318
submitted 7 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

The scenes were emblematic of the crisis gripping the small, Oregon mountain town of Grants Pass, where a fierce fight over park space has become a battleground for a much larger, national debate on homelessness that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

The town’s case, set to be heard April 22, has broad implications for how not only Grants Pass, but communities nationwide address homelessness, including whether they can fine or jail people for camping in public. It has made the town of 40,000 the unlikely face of the nation’s homelessness crisis, and further fueled the debate over how to deal with it.

“I certainly wish this wasn’t what my town was known for,” Mayor Sara Bristol told The Associated Press last month. “It’s not the reason why I became mayor. And yet it has dominated every single thing that I’ve done for the last 3 1/2 years.”

Officials across the political spectrum — from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in California, which has nearly 30% of the nation’s homeless population, to a group of 22 conservative-led states — have filed briefs in the case, saying lower court rulings have hamstrung their ability to deal with encampments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago
[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 35 points 7 months ago

Perhaps if they had housing and sufficient social nets so they didn't have to steal to eat and places they could get managed drug doses (you can't just quit, especially without resources) then this wouldn't be a problem.

It's not like people choose to be problems and homeless. Almost all Americans are one or two bad turns away from joining them.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

Studies show the majority of homeless people have jobs. Furthermore they didn't have one big reason for going homeless. They just couldn't afford housing and eventually they are unable to pay. People report sliding into homelessness over the course of years as the cost of housing kept rising without pay rising.

Trying to depict all homeless people as junkies is disingenuous at best.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

That was the estimate from the University of Chicago in 2021 which has since been actively been disproven by point in time counts of actual homeless people.

The Chicago stat:

https://endhomelessness.org/blog/employed-and-experiencing-homelessness-what-the-numbers-show/

"53% of people living in homeless shelters and 40% of unsheltered people were employed, either full or part-time, in the year that people were observed homeless between 2011 – 2018."

The reality is almost the exact opposite:

https://socialinnovation.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Homelessness-and-Employment.pdf

"According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority’s (LAHSA) 2019 Adult Demographic Survey, over 50% of single adults (24 and older) experiencing unsheltered homelessness in Los Angeles County are unemployed (LAHSA, 2019a). Of those unemployed, approximately half reported that they are actively looking for work. The same survey found that 49% of unsheltered adults in family units are unemployed, but a much higher percentage of them (36%) are actively looking for work than single adults. Additionally, 46% of unsheltered adults cited unemployment or a financial reason as a primary reason why they are homeless (LAHSA, 2019a)."

And:

"According to the same survey, about 20% of single adults experiencing unsheltered homelessness in Los Angeles County are working, including full-time, part-time, seasonal, and self-employment compared to about 32% of unsheltered adults in family units (LAHSA, 2019a). Not only are people experiencing homelessness employed at low rates, but evidence shows that those who are employed report very low annual earnings (California Policy Lab, 2020). In Los Angeles County, employed people experiencing homelessness earned an average of just under $10,000 in the year prior to experiencing homelessness (California Policy Lab, 2020)."

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

So first of all, you're comparing two different regions. Second 51 percent of people in the document you linked have an income and 36 percent are seeking work. Third, you should really read their myths document. It pretty clearly refutes all of your claims.

[-] markon@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

So I guess work or kill yourself? That's great. Just great.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

You want things in life? You work for them. Nobody is just going to give them to you.

[-] raynethackery@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

Stop zoning everything for luxury apartments or single family homes.

[-] GhostFence@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

"Just stop being poor, dammit!"

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 6 points 7 months ago

"You should work for what you have! Also, you should donate your time to corporations because they shouldn't have to pay people a living wage to earn all their profit for them!"

[-] GhostFence@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

They have NASA workers living in their vehicles in California. This country is a paved-over wasteland.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

They aren't asking for anyone to give things to them (well, besides spare change). They just want to live their lives and not go to jail. Some want to find a job but can't. Some have a job but not a good enough one to get an apartment. Some want to do drugs and sleep in oblivion. Some have severe mental challenges and couldn't hold a job if they tried.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

While employment helps people stay housed, it does not guarantee housing. As many as 40%-60% of people experiencing homelessness have a job, but housing is unaffordable because wages have not kept up with rising rents. There is no county or state where a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a modest apartment. At minimum wage, people have to work 86 hours a week to afford a one-bedroom. Even when people can afford a home, one is not always available. In 1970, the United States had a surplus of 300,000 affordable homes. Today, only 37 affordable homes are available for every 100 extremely low-income renters. As a result, 70% of the lowest-wage households spend more than half their income on rent, placing them at high risk of homelessness when unexpected expenses (such as car repairs and medical bills) arise. Source

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

How does 51% of homeless people being unemployed in LA County disprove the claim that only 47% of homeless people are unemployed in Chicago? They're almost the same figure...

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 12 points 7 months ago

May be, but we've gotten rid of entire classes of housing that these kind of people would be living in otherwise.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 10 points 7 months ago

Some, you assume, must be good people though, right?

You should build a wall.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Ideally, what I'd like to see is this... It would probably take 1.5 to 2 billion to pull off:

  1. You build and staff a state of the art medical facility for mental health and addiction treatment, including the ability to hold people long term if necessary.

  2. You build and staff a facility for job training and placement, including specialized support for people with criminal records. This would also need to include interview and resume skills. Assistance for email, phone, and Internet, but also clothing assistance, laundry assistance, and the like for interviews.

  3. You build and staff a facility for housing support. Like work assistance, there needs to be specialized support for people with criminal records. But also a permanent address for mail.

  4. Once all that infrastructure is in place, you sweep the streets.

  • People who need mental health and addiction treatment get institutionalized and treated until they are healthy, then they get released to the job and housing programs.

  • People who have no job get the job assistance program.

  • People who have a job get the housing assistance program.

  • People with warrants or otherwise engaging in crimimal behavior (stolen cars, stolen bikes, other material) get arrested.

  • People who are otherwise able bodied, but who are homeless by choice because "I ain't part of your system, maaaan!" get their asses kicked and pressed into service cleaning up homeless camps.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

You started off this post so reasonably...

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

It is reasonable if you want a permanent solution.

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 7 points 7 months ago

Some might say making forced camps for a subset of people might be considered a final solution. But maybe I am just concentrating on the whole sweep the streets of undisrables part.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Camps that help people vs. camps that hurt people is a pretty significant difference. It's clear they can't or won't help themselves.

But I'm open, you have a better solution than letting them live in squalor?

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Ah yes, they can put a uplifting phrase on all the entrances as well. Something like work will set you free maybe. That way you know the camp was built to help people and would be way better then just leaving them alone.

There are some other things that would need to be done as well though. How would the authorities know if someone was both working and had a place? Oh I know we can issue papers to each person that have their job and residence listed, that way all it would take is the local authorities asking everyone out "Papers, please".

On what is a seemingly unrelated note, how much of a history buff are you?

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Your last sentence is what is so unreasonable. You are criminalizing being alive without a job, which means humans have no right to live without being in your system.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Pretty much, yeah, you don't have the right to leech off everyone else. Contribute or GTFO.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 5 points 7 months ago

Since one day you will go bankrupt, or your children will be destitute, and we can throw you all in a cell and laugh at you, I think your lack of empathy has the perfect end game.

Careful about them medical bills when you have a heart attack, tough guy. We don’t like poor people around here.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Been bankrupt, addicted to vicodin, and had 2 heart attacks with a bonus of open heart surgery. Never homeless. Never had to steal from others to get by.

[-] Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

You paid for all those procedures or you got it from the government?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Health insurance through my employer, because, you know, I work for a living.

[-] Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Funny thing, after working in the medical profession many years, you’ve made it all up. The statistics of surviving these things, combined, its zero unless you’re a billionaire. Also since insurance paid for it, you didn’t. Oh that’s different though isn’t it.

I don’t debate liars

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

LOL my open heart surgery scar begs to differ.

If you want to read the full story, you can check my reddit post on it here:

https://www.reddit.com/exjydod

huh, looks like the parent thread got deleted... you can catch the copy on "bestof" here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/ctgc8z/ujordanlund_describes_his_experience_with_us/

The bit that has changed since then is the 2nd heart attack in January... Was running short of breath, thought it was because they changed my meds. Doc told me to go down to the ER and get checked.

Troponin was elevated again. Well, fuck. Having a heart attack right there in the ER... and the power goes out. January remember? This was right in the middle of the ice storm.

They get me checked in, get me an angiogram, tell me I need a stent but they can't do it at Mount Hood, I need an ambulance ride to Good Sam, and the ambulance system is over loaded.

https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2024/01/22/911-was-inundated-with-calls-for-medical-help-during-the-ice-storm/

So, first night at Mount Hood, I wake up around 6 AM and am screwing around on my phone. Nurse comes in...

"Hey, were you asleep?"

"Yeah, why?"

"Your heart rate dropped to 40."

". . . Is that bad?"

Yeah, apparently bad.

They tell me again, ambulance should be there around 10:30 that night.

Same deal... Wake up around 6 AM, on the phone... nurse comes in...

"Were you asleep about an hour ago?"

"Yeah, my heart slow down again?"

"No, your heart stopped for eight seconds."

"Uh, thanks? I guess? I don't know what to do with that information. But wait, the machines didn't go off, aren't they supposed to go off or something?"

"Alerted us at the nurses station."

Anyway, the ambulance showed up that morning, got me to Good Sam and I got stented.

4 days, 2 hospitals, 1 ambulance ride, $2,100 after insurance. Big difference from Kaiser.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

How is sleeping outside and not taking anything leeching off everyone else?

[-] Uranium3006@kbin.social 10 points 7 months ago
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
318 points (100.0% liked)

News

23274 readers
2976 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS