding available through grants and even volunteer labor to build them. I’m not completely sold on the idea that this is the best approach but I do support their efforts both publicly and financially. At least it is trying something.

I do see this as a critical problem in the US which no one has a clear cut solution for.
 
There is so much truth and relevance in this. What to do? Where to spend the money that is allocated? Which approach helps the most? I don’t think there are any really clear answers.

Based solely on my think so alone I would work at getting the mentally ill off the streets first as I indicated in my other post. But then what? I honestly don’t know.

A fellow who is of the same religious persuasion as I and whom I listen to on sports talk radio almost every day is part of and promotes an initiative in Tulsa that builds tiny houses to try to help the situation. They use donations, any public funding available through grants and even volunteer labor to build them. I’m not completely sold on the idea that this is the best approach but I do support their efforts both publicly and financially. At least it is trying something.

I do see this as a critical problem in the US which no one has a clear cut solution for.

There's no simple solution, that's for sure. Housing definitely plays a role. I think tiny homes can be part of a broad solution. The challenge is there are Cities that make building very expensive and that includes paying high wages for labor and meeting expensive new electrical codes. One can argue those later things are good but the result is we build less homes and they cost much more. Doesn't really help address the problem of building cheap homes. And you'll find organized labor fight against volunteer labor or non-labor building these properties.

This was kind of before my time (or at least my memory) but didn't we used to lock people up in the mental wards? Wasn't the One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest about the horrible treatment people received in them? I can remember years ago reading a book about the 1970s and people were arguing it was inhumane to lock people up in the psych wards and that led to them being able to live on the streets. We're having that same debate today.

Now granted we're not policy experts on this but we've spent billions and the so-called experts haven't made the situation better. More money spent on the same ideas isn't working.
 
There's no simple solution, that's for sure. Housing definitely plays a role. I think tiny homes can be part of a broad solution. The challenge is there are Cities that make building very expensive and that includes paying high wages for labor and meeting expensive new electrical codes. One can argue those later things are good but the result is we build less homes and they cost much more. Doesn't really help address the problem of building cheap homes. And you'll find organized labor fight against volunteer labor or non-labor building these properties.

We’ll have to let an organized labor expert wade in on this. Mr. Niblick, are you out there?

This was kind of before my time (or at least my memory) but didn't we used to lock people up in the mental wards? Wasn't the One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest about the horrible treatment people received in them? I can remember years ago reading a book about the 1970s and people were arguing it was inhumane to lock people up in the psych wards and that led to them being able to live on the streets. We're having that same debate today.

Yes, no doubt there was ill treatment of the mentally ill in institutions and I’m sure there would be again without proper oversight…and I am one who believes that no matter how much oversight you can’t catch everyone. I defer to the words of Mr. Spock: ”The needs of the many oughtweigh…”

Now granted we're not policy experts on this but we've spent billions and the so-called experts haven't made the situation better. More money spent on the same ideas isn't working.

No, you and I aren’t policy experts but then you and I can have a civil discussion when it seems that nowadays the people responsible for spending those billions can’t. You’re correct…what they’re spending on ain’t working.
 
Living in San Francisco I can speak first hand to the failures of progressive policies on dealing with the homeless. (And to the idea of funding, we spend billions on it, it's not a funding issue).

That said, NIMBYism may be one of the last few bi-partisan things remaining. And NIMBYism plays a huge role in the lack of development of much needed housing. Remember Trump's statement "I'll protect your suburbs"? That was a very 1960's style statement (as suburbs have greatly changed since then) stating I'll prevent more density being built in your neighborhoods. So simply putting Republicans in power isn't going to fix the problem if they have the same anti-housing/development mindset.

In San Francisco we practice NIMBYism on steroids. We passed a billion dollar bond measure for housing for the homeless and then they never build it because everyone fights against it being built. On one hand it's understandable when you pay a couple of million dollars for your home/condo that you might not want a homeless shelter next door. But it has to be built somewhere... But most Republicans aren't going to have a different reaction to that than San Francisco liberals do.

Who wants bums shitting in their gardens?
 
Who wants bums shitting in their gardens?

We kind of have that now (metaphorically speaking). It's a strange experience to be walking your very young child down a street with multi-million dollar homes/condos surrounding you and a clearly mentally ill person screaming at you at the top of their lungs. SF is not a big City land wise so it is very urban and here you can't say 'well just don't go into that neighborhood and you won't see the homeless'.

The homeless aren't leaving the City so it's either a let them stay on the street choice or put housing for them in someone's neighborhood.
 
We kind of have that now (metaphorically speaking). It's a strange experience to be walking your very young child down a street with multi-million dollar homes/condos surrounding you and a clearly mentally ill person screaming at you at the top of their lungs. SF is not a big City land wise so it is very urban and here you can't say 'well just don't go into that neighborhood and you won't see the homeless'.

The homeless aren't leaving the City so it's either a let them stay on the street choice or put housing for them in someone's neighborhood.

I had to go to downtown Phoenix on Monday about a building permit. It was about 9-ish in the morning, and the only thing in sight other than a very occasional worker moving to a building or unloading a truck were homeless people wandering aimlessly around. I took the fail (aka light rail) three stops because it's cheaper ($2) than parking downtown and walking further. But if it wasn't for the homeless there'd of been hardly a person in sight. The near silence was kind of spooky too.
 
I had to go to downtown Phoenix on Monday about a building permit. It was about 9-ish in the morning, and the only thing in sight other than a very occasional worker moving to a building or unloading a truck were homeless people wandering aimlessly around. I took the fail (aka light rail) three stops because it's cheaper ($2) than parking downtown and walking further. But if it wasn't for the homeless there'd of been hardly a person in sight. The near silence was kind of spooky too.

It’s been a long time since I’ve been to downtown Phoenix but was reading there’s a 25% office vacancy and I can imagine a number of people are still either working from home or on a hybrid schedule. So that means less activity on the streets and the homeless definitely stand out more.

Downtown San Francisco has had that feel at times, like if not for the homeless you’d be in a ghost town.
 
Anyone can frantically google and cherry pick one article for an issue as complex as homelessness.

Your Googling skills are not compelling or convincing.

I didn't really see large numbers of homeless people on the streets until the Reagan years.

Republicans controlled the Senate it 1981, meaning they were mostly in the driver's seat of the Federal government having both White House and Senate .


So you continue to flee from the question of whether conservatives are enthusiastic supporters and funders of homeless shelters and mental health resources

The democrats owned congress for 4 decades, ... from '52 to '92. And the Senate for all but 2 years. So what did the Dems do after JFK emptied the asylums? Nothing.
 
Back
Top