by Prince » Sun 17 May 2009, 06:17:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'P')eople who live in their cars are often wrongfully searched and/or harassed by law enforcement or told to move elsewhere(where the cycle will be repeated). People who live in tents(as they are in these tent cities) are repeatedly removed by force because many communities don't want them nearby. People who squat in abandoned buildings are often forcibly removed by law enforcement for "trespassing".
It has been well-documented that tent cities bring more than just innocent homeless people with them. Drug and alcohol use in an area increases significantly, which in turn has a domino effect that brings in the drug dealers and gang-bangers looking to make a buck. Petty crime (car prowlers, burglaries, assault, theft) rise by as much as 50%. Pollution also goes up atrociously as these people don't care to respect the living space and confines of those around them. Couple these with the fact that many homeless are mentally ill and disproportionately have a history of child abuse and sexual misconduct, and it is very obvious why people don't want this crap in their neighborhood.
I know you mean well and you have some valid, idealistic points, but for every nice homeless person you meet, there are 30 that would better serve society as fertilizer. Here's something I always ask... where are these people's family? Surely, everyone has *some* family. Okay, maybe not everyone, but let's say 90%. Ninety percent of these people have some family they could fall back on; maybe get a room or have them help them with life as they get back on their feet... and yet the family doesn't want them around. Why is that? My guess is for the reasons cited above--history of drug/alcohol abuse, violence, mental illness, sexual deviancy, fiscally irresponsible, unmotivated to work, etc.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'I')MO, the least expensive way to address this(on part of the taxpayer) would be to not bail out the banks at all, forcibly get rid of property tax collection(so that people can afford a place to live even with no job), outlaw states and municipals from passing anti-vagrancy laws(with plenty of statements from the U.S. constitution to back it up)...
The least expensive way would have been to spend no additional money at all. Spending $2T you don't have on some other interest doesn't change the fact that you didn't have the money to spend in the first place. Besides, the taxpayer already contributes enough of his wallet to socialism. On average, 90 minutes of your 8-hour workday is spent funding social programs. That's a lot.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'a')nd whatever homes are foreclosed on and owned by a bank that in such a scenario would be out of business should be given away to people who are homeless, for free, preferably to the person who previously occupied it. There's more than enough viable homes to go around for everyone who doesn't have one and which wants or needs one.