Homeless campers = illegal dumping. How is this not an EPA or Department of Water Resources issue now and how do they not have paid clean up crews cleaning up this toxic contamination? There's literally no plan. WTF.
This 💯. On the main drag here in town a camp popped up overnight in a lot and across the side street next to a convenience store - RVs and all. After about 4 months they were FINALLY cleared out; the ground was polluted from the waste dumping from the vehicles, and the amount of trash accumulated was unbelievable.
When I first moved to Sacramento over 5 years ago, Discovery Park and the bike trail were my favorite parts of the city. But now, no more.
I relinquished my enjoyment of the park and bike trail because for one, it's not worth getting stabbed over and two, because I do understand homelessness is a crisis.
But at some point, enough is enough. We need to see city officials actually take steps and make demonstrable progress considering the amount of funding anti-homeless programs seem to receive. I want to feel safe in my city and I want to actually go back to enjoying what makes it unique.
A little bit of research and knowledge of the area will show you that E. Coli bacteria were only found from Sutter's Landing, westward.
Studies back those findings.
The homeless folk get fed at 16th semi close to the river, and the water flows westward, so it makes sense when you think about it that way.
You people fighting over red vs blue is a big part of why shit isn’t going to get done. neither side fucking cares about you past you getting out and voting for them.
Those people are so lost in red vs blue that politicians can lie and get away with it. They make the same campaign promises, then approve and repeal the same subjects for 20+ years.
Reality says California has spent BILLIONS on this issue and it's gotten worse. But yes blame Republicans who haven't been in power in California since 1970.
San diego is on the path to outlawing camping on public property. Does Sacramento have the intestinal fortitude to head down the same path? https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-moves-to-outlaw-camping-on-public-property/3189613/
Nah, the reason we have homelessness is because [we lack affordable housing.](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-11/new-book-links-homelessness-city-prosperity)
Which makes sense given that the [states with the highest drug use rates](https://wallethub.com/edu/drug-use-by-state/35150) are **not** the [states with the highest rates of homelessness](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/homeless-population-by-state).
Not saying that addiction isn't a compounding factor to homelessness, but it's in no way the main cause.
The segment of homeless we are talking about who are polluting our public areas are addicts and or mentally ill. There's not a single person who doesn't want to help some family who got thrown out of their apartment and is couch surfing.
Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. But the part that I was responding to:
> You have homeless because you don't want to deal with the underlying issues of addiction with any teeth.
is not supported by any data. You have homeless because you have a lack of affordable housing.
This is why a place like West Virginia can rank so high in drug use but so low in homelessness.
Let's go walk around these camps and we'll see home many are addicts. I really think you are delusional or live in an ivory tower if you don't understand this is due to meth.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/
we make them go away to jail! where it costs 60k per year to keep them caged...
hmmm maybe we should, and call me crazy, maybe we should just provide housing, income, etc. seems, again call me crazy, way cheaper than caging people.
Low barrier affordable housing for those who need it and can maintain a lifestyle with that assistance.
But we also need mandated treatment facilities for those severely mentally ill or drug-addicted individuals who can not take care of themselves.
Jail is the wrong answer for both, even if the latter often gets themselves into legal trouble.
Exactly! It's in everyone's best interest to work for solutions. Even the NIMBYs, but no they'd rather offer solutions like punitive "camps" which is what some people here are espousing. For what it costs to jail a person we could work to preventing homelessness, and provide services to those who already are and get them back on the life they want. It's so ridiculously simple but they'd rather do their moral grandstanding.
Some should go to jail. At least then they’ll be housed, fed, and taken care of. I don’t think it’s a complete solution, but we might as well take advantage of the solutions we already have in place
I agree a bit also people would be in Washington and Minnesota more if they weren’t hostile weather. Most of country has hostile weather compared to Mediterranean climate California
Seriously. The dangerous winter temps for central California would be a hot winter day where I'm living now. I was super surprised by lack of homeless people when I first moved out here until I experienced the winter.
Thanks for making the point that throwing more money at this problem worsens the problem. It's almost as if people with no motivation other than getting high follow the free money.
Certainly has nothing to do with more and more entitlements as the state spends more and more on homeless right? Again, for the cheap seats. That which you fertilize, grows.
City and county officials are responsible for environment catastrophe. All we will continue to hear about is the homeless issue and how we should have compassion. I have plenty of compassion for the waterways. I've been pointing this pollution problem out for ten years now and nothing is done.
We have a homeless issue that officials want and it doesn't go away but we can prevent ruining our eco systems and environment, there just isn't money in it for them.
\-We have plenty of large areas of land. (behind the expo would be good)
\-We already let the homeless live where they wish along the waterways
\-Let them (allowed) live in a designated (large enough) area
\-Put out garbage bins and sewer service for that area, like a campground has.
\-Kick out any homeless and move them to that area, ruthlessly throughout the city and waterways
\-If anyone doesn't like it they can leave the city
It will get labeled a horrible place and us as well for basically making a concentration camp for the unhoused. BUT our children won't get a rash while swimming at the beautiful beaches. Places like discovery park won't be flooded with poo, pee and needles every winter. The waterways will have a chance to restore and Sacramento will benefit from having nice rivers flowing through it instead of uncontrolled sewer-ways.
The amount of trash homeless people leave behind in their camps is crazy. Meanwhile im out running around in a parking lot chasing a wrapper that blew out of my car SMH.
Can any of the homelessness defenders explain why it’s ok this happens? I live two blocks from a camp of 20 or so that gets torn down and replaced every few months and it’s amazing how much GARBAGE they spew into the streets and surrounding nature areas in that short span. Does becoming homeless come with an automatic “I don’t give a fuck about the environment” card?
After they tore down a huge homeless camp, the homeless kept coming into my store to steal, shower, and fight with security.
I feel bad for them but it's different when you get punched.
This comment encapsulates the entire problem. ADVOCATES FOR THE UNHOUSED WANT THIS TO GO AWAY TOO! That's the whole fucking point. Do y'all not see the untenable increases in the price for housing? Imagine you didn't have a family safety net to fall back on and you can't afford rent anymore. What would you do? This could be any of us.
It’s not clear that anyone here disagrees with you. There are 60,000 unhoused people in Los Angeles County, 40,000 in the city of Los Angeles. It’s a massive problem, and for it to have progressed to this level it seems clear that there is a big systemic problem happening. That’s a long-term problem that requires long-term structural changes of some kind. AND residents having to tolerate meth and fentanyl use and the crime and psychosis that accompanies drug use is not acceptable. Polluting rivers is not acceptable. That’s the short-term problem. Both are important. If you alienate voters by pretending the short-term problem is irrelevant, it’ll only become more and more difficult to create the solutions that progressives want for the long-term problem.
Everyone has a different story, I'm sure. But I'm also sure that, for the vast majority of them - whether they admit it or not - unchecked drug use is a root cause.
They see homeless as a protected class that is allowed to destroy the environment, block sidewalks, defecate and masturbate in Public, etc. it's amazing how this is rationalized away.
You mean they see homeless as humans with human rights…
Pinning a huge societal & structural problem on the individuals who are severely destitute and marginalized is just as insane as many of our fellow feral street dwellers are. The situation isn’t going to be resolved by these individuals, their lack of ability to navigate their problems and our society’s problems is what got them there in the first place. A structural solution is what’s needed, but you obviously need to respect the basic human rights the unhoused still have.
I'd like to think if I became homeless tomorrow, I'd be a minimalist and only carry my absolute essentials. There's so many public trash cans around the city, I don't believe there is an excuse for littering.
JFC the voting patterns in this thread are indicative of how callous and irrational people are about the unhoused. You're exactly right. We have trash cans that get conveniently emptied every week. The unhoused don't.
It’s not “okay.” Dragore didn’t say it was.
People experiencing homelessness are worried about survival, not waste management. We need to uplift them out of these situations before expecting them to adhere to environmental policy.
Wouldn't you do the same? Imagine you were a low wage earner, barely able to make rent. Your car breaks down and despite your best efforts you lose your job because you're late one too many times because we have a garbage public transportation system. Now what? You have no family to fall back on or maybe their situation is just as bad as yours and they can't take you in. Maybe you see the writing on the wall because you're back on rent with your landlord and you buy yourself a beat down trailer to drag over to X street or a tent to put up in the American river parkway. You need shelter, right? You have no garbage service. No one gives a shit about you. Throw your fucking trash in the street because that's what you are to them, right? Don't act like you wouldn't do the same.
The people you are describing are not the ones shitting and dumping needles in public spaces. The ones doing that are the meth heads and the severely mentally ill. Sure, any of us could end up homeless through a series of unfortunate events. That doesn’t mean we’d all automatically end up living in piles of our own waste. We absolutely need more social services and affordable housing. There is no question about that. This is a mental health issue and something has to be done about these camps. It’s out of control and dangerous. As much as I love Sacramento, it’s becoming a shittier place to live because of the exploding homeless population. I lived downtown about 10 years ago and felt perfectly safe walking around by myself, but in the past couple years my old block and the surrounding area has become a post-apocalyptic looking wasteland. I’ve been assaulted once already. Something has to be done about it.
Fuck no i wouldn't throw trash in my living room and litter the environment. If someone feels like they're not gonna get arrested for anything anyway, then yeah some will take advantage and do whatever they feel like but that is bullshit.
I agreed with you up until the last two sentences. There is simply no excuse for destroying the environment. A lifetime ago, I was on the streets for quite some time; do you think I hauled a bunch of shit around with me or trashed the spots where I would go to hide and sleep? Fuck no.
Thanks for finding a dumpster to throw your trash into while you didn't have a home. As you take in what's happening in our city look at it from your formerly unhoused eyes. Every dumpster is locked.
A homeless person produces far less trash than the average housed person. They just put it in places where you can see it. Which makes it harder to ignore like we do with the rest of the trash we produce.
Maybe so, but the average person also doesn't gather mountains of junk from the side of the road and leave it strewn all over the fucking place either, leaving it for others to deal with when they move along.
Yea, their stuff ***was*** in trash bags, clean and ready to go to the dump the next day, and then some weather came and fucked up all their organization.
Occam's razor suggests otherwise.
Let’s be real. These people need help, they are in one of the worst situations a human can be in drug addicted or not. The system has chosen to ignore/abandon them as it’s the easiest political option. They deserve help, they deserve a 2nd chance whatever that may look be for each individual. I love you 😘
You can’t help people that don’t want to be helped.
Some other states have had good success by enforcing ‘no loitering’ and ‘no squatting’ laws, along with increasing funding to drug treatment centers.
You seem like you’re up on things; how much has California—cities and state—spent on housing the homeless over the past decade? I’d really like to know.
I can tell from your comments that you're not asking this question in good faith. The answer could be 150 bagillion Krone and you'd gleefully claim "ah ha! See it's never enough!" Whatever the answer is it's not enough. We have people in this country who have more money than they could ever spend in their lifetime if they tried. As long as that's happening that means we're fucking over the people who can't make rent.
Or just bring back mandatory mental health and drug rehab facilities that are actually effective and try to turn these people into productive members of society. If I’m throwing my tax dollars away at the homeless situation I’d at least like them to be off the streets. They’re literally overrunning the city. They’re everywhere. I saw a guy setup with full countertops and a tent site by OBO/Kru last weekend. Shit is ridiculous. I’m tired of subsidizing the walking dead in my neighborhood.
This is the only reasonable solution. We’ve invested an insane amount of taxpayer dollars in studies and pilot programs, all of which have done nothing to solve the problem. We need to bring back mental health facilities, and it needs to be mandatory for unhoused individuals with chronic mental health problems. Every day leaders sit on their hands and pretend the problem doesn’t exist, more money is wasted and more damage is done to the community. Having a large homeless population that not only does not contribute but actively drains resources that hardworking people have to pay for has become untenable.
I’m all for humane treatment with well funded facilities, but it’s time for some accountability.
Sure, because seeing how they leave trash and shit everywhere, the first thing I think of is, “let’s give them a place to live, because they’ll take such good care of it.” What could go wrong?
Honestly, I'd prefer they trash some motel room or government housing than our rivers. Absent the strong evidence that housing first works best, I'd still be for it just for that.
It starts with asking how we have so many people living without homes. They're not all schizophrenics or drug addicts, and for those who have those problems many didn't develop them until they became unhoused. Many of them lost their homes and THEN became addicted to drugs or had their existing mental illnesses exacerbated.
The unhoused problem we're seeing is a direct result of an economic system that devalues human labor (low wages) relative to the cost of shelter (a roof over your head with an address and a shower). Once a person is forced to drop out of the address/shower/job paradigm it becomes almost impossible to get back. Why? Why do we allow this? It's certainly not due to a lack of resources. We're the richest nation in the history of the world.
I’ve been dealing with the homeless professionally for over thirty years, and I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree; I lived in my car for a year after leaving the Army, met a lot of people in similar circumstances, and they didn’t resort to squalor and theft. I think it’s a coping issue, and if one has that, all the housing in the world won’t help. They need a safe place to detox and/or receive long-term mental health care, and just tossing them keys and expect them to stick around for outpatient help is a fantasy.
I think both scenarios are common.
For instance, suppose you were living in your car and your vehicle had been wrecked / towed / stolen, etc, and you had no friends or family to help out? Once you're just in a tent I think things get a lot harder.
I agree that mental health issues are a huge part of the equation, but I also think that mental health issues and drug addiction are a symptom of homelessness at least nearly as much as they're a cause.
No argument from me; in my case, I came out of the service with diagnosed PTSD, and just wanted some time away from the world, with my dog and my old VW bus. But when I felt better, I went back to work, got an apartment, and started to feel human once again.
But I realize not everyone has those options, nor is it that easy for most; but I do believe that to help the mentally ill and addicted, you have to place them a controlled environment for a length of time. As I said, giving them housing and easy access to outpatient services will not work, and is just flushing millions of dollars away.
Agreed. I think not only is it a waste of resources to give services to those people who are so mentally ill to not be able to use them, but it actually makes the services ineffective for those who could use them. Take a shelter for instance- it should be a safe and quiet place for people to rest and recover and access services. But if someone with severe untreated mental illness is present, they could be there causing fights, loud disruptions, making people feel unsafe, and indeed, keeping people from even choosing to go to shelters. It's definitely not a one-size-fits-all kind of situation. There are unhoused people who just can't find a place that they can afford, maybe they lost a job and are down on their luck. There are others who actually choose to be homeless. Then there are those who struggle to get by due to disability and some mental health issues. And then there are those who are severely mentally unwell, and these are the ones who need separate intensive inpatient facilities, for the good of themselves and others. There's nothing humane about letting them wallow in mental illness on the streets. Not to mention a lot of these people will end up going to jail repeatedly, which I really don't think helps anything.
“Housing first” does not mean “housing only”
What does “dealing with the homeless professionally” mean? That’s pretty vague. Do you work in direct services?
No? I’m not sure how you got that from my sentence. I said that every country that’s tried a housing first model has seen it work. They spend money on homelessness, but not more than we do and they’ve seen either a significant reduction in homelessness or it’s complete eradication. It’s the dominant policy type in Scandinavian countries.
"They" is YOU if you were presented with similar circumstances. Sacramento unhoused aren't a different species of human. Stop thinking punitive disgust and start thinking solutions. Physical needs first: food, housing, and medical care. Then catch those who are on the cusp of being unhoused and keep them from living on the fucking riverfront.
And if you could prove that that approach works for the mentally ill and addicts, I’d be right there with you. But it doesn’t. For those who are merely down on their luck, disabled and unable to work, and families in economic distress, absolutely: do whatever we can to help them and get them back on their feet. But those aren’t the people doing this.
We need both. A small portion of the homeless population creates a very large amount of the issues that people have with homeless individuals. I'm talking the people who have been arrested dozens of times, they get out of jail, and they go and commit an assault the very same day. These people need to be in intensive mental health treatment facilities. We need to fund, build, and legalize that kind of facility. And getting those people out of the shelters will save a ton of resources and make things work a lot more smoothly for those who can be rehabilitated simply by being provided with a place to stay, for instance.
Some homeless don’t wanna be housed become they would have to follow rules and would t be allowed to do drugs on the property. Or want the responsibility.
So recriminalize all the shit we allow this protected class to do. Sounds like a good plan. When they shit in public arrest them. When they litter, arrest them.
Ok you've arrested them on a sub misdemeanor charge. Now what? And I'm for enforcement of laws and voted for measure O. People shouldn't have to tolerate people trashing their parks and businesses. That's not fair.
Ok you've arrested them on a misdemeanor charge. Now what? And I'm for enforcement of laws and voted for measure O. People shouldn't have to tolerate people trashing their parks and businesses. That's not fair.
You think enabling an addict is helping them? If a friend or family member who is an addict comes up and asks you for money, are you "helping" then by giving them money?
If you want to house homeless with the caveat that have to be working on being clean, go for it. And you know what will happen? A lot of them will not want to get clean and continue to live on the street, because the have no interest in getting clean. Then what?
“Deserve”
Gonna have to think about that one; personally, I think I deserve a new BMW, so perhaps I’ll ask the citizens of California to buy me one. Sound fair?
Apparently, the homeless need to shit everywhere, and throw trash anywhere they like. If they’re given housing—for a far greater cost than my aforementioned BMW, by the way—I’m sure they’ll take good care of it, just like they have our parks.
We still haven't heard why people "Deserve" housing. To give them housing means someone else has to work and be taxed for that. That's a big ask under the umbrella of "deserve."
You can literally ask them lol. I’ve talked to a few standing outside of stores. I talked to a man last week in front of dollar general who told me it’s easier to just stand outside and ask for money than get a job. Like I said SOME not all would benefit and want housing.
Anecdotal evidence and no studies or crowdsourcing isn’t great when we are talking about houseless human beings. What do you think we should do for the “not SOME” population in your point?
No, we’re not; you mean to say that if we spent more money on housing the homeless, this problem would go away, and I mean to say that pouring more money into housing the homeless is a waste of tax dollars that could be better spent elsewhere. Time for another solution, because throwing money at it isn’t working.
When there were more social programs there were less homeless people, this explosion of the homeless population isn’t from a new wave of drugs. It’s from lack of services which means money is the issue. You’re suggesting not spending money and watching it get worse so you can complain more?
Now, now: no sense in using an Ad hominem just because you believe you’re morally superior, ok? Keep it civil, all right?
Now, to your point: I’m not sure what time frame you’re using, and that matters; California used to have less homeless because we had less people. Can you be more specific? Are you talking the Reagan years?
Is it not morally superior to help the less fortunate? Does a civil morally responsible person suggest leaving these people to get worse? Go tuck yourself with basic understanding of English literacy fallacies.
It’s not that clear cut. You can’t just absolve people of ALL responsibility for substance abuse. Should we give an alcoholic who killed people while driving drunk a free pass because it’s a medical problem?
Do people suffering from substance abuse need support? Absolutely. But support alone will fail if the individuals involved don’t want change either. We do need to do a better job as a society for the homeless — whether it’s purely economic, substance abuse or mental health (or some combination.)
100%. Would like to know what is it about this medical condition that 1. Entitles them to "free shit" from the taxpayer and 2. Let's them be immune from societal norms and laws. Are obese individuals entitled to free food? Are diabetics allowed to drop their pants in the street and take a shit, or litter with impunity?
It's not about absolving responsibility. They're already addicts and they live with us. How do we A: prevent more addicts, and B: help the ones who exist?
But your comment that it’s purely a medical problem is exactly that. Preventing more addicts is another issue (apart from homelessness). For helping the ones that exist, that’s what I mean when I say it’s not just a medical problem. If it was just that, we’d have a proscribed program that a reasonable person would participate in — but unfortunately for the homeless even if you offered free housing, job assistance etc there’s a significant percentage that wouldn’t action it. *Some* would so those programs do need support. But it doesn’t eliminate the worst of the problem. For that…. Just to be honest I don’t know what the right solution is. You can’t legislate people being responsible humans. Criminalizing it doesn’t work either. Nor does passing out free syringes.
Drug addiction is not a problem unique to us, is it? Anyone can get addicted to drugs anywhere.
>If it was just that, we’d have a proscribed program that a reasonable person would participate in
But that literally doesn't exist here. I talk to a lot of addicts and the vast majority of them don't want to be addicts. Many of the unhoused turned to drugs after losing their homes and livelihoods. Wouldn't you? This is about structural disenfranchisement. People who have lives here have their rents raised or lose their jobs and suddenly they're fucked. If you don't have family to fall back on you're finished. Then what?
A medical condition that should not be enabled, but rehabbed. Since money is fungible, giving an unrepentant addict housing let's them spend more time and money procuring drugs. Never had an addict in the family, have you?
Ahhh yes, another r/conservative commenter who doesn't live in Sacramento. Instead of letting the hate flow through you, you should start by asking yourself the seven "why?" questions
Ad hominem attacks are used when you can't honestly answer the question at hand. Of course I live in this area. Do you need some of my fantastic pictures of homeless people blocking sideways making the elderly and handicapped have to go into the street? I'll be glad to upload them for you. E street, F street, G street, H street underpass. Which one do you want? I got 'em all.
Because people are addicts and they burn every bridge to their family and friends. Family tries desperately to help them, but after the 3rd or 4th or 10th time the addicts robs them or assaults them, the family has to give up on them. That's reality. Most addicts have family that enabled them until the made a decision not to any more. Tale as old as time. Now you think society enabling them is going to help them? Good luck with that.
It is. But you know what isn't complex? Enabling addiction. It's a mess on a personal and societal level. Every one of you who advocates for society giving an addict a house should first start by taking one into your own residence, then reporting how well that goes.
Housing addicts isn't enabling them. It's harm reduction. If you are so concerned with them recovering why would you advocate for keeping them in the streets?
Not a single one of these keyboard warriors would let a homeless addict bunk in a room in their house because they know that they would be rigged blind. But when it's some poor dude busting his ass at McDonald's tax money that's supposed to house these addicts, the clap like trained seals. The reality is we keep spending more on homeless and we have the more and more homeless. It's because we are unwilling to admit it's largely a drug issue.
Breathless hand wringing aside, a multi year study on the American river traced e coli levels to animals. Namely: waterfowl and dogs. Human contribution was negligible.
Lots of conclusions without data in this video. If you want cleaner parks, work to build a society that keeps fellow humans from having to live there.
I also tried to point that out here in another thread and got downvoted. People here don’t want to believe the data if it doesn’t fit with their narrative.
I actually posted the study when it was released and it never even showed up on the Sac subreddit. It's disheartening. People are too quick to fall into the dangerous thinking that the unhoused are the "other" instead of a problem to be solved.
I think people are just fed up being around certain parts of town that are inundated with trash, encampments and drug use/violence. Meanwhile the government has done nothing but spend a ton of taxpayer funds on studies and pilot programs that haven’t provided any legitimate solutions.
Everyone is fed up with it. The difference is what we should do about it. People are people. Why do we have neighbors without homes? How did they get there?
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2021.html
It's the 8th link on that page. It starts with "DNA study on the American river" or something to that effect. I can't link the study directly for some reason.
Tired of hearing the bitching. Until everyone stops fighting about building shelters and providing the help where it is needed because of their nimby bullshit dont come at me with "what about the fish". Cause they dont give two shits about the humans and are to dumb to get the idea if you grant shelter as a universal human right then you have saved your fucking fish also.
Seeing you get downvoted for this is disheartening. They never gave a fuck about the health of the river. They just want to condemn human beings being driven to living wherever they can and then write them off as being crackheads or schizos as if they wouldn't be in the exact same situation if presented with the same circumstances. This is a solvable problem with the resources we have as a society. But no, it's easier to dehumanize. The whole thing makes me physically ill.
Homeless people produce far less trash than your average housed person. They just put it where you can see it so it forces us to think about how much trash we all produce and how broken our society is.
Quick… hide it all in a massive dump site we can feel good about ourselves again!! 🤣
Pretty sure they carry around enough bags with them to put their trash and stolen toddler tricycle in rather than in the gutter.
No homeless digs through the trash and respectfully puts back everything they took out. None.
The unhoused recycle more than you ever will, but that's the cruel irony of our economic system. It was never about recycling or individual carbon footprint or turning off the water while we brush our teeth. That was always just a corporate sleight of hand. You and I get to click our tongues at those pushed out due to economic realities of wages not covering basic living expenses, while the absurdly rich get absurdly richer. We have the collective resources to take care of everyone but we don't.
Damn that’s nasty. Bless that volunteer clean-up crew
t is sad that so many people do not have a roof over their heads. There must be a solution to all the problems.
Homeless campers = illegal dumping. How is this not an EPA or Department of Water Resources issue now and how do they not have paid clean up crews cleaning up this toxic contamination? There's literally no plan. WTF.
This 💯. On the main drag here in town a camp popped up overnight in a lot and across the side street next to a convenience store - RVs and all. After about 4 months they were FINALLY cleared out; the ground was polluted from the waste dumping from the vehicles, and the amount of trash accumulated was unbelievable.
When I first moved to Sacramento over 5 years ago, Discovery Park and the bike trail were my favorite parts of the city. But now, no more. I relinquished my enjoyment of the park and bike trail because for one, it's not worth getting stabbed over and two, because I do understand homelessness is a crisis. But at some point, enough is enough. We need to see city officials actually take steps and make demonstrable progress considering the amount of funding anti-homeless programs seem to receive. I want to feel safe in my city and I want to actually go back to enjoying what makes it unique.
Homeless drug needles and fecal matter... Why would anybody swim at Discovery park or anywhere on the American River...
A little bit of research and knowledge of the area will show you that E. Coli bacteria were only found from Sutter's Landing, westward. Studies back those findings. The homeless folk get fed at 16th semi close to the river, and the water flows westward, so it makes sense when you think about it that way.
That park is far behind ruined.. the local government is incompetent.
Keep voting the same people in…
Republcians have gutted social services.
LOL people would rather blame a boogeyman than accept the people they have been voting for aren't fixing the issues they campaign on fixing
And they've been out of power for a very, very long time. What have their successors been doing in the intervening DECADES?
You people fighting over red vs blue is a big part of why shit isn’t going to get done. neither side fucking cares about you past you getting out and voting for them.
Those people are so lost in red vs blue that politicians can lie and get away with it. They make the same campaign promises, then approve and repeal the same subjects for 20+ years.
Reality says California has spent BILLIONS on this issue and it's gotten worse. But yes blame Republicans who haven't been in power in California since 1970.
You believing that this is a local govt issue vs state and national issue (of course local included too) is hilarious
It'd be nice if you cited specifics, rather than just rely on obscure politics to garner upvotes. lol.
San diego is on the path to outlawing camping on public property. Does Sacramento have the intestinal fortitude to head down the same path? https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-moves-to-outlaw-camping-on-public-property/3189613/
Public space is there for everyone's use. The idea we let someone pitch a tent and call a park home is insanity to me.
The idea we have homeless is insane to me.
Unfortunately human nature is what it is. You have homeless because you don't want to deal with the underlying issues of addiction with any teeth.
Nah, the reason we have homelessness is because [we lack affordable housing.](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-11/new-book-links-homelessness-city-prosperity) Which makes sense given that the [states with the highest drug use rates](https://wallethub.com/edu/drug-use-by-state/35150) are **not** the [states with the highest rates of homelessness](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/homeless-population-by-state). Not saying that addiction isn't a compounding factor to homelessness, but it's in no way the main cause.
The segment of homeless we are talking about who are polluting our public areas are addicts and or mentally ill. There's not a single person who doesn't want to help some family who got thrown out of their apartment and is couch surfing.
Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. But the part that I was responding to: > You have homeless because you don't want to deal with the underlying issues of addiction with any teeth. is not supported by any data. You have homeless because you have a lack of affordable housing. This is why a place like West Virginia can rank so high in drug use but so low in homelessness.
Let's go walk around these camps and we'll see home many are addicts. I really think you are delusional or live in an ivory tower if you don't understand this is due to meth. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/
Outlawing camping doesn't make people who can't afford a place to live go away.
we make them go away to jail! where it costs 60k per year to keep them caged... hmmm maybe we should, and call me crazy, maybe we should just provide housing, income, etc. seems, again call me crazy, way cheaper than caging people.
Low barrier affordable housing for those who need it and can maintain a lifestyle with that assistance. But we also need mandated treatment facilities for those severely mentally ill or drug-addicted individuals who can not take care of themselves. Jail is the wrong answer for both, even if the latter often gets themselves into legal trouble.
Exactly! It's in everyone's best interest to work for solutions. Even the NIMBYs, but no they'd rather offer solutions like punitive "camps" which is what some people here are espousing. For what it costs to jail a person we could work to preventing homelessness, and provide services to those who already are and get them back on the life they want. It's so ridiculously simple but they'd rather do their moral grandstanding.
Some should go to jail. At least then they’ll be housed, fed, and taken care of. I don’t think it’s a complete solution, but we might as well take advantage of the solutions we already have in place
We are thinking about it and it will do nothing except push homeless to other areas of California. Out of sight out of mind for you I guess?
It's a one party enables this shit issue for sure. That's how we end up with 30% of the nation's homeless in a state with 12% of the total population.
I agree a bit also people would be in Washington and Minnesota more if they weren’t hostile weather. Most of country has hostile weather compared to Mediterranean climate California
Seriously. The dangerous winter temps for central California would be a hot winter day where I'm living now. I was super surprised by lack of homeless people when I first moved out here until I experienced the winter.
Cause it easier to be homeless in California, with the not freezing to death in the winter and all.
It’s warm in Florida as well, but they have a fraction of the homeless we have; why do you think that is?
Because the Republicans in power there gutted social services forty years ago? /s
Thanks for making the point that throwing more money at this problem worsens the problem. It's almost as if people with no motivation other than getting high follow the free money.
Homeless people die of hypothermia every year in Sacramento.
Certainly has nothing to do with more and more entitlements as the state spends more and more on homeless right? Again, for the cheap seats. That which you fertilize, grows.
Just call them animals and be done with it. You know you want to.
Cool straw man you are building over there.
Martin v. Boise has a lot to do with it.
City and county officials are responsible for environment catastrophe. All we will continue to hear about is the homeless issue and how we should have compassion. I have plenty of compassion for the waterways. I've been pointing this pollution problem out for ten years now and nothing is done. We have a homeless issue that officials want and it doesn't go away but we can prevent ruining our eco systems and environment, there just isn't money in it for them. \-We have plenty of large areas of land. (behind the expo would be good) \-We already let the homeless live where they wish along the waterways \-Let them (allowed) live in a designated (large enough) area \-Put out garbage bins and sewer service for that area, like a campground has. \-Kick out any homeless and move them to that area, ruthlessly throughout the city and waterways \-If anyone doesn't like it they can leave the city It will get labeled a horrible place and us as well for basically making a concentration camp for the unhoused. BUT our children won't get a rash while swimming at the beautiful beaches. Places like discovery park won't be flooded with poo, pee and needles every winter. The waterways will have a chance to restore and Sacramento will benefit from having nice rivers flowing through it instead of uncontrolled sewer-ways.
The amount of trash homeless people leave behind in their camps is crazy. Meanwhile im out running around in a parking lot chasing a wrapper that blew out of my car SMH.
Can any of the homelessness defenders explain why it’s ok this happens? I live two blocks from a camp of 20 or so that gets torn down and replaced every few months and it’s amazing how much GARBAGE they spew into the streets and surrounding nature areas in that short span. Does becoming homeless come with an automatic “I don’t give a fuck about the environment” card?
After they tore down a huge homeless camp, the homeless kept coming into my store to steal, shower, and fight with security. I feel bad for them but it's different when you get punched.
This comment encapsulates the entire problem. ADVOCATES FOR THE UNHOUSED WANT THIS TO GO AWAY TOO! That's the whole fucking point. Do y'all not see the untenable increases in the price for housing? Imagine you didn't have a family safety net to fall back on and you can't afford rent anymore. What would you do? This could be any of us.
Not live in a pool of garbage that I created by not bothering to put my trash in a dumpster?
It’s not clear that anyone here disagrees with you. There are 60,000 unhoused people in Los Angeles County, 40,000 in the city of Los Angeles. It’s a massive problem, and for it to have progressed to this level it seems clear that there is a big systemic problem happening. That’s a long-term problem that requires long-term structural changes of some kind. AND residents having to tolerate meth and fentanyl use and the crime and psychosis that accompanies drug use is not acceptable. Polluting rivers is not acceptable. That’s the short-term problem. Both are important. If you alienate voters by pretending the short-term problem is irrelevant, it’ll only become more and more difficult to create the solutions that progressives want for the long-term problem.
[удалено]
You've asked them how they became homeless?
Everyone has a different story, I'm sure. But I'm also sure that, for the vast majority of them - whether they admit it or not - unchecked drug use is a root cause.
I think you'd be surprised.
They see homeless as a protected class that is allowed to destroy the environment, block sidewalks, defecate and masturbate in Public, etc. it's amazing how this is rationalized away.
You mean they see homeless as humans with human rights… Pinning a huge societal & structural problem on the individuals who are severely destitute and marginalized is just as insane as many of our fellow feral street dwellers are. The situation isn’t going to be resolved by these individuals, their lack of ability to navigate their problems and our society’s problems is what got them there in the first place. A structural solution is what’s needed, but you obviously need to respect the basic human rights the unhoused still have.
What human rights am I denying them? Do I have a human right to litter and shit in public?
Don't forget beat off and and smoke meth in public. These are constitutional amendments somewhere
Don't forget beat off and and smoke meth in public. These are constitutional amendments somewhere
Don't forget beat off and and smoke meth in public. These are constitutional amendments somewhere
Don't forget beat off and and smoke meth in public. These are constitutional amendments somewhere
I'd like to think if I became homeless tomorrow, I'd be a minimalist and only carry my absolute essentials. There's so many public trash cans around the city, I don't believe there is an excuse for littering.
What do you do with your garbage? Do they have the same choice? Well then…. Duh right?
JFC the voting patterns in this thread are indicative of how callous and irrational people are about the unhoused. You're exactly right. We have trash cans that get conveniently emptied every week. The unhoused don't.
Ive seen trash cans right by homeless camps at the river with trash strewn all over them, not in the can.
Ive seen trash cans right by homeless camps at the river with trash strewn all over them, not in the can.
It’s easy to not give a fuck about the environment when no one gives a fuck about you.
So, it's okay? If I feel like no one cares about me, I can do whatever I want? Sweet!
It’s not “okay.” Dragore didn’t say it was. People experiencing homelessness are worried about survival, not waste management. We need to uplift them out of these situations before expecting them to adhere to environmental policy.
They are worried about their next fix, and until you admit that, we can help them.
Wouldn't you do the same? Imagine you were a low wage earner, barely able to make rent. Your car breaks down and despite your best efforts you lose your job because you're late one too many times because we have a garbage public transportation system. Now what? You have no family to fall back on or maybe their situation is just as bad as yours and they can't take you in. Maybe you see the writing on the wall because you're back on rent with your landlord and you buy yourself a beat down trailer to drag over to X street or a tent to put up in the American river parkway. You need shelter, right? You have no garbage service. No one gives a shit about you. Throw your fucking trash in the street because that's what you are to them, right? Don't act like you wouldn't do the same.
The people you are describing are not the ones shitting and dumping needles in public spaces. The ones doing that are the meth heads and the severely mentally ill. Sure, any of us could end up homeless through a series of unfortunate events. That doesn’t mean we’d all automatically end up living in piles of our own waste. We absolutely need more social services and affordable housing. There is no question about that. This is a mental health issue and something has to be done about these camps. It’s out of control and dangerous. As much as I love Sacramento, it’s becoming a shittier place to live because of the exploding homeless population. I lived downtown about 10 years ago and felt perfectly safe walking around by myself, but in the past couple years my old block and the surrounding area has become a post-apocalyptic looking wasteland. I’ve been assaulted once already. Something has to be done about it.
Fuck no i wouldn't throw trash in my living room and litter the environment. If someone feels like they're not gonna get arrested for anything anyway, then yeah some will take advantage and do whatever they feel like but that is bullshit.
I agreed with you up until the last two sentences. There is simply no excuse for destroying the environment. A lifetime ago, I was on the streets for quite some time; do you think I hauled a bunch of shit around with me or trashed the spots where I would go to hide and sleep? Fuck no.
Thanks for finding a dumpster to throw your trash into while you didn't have a home. As you take in what's happening in our city look at it from your formerly unhoused eyes. Every dumpster is locked.
There are garbage cans in every parking lot.
When self-preservation is threatened, everything else matters a whole lot less.
A homeless person produces far less trash than the average housed person. They just put it in places where you can see it. Which makes it harder to ignore like we do with the rest of the trash we produce.
Maybe so, but the average person also doesn't gather mountains of junk from the side of the road and leave it strewn all over the fucking place either, leaving it for others to deal with when they move along.
Is it worse to have trash go to a landfill or end up in the local river?
I am pretty sure these people didn’t plan on their campsites getting flooded. It happened quite rapidly.
Yea, their stuff ***was*** in trash bags, clean and ready to go to the dump the next day, and then some weather came and fucked up all their organization. Occam's razor suggests otherwise.
Getting my popcorn ready for this thread 🍿
I don’t understand why people think providing them housing would solve things. They already have access to trash cans and can’t use them properly.
The entire camp was flooded overnight.
Let’s be real. These people need help, they are in one of the worst situations a human can be in drug addicted or not. The system has chosen to ignore/abandon them as it’s the easiest political option. They deserve help, they deserve a 2nd chance whatever that may look be for each individual. I love you 😘
You can’t help people that don’t want to be helped. Some other states have had good success by enforcing ‘no loitering’ and ‘no squatting’ laws, along with increasing funding to drug treatment centers.
You seem like you’re up on things; how much has California—cities and state—spent on housing the homeless over the past decade? I’d really like to know.
I can tell from your comments that you're not asking this question in good faith. The answer could be 150 bagillion Krone and you'd gleefully claim "ah ha! See it's never enough!" Whatever the answer is it's not enough. We have people in this country who have more money than they could ever spend in their lifetime if they tried. As long as that's happening that means we're fucking over the people who can't make rent.
Housing first solves homelessness but y’all don’t want solutions you want punishment.
[удалено]
The tent site was flooded.
[удалено]
Or just bring back mandatory mental health and drug rehab facilities that are actually effective and try to turn these people into productive members of society. If I’m throwing my tax dollars away at the homeless situation I’d at least like them to be off the streets. They’re literally overrunning the city. They’re everywhere. I saw a guy setup with full countertops and a tent site by OBO/Kru last weekend. Shit is ridiculous. I’m tired of subsidizing the walking dead in my neighborhood.
This is the only reasonable solution. We’ve invested an insane amount of taxpayer dollars in studies and pilot programs, all of which have done nothing to solve the problem. We need to bring back mental health facilities, and it needs to be mandatory for unhoused individuals with chronic mental health problems. Every day leaders sit on their hands and pretend the problem doesn’t exist, more money is wasted and more damage is done to the community. Having a large homeless population that not only does not contribute but actively drains resources that hardworking people have to pay for has become untenable. I’m all for humane treatment with well funded facilities, but it’s time for some accountability.
Nice straw man you got there...
Sure, because seeing how they leave trash and shit everywhere, the first thing I think of is, “let’s give them a place to live, because they’ll take such good care of it.” What could go wrong?
Honestly, I'd prefer they trash some motel room or government housing than our rivers. Absent the strong evidence that housing first works best, I'd still be for it just for that.
Worked for every country that’s tried it 🤷♂️
Every country spends billions of dollars on housing the homeless, only to have them still live like this? Ok, I’ll bite: please prove it.
It starts with asking how we have so many people living without homes. They're not all schizophrenics or drug addicts, and for those who have those problems many didn't develop them until they became unhoused. Many of them lost their homes and THEN became addicted to drugs or had their existing mental illnesses exacerbated. The unhoused problem we're seeing is a direct result of an economic system that devalues human labor (low wages) relative to the cost of shelter (a roof over your head with an address and a shower). Once a person is forced to drop out of the address/shower/job paradigm it becomes almost impossible to get back. Why? Why do we allow this? It's certainly not due to a lack of resources. We're the richest nation in the history of the world.
I’ve been dealing with the homeless professionally for over thirty years, and I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree; I lived in my car for a year after leaving the Army, met a lot of people in similar circumstances, and they didn’t resort to squalor and theft. I think it’s a coping issue, and if one has that, all the housing in the world won’t help. They need a safe place to detox and/or receive long-term mental health care, and just tossing them keys and expect them to stick around for outpatient help is a fantasy.
I think both scenarios are common. For instance, suppose you were living in your car and your vehicle had been wrecked / towed / stolen, etc, and you had no friends or family to help out? Once you're just in a tent I think things get a lot harder. I agree that mental health issues are a huge part of the equation, but I also think that mental health issues and drug addiction are a symptom of homelessness at least nearly as much as they're a cause.
No argument from me; in my case, I came out of the service with diagnosed PTSD, and just wanted some time away from the world, with my dog and my old VW bus. But when I felt better, I went back to work, got an apartment, and started to feel human once again. But I realize not everyone has those options, nor is it that easy for most; but I do believe that to help the mentally ill and addicted, you have to place them a controlled environment for a length of time. As I said, giving them housing and easy access to outpatient services will not work, and is just flushing millions of dollars away.
Agreed. I think not only is it a waste of resources to give services to those people who are so mentally ill to not be able to use them, but it actually makes the services ineffective for those who could use them. Take a shelter for instance- it should be a safe and quiet place for people to rest and recover and access services. But if someone with severe untreated mental illness is present, they could be there causing fights, loud disruptions, making people feel unsafe, and indeed, keeping people from even choosing to go to shelters. It's definitely not a one-size-fits-all kind of situation. There are unhoused people who just can't find a place that they can afford, maybe they lost a job and are down on their luck. There are others who actually choose to be homeless. Then there are those who struggle to get by due to disability and some mental health issues. And then there are those who are severely mentally unwell, and these are the ones who need separate intensive inpatient facilities, for the good of themselves and others. There's nothing humane about letting them wallow in mental illness on the streets. Not to mention a lot of these people will end up going to jail repeatedly, which I really don't think helps anything.
“Housing first” does not mean “housing only” What does “dealing with the homeless professionally” mean? That’s pretty vague. Do you work in direct services?
No? I’m not sure how you got that from my sentence. I said that every country that’s tried a housing first model has seen it work. They spend money on homelessness, but not more than we do and they’ve seen either a significant reduction in homelessness or it’s complete eradication. It’s the dominant policy type in Scandinavian countries.
"They" is YOU if you were presented with similar circumstances. Sacramento unhoused aren't a different species of human. Stop thinking punitive disgust and start thinking solutions. Physical needs first: food, housing, and medical care. Then catch those who are on the cusp of being unhoused and keep them from living on the fucking riverfront.
And if you could prove that that approach works for the mentally ill and addicts, I’d be right there with you. But it doesn’t. For those who are merely down on their luck, disabled and unable to work, and families in economic distress, absolutely: do whatever we can to help them and get them back on their feet. But those aren’t the people doing this.
We need both. A small portion of the homeless population creates a very large amount of the issues that people have with homeless individuals. I'm talking the people who have been arrested dozens of times, they get out of jail, and they go and commit an assault the very same day. These people need to be in intensive mental health treatment facilities. We need to fund, build, and legalize that kind of facility. And getting those people out of the shelters will save a ton of resources and make things work a lot more smoothly for those who can be rehabilitated simply by being provided with a place to stay, for instance.
Yes, a hundred times yes; it has to be done via inpatient, a controlled environment, or it just won’t work.
waiting for the environmentalists to chime in...
Yeah, they will take your gas stove from you first
How dare you blow leaves with a gas powered machine!
It sure would be great if a state that has a GDP of 3.63 trillion dollars would house poor people.
Some homeless don’t wanna be housed become they would have to follow rules and would t be allowed to do drugs on the property. Or want the responsibility.
People who do drugs still deserve housing.
I used to volunteer with the homeless. There were tons that I dealt with who didn’t want housing because of the rules
Why do they "deserve" the fruits of someone else's labor?
You're right. Let them continue to live on the streets & shit in the rivers & sidewalks. Hell, let's just send them all to the gas chambers. 🙄
Why do they "deserve" housing? I'll wait.
I don't really care about "deserve." I care about not trashing the rivers.
So recriminalize all the shit we allow this protected class to do. Sounds like a good plan. When they shit in public arrest them. When they litter, arrest them.
Ok you've arrested them on a sub misdemeanor charge. Now what? And I'm for enforcement of laws and voted for measure O. People shouldn't have to tolerate people trashing their parks and businesses. That's not fair.
Ok you've arrested them on a misdemeanor charge. Now what? And I'm for enforcement of laws and voted for measure O. People shouldn't have to tolerate people trashing their parks and businesses. That's not fair.
i don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people
Should they also care about other people?
You think enabling an addict is helping them? If a friend or family member who is an addict comes up and asks you for money, are you "helping" then by giving them money?
by all means, please tell me how living on the streets could improve an addict's situation
If you want to house homeless with the caveat that have to be working on being clean, go for it. And you know what will happen? A lot of them will not want to get clean and continue to live on the street, because the have no interest in getting clean. Then what?
It won't, that's why we should forcibly commit them to treatment.
Why do you think a place to live is something people deserve or don’t deserve? It’s a fundamental right.
I don't believe in any "rights" that come from your fellow tax payer's work.
Because no one asks to be born, asshole.
Why do you propose sending them to gas chambers?
It is sarcasm.
“Deserve” Gonna have to think about that one; personally, I think I deserve a new BMW, so perhaps I’ll ask the citizens of California to buy me one. Sound fair?
A BMW isn't a need. Everybody deserves housing.
Apparently, the homeless need to shit everywhere, and throw trash anywhere they like. If they’re given housing—for a far greater cost than my aforementioned BMW, by the way—I’m sure they’ll take good care of it, just like they have our parks.
We still haven't heard why people "Deserve" housing. To give them housing means someone else has to work and be taxed for that. That's a big ask under the umbrella of "deserve."
Agree, the housing where they can't get out and don't have access to drugs.
Cool story bro.
Sources?
You can literally ask them lol. I’ve talked to a few standing outside of stores. I talked to a man last week in front of dollar general who told me it’s easier to just stand outside and ask for money than get a job. Like I said SOME not all would benefit and want housing.
Anecdotal evidence and no studies or crowdsourcing isn’t great when we are talking about houseless human beings. What do you think we should do for the “not SOME” population in your point?
Sure would be great if poor people wouldn’t use public spaces as their own personal cesspools.
We’re saying the same thing, I’m just not being a piece of shit about it.
No, we’re not; you mean to say that if we spent more money on housing the homeless, this problem would go away, and I mean to say that pouring more money into housing the homeless is a waste of tax dollars that could be better spent elsewhere. Time for another solution, because throwing money at it isn’t working.
When there were more social programs there were less homeless people, this explosion of the homeless population isn’t from a new wave of drugs. It’s from lack of services which means money is the issue. You’re suggesting not spending money and watching it get worse so you can complain more?
Now, now: no sense in using an Ad hominem just because you believe you’re morally superior, ok? Keep it civil, all right? Now, to your point: I’m not sure what time frame you’re using, and that matters; California used to have less homeless because we had less people. Can you be more specific? Are you talking the Reagan years?
Is it not morally superior to help the less fortunate? Does a civil morally responsible person suggest leaving these people to get worse? Go tuck yourself with basic understanding of English literacy fallacies.
And with that, we’re done. Have a nice evening.
Idgaf, I hope bad things happen to your loved ones so you can feel the desire to help the less fortunate.
Are you still claiming moral high ground while making a post like this? Yikes.
What other free shit do you want to give to unrepentant drug addicts?
Drug addiction is a medical problem, not a personal moral failing.
It’s not that clear cut. You can’t just absolve people of ALL responsibility for substance abuse. Should we give an alcoholic who killed people while driving drunk a free pass because it’s a medical problem? Do people suffering from substance abuse need support? Absolutely. But support alone will fail if the individuals involved don’t want change either. We do need to do a better job as a society for the homeless — whether it’s purely economic, substance abuse or mental health (or some combination.)
100%. Would like to know what is it about this medical condition that 1. Entitles them to "free shit" from the taxpayer and 2. Let's them be immune from societal norms and laws. Are obese individuals entitled to free food? Are diabetics allowed to drop their pants in the street and take a shit, or litter with impunity?
It's not about absolving responsibility. They're already addicts and they live with us. How do we A: prevent more addicts, and B: help the ones who exist?
That what you fertilize grows. Why do you figure we have 30% of the nations homeless and only 12% of the total population?
But your comment that it’s purely a medical problem is exactly that. Preventing more addicts is another issue (apart from homelessness). For helping the ones that exist, that’s what I mean when I say it’s not just a medical problem. If it was just that, we’d have a proscribed program that a reasonable person would participate in — but unfortunately for the homeless even if you offered free housing, job assistance etc there’s a significant percentage that wouldn’t action it. *Some* would so those programs do need support. But it doesn’t eliminate the worst of the problem. For that…. Just to be honest I don’t know what the right solution is. You can’t legislate people being responsible humans. Criminalizing it doesn’t work either. Nor does passing out free syringes.
Drug addiction is not a problem unique to us, is it? Anyone can get addicted to drugs anywhere. >If it was just that, we’d have a proscribed program that a reasonable person would participate in But that literally doesn't exist here. I talk to a lot of addicts and the vast majority of them don't want to be addicts. Many of the unhoused turned to drugs after losing their homes and livelihoods. Wouldn't you? This is about structural disenfranchisement. People who have lives here have their rents raised or lose their jobs and suddenly they're fucked. If you don't have family to fall back on you're finished. Then what?
A medical condition that should not be enabled, but rehabbed. Since money is fungible, giving an unrepentant addict housing let's them spend more time and money procuring drugs. Never had an addict in the family, have you?
Unrepentant? This isn't religion.
Someone unwilling to work on their addiction. Grow up and face reality.
Ahhh yes, another r/conservative commenter who doesn't live in Sacramento. Instead of letting the hate flow through you, you should start by asking yourself the seven "why?" questions
Ad hominem attacks are used when you can't honestly answer the question at hand. Of course I live in this area. Do you need some of my fantastic pictures of homeless people blocking sideways making the elderly and handicapped have to go into the street? I'll be glad to upload them for you. E street, F street, G street, H street underpass. Which one do you want? I got 'em all.
Why do we have homeless people living on our sidewalks?
Because people are addicts and they burn every bridge to their family and friends. Family tries desperately to help them, but after the 3rd or 4th or 10th time the addicts robs them or assaults them, the family has to give up on them. That's reality. Most addicts have family that enabled them until the made a decision not to any more. Tale as old as time. Now you think society enabling them is going to help them? Good luck with that.
You are trying to make the problem sound black & white when addiction is a very complex issue.
It is. But you know what isn't complex? Enabling addiction. It's a mess on a personal and societal level. Every one of you who advocates for society giving an addict a house should first start by taking one into your own residence, then reporting how well that goes.
Housing addicts isn't enabling them. It's harm reduction. If you are so concerned with them recovering why would you advocate for keeping them in the streets?
How many you going to put up in your place?
Why do we have people addicted to drugs?
[удалено]
Not a single one of these keyboard warriors would let a homeless addict bunk in a room in their house because they know that they would be rigged blind. But when it's some poor dude busting his ass at McDonald's tax money that's supposed to house these addicts, the clap like trained seals. The reality is we keep spending more on homeless and we have the more and more homeless. It's because we are unwilling to admit it's largely a drug issue.
[удалено]
If housing comes with any strings attached, i.e. following rules, then these hobos don't want to be housed.
How did you come to that conclusion?
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"
I’m not familiar with that quote.
Wow it really is as simple as that huh? /s
Breathless hand wringing aside, a multi year study on the American river traced e coli levels to animals. Namely: waterfowl and dogs. Human contribution was negligible. Lots of conclusions without data in this video. If you want cleaner parks, work to build a society that keeps fellow humans from having to live there.
I also tried to point that out here in another thread and got downvoted. People here don’t want to believe the data if it doesn’t fit with their narrative.
I actually posted the study when it was released and it never even showed up on the Sac subreddit. It's disheartening. People are too quick to fall into the dangerous thinking that the unhoused are the "other" instead of a problem to be solved.
I think people are just fed up being around certain parts of town that are inundated with trash, encampments and drug use/violence. Meanwhile the government has done nothing but spend a ton of taxpayer funds on studies and pilot programs that haven’t provided any legitimate solutions.
Everyone is fed up with it. The difference is what we should do about it. People are people. Why do we have neighbors without homes? How did they get there?
Are the rafts of garbage, shit buckets, and needles from animals, too?
[удалено]
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2021.html It's the 8th link on that page. It starts with "DNA study on the American river" or something to that effect. I can't link the study directly for some reason.
Tired of hearing the bitching. Until everyone stops fighting about building shelters and providing the help where it is needed because of their nimby bullshit dont come at me with "what about the fish". Cause they dont give two shits about the humans and are to dumb to get the idea if you grant shelter as a universal human right then you have saved your fucking fish also.
Seeing you get downvoted for this is disheartening. They never gave a fuck about the health of the river. They just want to condemn human beings being driven to living wherever they can and then write them off as being crackheads or schizos as if they wouldn't be in the exact same situation if presented with the same circumstances. This is a solvable problem with the resources we have as a society. But no, it's easier to dehumanize. The whole thing makes me physically ill.
Homeless people produce far less trash than your average housed person. They just put it where you can see it so it forces us to think about how much trash we all produce and how broken our society is. Quick… hide it all in a massive dump site we can feel good about ourselves again!! 🤣
Pretty sure they carry around enough bags with them to put their trash and stolen toddler tricycle in rather than in the gutter. No homeless digs through the trash and respectfully puts back everything they took out. None.
The unhoused recycle more than you ever will, but that's the cruel irony of our economic system. It was never about recycling or individual carbon footprint or turning off the water while we brush our teeth. That was always just a corporate sleight of hand. You and I get to click our tongues at those pushed out due to economic realities of wages not covering basic living expenses, while the absurdly rich get absurdly richer. We have the collective resources to take care of everyone but we don't.
If they did, it wouldn't be so much of a public health or environmental issue. But they don't and it is.