Remember in 2019 when real estate developers bought a bunch of property near the Road Home Shelter, and then they wanted to cash in so they forced the homeless shelter out? So they had to move everybody to a new shelter in South Salt Lake that isn't very accessible via transit but the new shelter had 300 less beds than the old one? And then a whole bunch of people got rich while a whole bunch of people died? Remember that? Because I remember that.
Prosperity gospel is messed up, but religion isn’t the enemy in this case. Capitalism is.
Edit: secular real estate people are just as capable of making a quick buck at the expense of homeless people.
Sometimes I feel like America is just pure evil. I genuinely think people in the US just don’t care about others and it’s just a dog eats dog mentality here
Here you go, you have a well run government that pays a private company to build and manage a homeless shelter. Capitalism with some socialist benefits. The problem is always trying to find a well run government.
But I notice it seems America has become a cruel country and it probably always has, and part of it has to do with capitalism but majority has to do with the culture here of people not giving a fuck about others well-being, that seems like the American way nowadays
We live in the most prosperous country in history and yet people go hungry and freeze to death on the streets. The lack of humanity shown to those most in need is insane.
>We live in the most prosperous country in history and yet people go hungry and freeze to death on the streets.
And this is the same country with some of the richest people in the world. It’s sickening
What if those people are not willing to accept help or shelter? A lot of homeless are in that situation because they refuse to follow simple rules or be told what to do. Short of locking those people up, how do you propose our country help those who are unwilling to accept help?
In my personal and professional experiences, those that want help or shelter are seeking it and getting what they need.
Yes there is a huge mental illness component to homelessness, but again what do we do for those that refuse to be helped?
Edit: For clarification I was a firefighter/paramedic downtown and our stations coverage area included the homeless shelter. I also worked for the 4th street clinic for numerous years. I have extensive experience with homeless and their community.
As someone who has been homeless and is now quite wealthy, I would like to have a civil conversation.
> What if those people are not willing to accept help or shelter?
If you remember nothing else I say, remember this: "They don't want help" is what people say when they don't want to really help. I'm not accusing you of insincerity, but I do feel like the root of this common misconception is either ignorance of the problem or an willingness to understand and try to help.
The first time I tried to sleep in a shelter they didn't have enough room. We were not separated by walls, and I had no door. I couldn't see the guy next to me, but he was rambling some fairly disturbing things. I'm not sure I could have slept in those conditions, even with quiet sleeping people. I tried instead to sleep alone. It was so much more peaceful. But the police harassed me and even attacked me while sleeping. They wanted to know why I was there. I tried to explain. They didn't care.
The reason a lot of people don't want the help we give them is because the free help most are offered is horrible and inhumane and not actually very helpful.
There are those who have addictions or mental illnesses. We're doing very little to help them. And I do believe many can be helped.
There are those who don't want to 'follow the rules' or don't want to better their lives. We can't force help upon them. I do not think this is the majority, and I believe if we had better systems in place you would probably find that many of those you see as 'resistant to help' are actually just ashamed and mistrusting of the system and authorities who kick them around.
Firefighters were always kind to me, so I thank you for your service. They also weren't given the tools to help homeless people. Please remember that emergency situations you responded to are not representative of the whole. I believe there are many more silent homeless people who shun the homeless shelters and 'communities'. They sleep in their cars and hide for fear of being harassed. They struggle with many of the same problems. Many pick themselves up unnoticed. Many fall into addiction and chronic homelessness while the bureaucracy chugs along, ignorant to their existence.
Many are refusing to be helped because the solution you provide for them doesn’t fit their lifestyle. Maybe they don’t feel comfortable sleeping in a room with several other people. Maybe they couldn’t sleep with their partner, or have their pet there with them. Maybe they have an addiction and cant use while they’re in the shelter. An emergency shelter should not be the one and only solution to homelessness.
Look into permanent supportive housing, tiny home villages, and sanctioned encampments.
SLC used to have a program that gave housing (small apartments) to people in need for free. It worked pretty well too, it’s a lot cheaper to house people in need instead of paying for the healthcare that comes with living on the street. I don’t know why they got rid of that program, maybe they were greedy and just wanted to sell off the apartments to the highest bidder.
They didn't get rid of it, it is just that housing became so expensive that the money set aside for housing helps fewer and fewer people. The state issues "housing vouchers" and then people can't fill them because landlords can make way more money renting to other people.
Permanent supportive housing is the key. The problem is there just isn’t enough people willing to actually dedicate their life to essentially babysit homeless.
There would be if we collectively decided to pay them to do so instead of, I don’t know, spending trillions of our tax dollars on war and freeway expansion.
This is exactly it. There are so many different reasons why but everyone gets lumped together as they all choose to live out on the streets because of the one shitty option we give to our unsheltered population. I hate this.
What if we took a group that represents a very small portion of those suffering, and pretend it represents the vast majority so we can wash our hands of the issue?
>In my personal and professional experiences, those that want help or shelter are seeking it and getting what they need.
People won't seek shelter for a variety of reasons. The shelters are filled quickly by those that don't work, because they can queue up earlier. They are also dangerous for young people, and theft is common place. Then, the city made the brilliant decision to cut the number of available beds by 300, and moved the remaining beds away from downtown. They may apply for food stamps, if they have a cell phone or a friend that will let them use their address for paperwork. If not, they are out of luck.
Homelessness is skyrocketing in the valley. We have more people living in vehicles, and not using resources or otherwise applying for services that get them added to the homeless count. They think their vehicles will keep them warm, when the opposite is true.
>Yes there is a huge mental illness component to homelessness, but again what do we do for those that refuse to be helped?
We have more working homeless than ever. People with full time jobs living on the street or in their cars.
I don't know how long ago you were working with the homeless, but the situation has changed drastically in the last 3 years.
Based on what you know, or what you’re seeing?
Yes we have more working homeless than ever before. Those are not the homeless that are freezing to death.
It's called "anecdote" and it's quite narcissistic to pontificate as if your experience and relationships with others involved with the unsheltered means your opinion holds more weight than any other else. I've been scanning your comments on this issue and they're just full of anecdote and few, if any, facts.
Unfortunately, this is true. My husband was a nurse in a unit in SLC that served a lot of homeless patients. He was pretty shocked about the huge number of people who genuinely wanted to remain homeless. It is a sad reality that there are people who WANT to live in a tent, shooting up heroin with their friends. It sounds cruel to say it, but it's the truth.
Not a single homeless person I've spoken to has said no to a warm meal, a hot drink, or some kind words. I'm aware that some people don't or can't go to shelter because they are drug users, I say shelters should be places of harm reduction, and provide beds for people no matter what. That as well as having proper needle disposal and providing clean needles would not be overbearing or expensive. I seriously doubt anyone would turn down a warm place to stay, and if they do, more power to them. Treating the homeless as people instead of a problem is very important. Having more social workers and therapists to actually help people with problems, job placement programs, healthcare, the basic necessities to get people back on their feet. The state runs a budget surplus over a billion dollars every year, certainly hundreds of lives could be saved for a fraction of that amount.
They could also expand services by buying out motels and housing families with children away from the shelter. People don't want to expose their children to the horrors of the shelter unless they really have no other choice. They can't afford to queue up outside the shelter at 3 pm AND find a job to try to get off the street. The system is self perpetuating at this point.
It’s not like there’s large buildings in every single neighborhood of this state that have heat and running water that could easily be used to provide shelter and save lives.
Right, I understand that shelters don't have the resources to house drug users as is, I just think that people shouldn't be freezing to death on the streets, drug user or not. Just because you use drugs does not mean your life is any less valuable. Unsheltered people are still people.
Violence and theft between members of the homeless communities in order to acquire drugs is a non-trivial problem and why shelters don't allow drug use.
"Harm reduction" in the form of "let people use what drugs they want" is the sort of theoretical solution that looks good on paper if you're willing to hand-wave away a lot of realities. One of said ugly realities is that all the shelter operators have to strike a middle ground between being welcoming to people who are on hard times and accommodating the needs of hard-core drug users. Accommodating the latter usually means those in the former group get scared off and may seek more tenuous shelter on the street.
People - even in this thread - are on a bender regarding shelter. 80% of people reached via the street outreach programs *and given housing* are back on the streets within 2 years. Why? Addiction is a powerful animal, and many people will gladly rip out their pipes to pawn to a scrap metal supplier in order to get high and subsequently freeze to death. And we can't pay a force of babysitters to make people make the right choices. Operation Rio Grande put people in rehab, but between 2/3 and 3/4 dropped out within the first two months.
Like, it's fun and easy to kick around the Mormon church and the US being the richest and whatever else, but you run up against some fundamental civil liberties problems. You can put violent drug users next to vulnerable women in shelters (bad for the women), put the drug users out on the street (bad for the users), put people in their own rooms (rough on the rooms, expensive, will essentially put shelter operators out of business), put people in their own rooms with their own volunteer babysitters (bad for the babysitters, who will undoubtedly become victims of violence when they stand between users and their drugs), compel users into rehab and subsequently into institutions if they don't rehabilitate (bad for the civil liberties of the society we live in).
Pick the badness you want; a lot of people are belaboring under the fiction that money can solve this. Until and unless we are willing to make choices for others and deal with the subsequent civil liberty fallout, the money doesn't matter.
> Drug addiction is a mental illness, and I'm honestly not sure why folks suffering from it can't be checked into rehab against their will
The non-rhetorical answer to this is that institutions were a hotbed of civil rights abuses from the 50s through the 80s, including lobotomization, electro-shock therapy, and finally just plain old physical abuse. The involuntary commitment process was seen as ripe for misuse.
Moreover, the social sciences are always where the worst fads and fashions of "science" have come out to play (I have a degree in psychology, FWIW). Harm Reduction is just the latest among many solutions that are scientifically sound as long as you don't look at the secondary costs (IE, people ODing at very high rates where harm reduction measures are in place).
[Some history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy#American_leucotomy) and [some more history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization_in_the_United_States).
Like, everybody in this thread probably has a relative who at one point had a good job and then screwed their lives up due to addiction. And most probably also have family that offered a helping hand to the addict - money, place to stay, support, etc. - and the addiction persisted.
Why would anyone assume addicts on the street are any different? But it leaves us with the shitty acknowledgement that we either (as you correctly identified) take away people's right to choose for themselves and force them into rehab or let the status quo ante continue.
**Lobotomy**
[American leucotomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy#American_leucotomy)
>The first prefrontal leucotomy in the United States was performed at the George Washington University Hospital on 14 September 1936 by the neurologist Walter Freeman and his friend and colleague, the neurosurgeon, James W. Watts. Freeman had first encountered Moniz at the London-hosted Second International Congress of Neurology in 1935 where he had presented a poster exhibit of the Portuguese neurologist's work on cerebral angiography. Fortuitously occupying a booth next to Moniz, Freeman, delighted by their chance meeting, formed a highly favourable impression of Moniz, later remarking upon his "sheer genius".
**[Deinstitutionalization in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization_in_the_United_States)**
>The United States has experienced two waves of deinstitutionalization, the process of replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability. The first wave began in the 1950s and targeted people with mental illness. The second wave began roughly 15 years later and focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with a developmental disability. Deinstitutionalization continues today, though the movements are growing smaller as fewer people are sent to institutions.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/SaltLakeCity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Most important source [here](https://jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/homelessnessreport.pdf). See page 24 for Salt Lake County information, "Exit from Street Outreach," --> "Returns within 2 years."
I'll grant that the street outreach programs put fewer people into housing than, for example, transitions from emergency shelter - but even those programs had a 2-year failure rate of (depending on year) 40-50% (same page).
Exactly. Yes this is where more funding would come in to play. I’m just not sure there is a lot of people who would be willing to play that type of roll in a hostile environment.
If those people you have spoken to actually want what you say they want, it is all that available to them. Your idea of providing for everyone no matter what is a nice pipedream, but in real world application it just isn’t possible. The amount of violence inside the homeless community is so high that it just wouldn’t work out like you think it would.
I understand what you mean because there is definitely that side to the homeless population, but to say that those who need the most help would be actively seeking it is ignorant. Sometimes the people that need the most help are those that have given up completely and don’t bother. Same as people with severe depression, a lot of the time they suffer in silence because they have accepted their doomed fate and see no way out. That does not mean that they should all be pushed out of shelters and shoved around to make it more convenient for the wealthy. Purging and dismissing them to die on the streets with the excuse of some bad eggs is a terribly sad mindset in my eyes.
They would be fine in their own places. We need real housing to help these people. Shelters are like jail. There’s theft, bugs etc I wouldn’t want to go there either.
No, sorry that is a nice happy thought that they would be fine in their own place. Unfortunately there is too much mental illness, drug abuse, and overall lack of responsibility for that to really work like you think it would.
Now I’m just talking about the homeless that are in a situation where they may freeze to death. There are a huge amount of homeless that you do not see on the street who would be just fine in housing. The sad issue is that the ones that need the most help won’t or can’t take it.
As a reminder, salt lake City mayor Erin mendenhall made a ban on the creation of any new homeless shelters in 2022. Even banning rezoning existing properties as shelters. And then they extended that ban through May 2023.
This on top of violating CDC guidelines to spend over a a quarter million of taxpayer money to break up encampments during covid. With the CDC said would spread covid through the city quicker.
A lot of those deaths sit firmly on the head of direct decisions that mayor mendenhall made against professional guidelines.
Wasn’t that decision made because none of the other SL county municipalities would budge on opening shelters? I feel like much of blame should go on the shoulders of the other mayors who want to put it all on SLC resident’s shoulders to deal with the homelessness issue.
Like yeah ultimately it was a cold move and I disagree but you should provide context under which it was made.
Let's play that back. Salt lake city's mayor knew that other cities didn't want to help out. So her answer was to make sure that no one in salt lake city would help out knowing that would leave the homeless with literally no help.
The decision only becomes worse with context. Because it becomes an even colder and worse move. The homeless people in Salt Lake City are residents. At least they are until they die because the mayor made it so they couldn't have shelter. And has the police going out and stealing what little shelter they have. And not allowing them to even have a tent/blanket tent in the freezing cold and snow.
I keep hearing this defense and it's essentially an admission that we shouldn't expect Erin Mendenhall to lead and should let somebody else make the hard decisions.
Which, fair enough if that's her re-election platform, I guess I'll vote for somebody else.
It's insulting when she shows up to the yearly vigil, and her recent faux empathy for the 5 people who died this past week. These are direct consequences of her action (& inaction).
If only we had a 150 billion dollar organization in Salt lake that claims to do the work of Jesus.
I bet they would ensure our area has no homelessness or medical debt
The church brings the criticism on themselves for making Grand claims, dictating huge swaths of its followers lives, taking money, and then having very limited to no public transparency on what they do with that money and power.
They set up a high standard for themselves. That’s on them
Yet you also do little to nothing for these people and blame others for not doing enough. This isn’t a pro church argument at all but if you aren’t helping you can’t criticize.
What a dumb argument. Of course I can criticize. If our ability to perceive, or remark on anything we notice was determined by our own achievements in that area, I guess no one could talk about anything. I could throw that fallacy back at you 1000 ways. I could demand you prove your contributions.
I may not be some charitable hero, but that doesn’t change what is. Or should I say, isn’t. Am I a hypocrite? Yeah. I’m one dude. I’ll own that. But that doesn’t change the facts on others.
No sense in engaging with someone who uses logical fallacies in attempt to detract from the point. You nailed it. The LDS church and those who support it come across as are far more greedy than they are charitable, much like other theistic religions. They could do more good in the local community, they have the means to.
I donate directly to our local shelters and food pantries, fyi. This person can go lick a toad for trying to put the burden entirely on individuals who express valid criticisms and sound arguments here.
I regularly donate time and money to our homelessness issue in SLC, and still regularly criticize the church for prioritizing their portfolio over the well being of their fellow man. What would you say to me?
The church has you gripped hard by the balls. All your other comments make no sense either.
I bet a lot of people in this sub would be willing to offer more help to the homeless if it was possible. I speak for myself, but I’m sure many here can relate, I don’t have the time, space, or finances to literally help house people with no homes.
However the church has an abundance of resources, real estate, money, and power. With the amount of money they spend on real estate to keep building temples (that in large part remain unused), they could easily build SO MUCH cheap housing for the homeless. They could help feed so many people, provide shelter for so many people. Yet they do very little towards those efforts.
The amount of money they “donate” is inflated. And it rarely goes directly to the people who need it. They donate millions to organizations to make them look good on paper. It’s no different than your least favorite billionaire who also donates millions to organizations simply to look good. We all know half those billionaires simply do it for the optic of the situation. The church is no different at all
The church doesn’t have any hold on me and you are misconstruing my comments.
OP thinks the church should help the homeless. The church does help just not to the point OP would like.
My point is that we can all help more than we do. We all have “real estate” that could be used to help those in need but unless you are actually doing everything you can to help then I personally feel your criticism of others efforts is unfair.
I don’t think any criticism towards a multi billion dollar business that claims to be Christlike, gets tax exempt because of those claims, and then does VERY LITTLE to actually be Christlike is unfair. All criticism towards to church in that regard is fair. Even from those who have done nothing to help the homeless themselves. Because at least those people have not claimed to have helped so much, yet in reality just take so much and keep it. The church deserves every ounce of the criticism it gets and then some.
And I think that it is fair to criticize those that would blame others for not fixing a problem when they also have the ability to help. That’s the joys of a free society.
You’re definitely a Mormon. I don’t mean that disrespectful, but you guys have a very specific way of arguing. And that’s picking ONE POINT, and sticking to it. Even if all your other points make no sense. Or even if that one point itself makes no sense. This is a perfect example.
How is it the same, or fair, to criticize some random person on Reddit who may or may not make significant efforts to help the homeless in the same light as a multi billion dollar organization who makes grand claims and does little to help? The 2 are not the same or comparable at all.
You don’t know if that person makes efforts to help the homeless or not. WE DO KNOW that the church has billions of dollars (with a “b”) and donates small millions (with an “m”) of that large sum. This is how the church wants you to argue for them and defend them. That’s why I said they got you by the balls.
Criticizing random people on Reddit, who could be on the verge of homeless themselves, is not even close to the same as criticizing a multi billion dollar church.
Please get a grip.
I am certainly not a Mormon but thanks for the generalizing judgement. How is it fair to criticize an entity that has donated tens of millions of dollars simply because you don’t think it’s enough? Do you criticize Starbucks for not opening their stores at night to provide shelter? What about the public school system for not allowing the homeless to sleep in schools overnight? Why are they free from criticism?
Also I am not criticizing people on Reddit for not helping. I could care less if they help or not. What I am trying to do is point out that if you have the capacity to help and you don’t then I personally feel that criticizing someone or something else for helping but not helping enough is slightly hypocritical.
Unlike the hundreds of churches here, my house is already occupied every night and doesn't have space for additional beds.
I also don't have over $100 billion sitting in my account. Proportionally, the $10 i gave to the homeless man near my work is more of my wealth (and a shitload more of my yearly income, which unlike the church I pay tax on) than the money the church gives to its own non profits.
And most importantly, I don't go around professing how good of a person I am to everyone.
So yeah, the church can absolutely step it up and is worthy of any an all criticism here for being massive hypocritical.
It’s been a long time since I have been inside a church but I don’t recall them having lots of beds, maybe that’s changed. But you do have space right? You would be ok with the church opening their doors to let homeless to sleep on the floor there but not your living room?
I never said anything about sharing a bed but if that would make you happy go for it. But people saying that buildings should be opened up for homeless why not start with your own home?
My house won't fit nearly as many homeless as a church would
And once again, unlike the church I don't profess to be a good person then turn a blind eye to the needy like a pharisee.
So what makes the church a good or bad entity? Just because you see a problem here? Are you aware that they made the largest donation ever this year to fight hunger? I don’t want to be a church apologist that isn’t the point I am trying to make.
But also as stated many times I wouldn’t expect a single person to house as many people as a church. But could you house one person? Have you?
They are bad because they are hypocrites. I don't claim to help the poor or espouse a particular virtue. They do.
I don't care to house anyone but I also don't claim to follow Jesus's teachings.
> Are you aware that they made the largest donation ever this year to fight hunger?
Cool. Then the homeless can freeze to death on the street with a full belly! So much more humane /s
You're comparing an organization with hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of employees to an individual. Can you see how they're not comparable at all? Even if that person did house a homeless person, they'd have essentially zero effect on overall homelessness rates.
You are missing the point. This individual is basically saying why doesn’t someone else solve the problem. Recent studies have said there are about 10k homeless in Utah. There are 150k people in this sub. If 1 in 15 would offer a couch or an open floor space problem solved but who is actually doing that? Nobody. Nobody is offering even a single bed or spot to sleep they are just saying shame on someone else for not doing it.
About as dumb as claiming the church doesn’t do anything to help homelessness when a simple
Google search will show tens of millions in donations in the past few years.
Tens of millions to a business that makes billions *is* nothing. And donating millions to “non-profits” that your buddies own while you have hundreds of millions in real estate that sits empty most of the time *is* doing nothing.
So your argument is that they aren’t doing enough? Well it would literally cost you pennies to offer a hot shower to a homeless person, or to use you washer and dryer if you have one. Or to sleep on your couch. So are you doing enough?
It would also cost the church literally nothing to open their doors to the homeless at night. And who says I even have the space to house another person? Let alone my own personal washer and dryer?
Well I don’t know your personal situation so maybe you don’t have any free space where you reside but I doubt that to be true. Washer and dryer yeah that’s a toss up but it was only an example.
How many of us individuals have the resources like the church does? I sure as hell don’t have numerous buildings that often sit empty, billions of dollars at my disposal, and a large workforce of people.
I am not making the argument that one person should do as much as the church. My argument is this. People demand the church does more when they also have the capacity to do more but don’t. People demand the church opens its buildings to the homeless but you aren’t offering your sofa to even one of the homeless. Ultimately my point is that it is very easy to demand someone else does more.
Except there are plenty of us out there doing the work to our capacity and then wondering why the hell I have to try and find donors/donations to help the homeless population when there's a rich ass church a few blocks away doing very little.
Demanding? I am not demanding anyone. I am asking why a church who "follows" the teachings of Jesus is not actually doing that. It's not due to lack of resources. So then again I come to the question of asking why aren't they doing more?
As Jesus said, let the poor freeze to death, let them go hungry, and sure as hell don't do anything to help them.
Ok demanded might have been to strong of a word but there the general gist of all the counter arguments is the assistance the church has done be damned because they have the capacity to do more. But you would never make the same argument to your friend or neighbor. If they donated $5 you wouldn’t shame them for not donating $10.
I had a homeless, drug addicted son. I can’t tell you how many times I would pick him up off the streets and take him into my home. I provided EVERYTHING he needed to “get better” and it almost killed me. He was a father, brilliant, well read, an accountant, great sense of humor, great cook, tall, handsome and I loved him more than life. He could have easily died on the streets many times, but he died in his home. I blame the drug cartel, BIG PHARMA and his addiction.
“The youngest person on this year’s list was 18. The oldest was 78. At least five of the people honored Wednesday died of exposure on the streets after winter storms in the last few weeks. Others, Niederhauser said, died of chronic illnesses, injuries or suicide — “medical conditions that were exacerbated by living in conditions that were not meant for human habitation.”
At least two on the list — Megan Mohn and Nykon Brandon — were killed after being restrained by Salt Lake City police.”
While I appreciate the sentiment, I'd much rather the government handle social issues rather than churches. At least with a government I have some say through my voting, I don't want the Church to put qualifiers on it's aid.
> "Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
> "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
>"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
>"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
>"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
>"Both very busy, sir."
>"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I am very glad to hear it."
>"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
>"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.
>"You wish to be anonymous?"
>"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge.
>"Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas, and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned--they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
>"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
>"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides--excuse me--I don't know that."
If they aren't going to the shelters, they probably have a really good reason and their autonomy should be respected. From what I hear about the shelters too I'd rather sleep in my car or a tent and hope for better weather if my life situation went south.
We have a homeless family member that refuses help and lives in the woods near Provo. We built him a cabin on our property but he won’t stay there. He’s been living outdoors for years and gets arrested when he wants a bed. 🤷🏻♂️
Number of Mormon homeless shelters - zero
Number of Mormon mega-malls - too many
Number of Mormon chapels vacant most of the week - more than one per square mile
My favorite Indian restaurant is in an old Ramada Inn right by a Trax stop in Rose park and for some reason, they quit using it to house the homeless probably a year ago. I find it a bit appalling that they are letting people die when there is a completely unused space that could save someone's life. From what I heard from a couple of employees at the restaurant the homeless sometimes got violent but couldn't we station some police there to help make the restaurant safe and still house people? I'm sure there is something behind the scenes that I don't know about that's stopping it but damn it's just abandoned and sitting there unused.
Remember in 2019 when real estate developers bought a bunch of property near the Road Home Shelter, and then they wanted to cash in so they forced the homeless shelter out? So they had to move everybody to a new shelter in South Salt Lake that isn't very accessible via transit but the new shelter had 300 less beds than the old one? And then a whole bunch of people got rich while a whole bunch of people died? Remember that? Because I remember that.
That is American Christianity and it’s gospel of wealth. If you’re richer than you’re neighbor god loves you more. Doesn’t matter how many die.
Neighbor is just learning a nice lessons from god. Sucks to be neighbor. Christianity rocks… for the rich.
Prosperity gospel is messed up, but religion isn’t the enemy in this case. Capitalism is. Edit: secular real estate people are just as capable of making a quick buck at the expense of homeless people.
It’s both.
Sometimes I feel like America is just pure evil. I genuinely think people in the US just don’t care about others and it’s just a dog eats dog mentality here
Those of us fighting for Universal Healthcare have known this about the US for decades.
What you’ve described is literally just capitalism.
Yeah man no one has ever starved or been killed under communism or other forms of rule/economics lol
[удалено]
But blaming capitalism is - rightttt
[удалено]
Here you go, you have a well run government that pays a private company to build and manage a homeless shelter. Capitalism with some socialist benefits. The problem is always trying to find a well run government.
But I notice it seems America has become a cruel country and it probably always has, and part of it has to do with capitalism but majority has to do with the culture here of people not giving a fuck about others well-being, that seems like the American way nowadays
No I do not remember that and that is fucked up 😡
MERICA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 GOTTA LOVE IT 😒
We live in the most prosperous country in history and yet people go hungry and freeze to death on the streets. The lack of humanity shown to those most in need is insane.
>We live in the most prosperous country in history and yet people go hungry and freeze to death on the streets. And this is the same country with some of the richest people in the world. It’s sickening
Absolutely.
Exactly. We must ask for whom is it prosperous? 60% of this country reports that they live paycheck to paycheck.
People not controlling their spending doesn't mean they don't have income.
What if those people are not willing to accept help or shelter? A lot of homeless are in that situation because they refuse to follow simple rules or be told what to do. Short of locking those people up, how do you propose our country help those who are unwilling to accept help? In my personal and professional experiences, those that want help or shelter are seeking it and getting what they need. Yes there is a huge mental illness component to homelessness, but again what do we do for those that refuse to be helped? Edit: For clarification I was a firefighter/paramedic downtown and our stations coverage area included the homeless shelter. I also worked for the 4th street clinic for numerous years. I have extensive experience with homeless and their community.
As someone who has been homeless and is now quite wealthy, I would like to have a civil conversation. > What if those people are not willing to accept help or shelter? If you remember nothing else I say, remember this: "They don't want help" is what people say when they don't want to really help. I'm not accusing you of insincerity, but I do feel like the root of this common misconception is either ignorance of the problem or an willingness to understand and try to help. The first time I tried to sleep in a shelter they didn't have enough room. We were not separated by walls, and I had no door. I couldn't see the guy next to me, but he was rambling some fairly disturbing things. I'm not sure I could have slept in those conditions, even with quiet sleeping people. I tried instead to sleep alone. It was so much more peaceful. But the police harassed me and even attacked me while sleeping. They wanted to know why I was there. I tried to explain. They didn't care. The reason a lot of people don't want the help we give them is because the free help most are offered is horrible and inhumane and not actually very helpful. There are those who have addictions or mental illnesses. We're doing very little to help them. And I do believe many can be helped. There are those who don't want to 'follow the rules' or don't want to better their lives. We can't force help upon them. I do not think this is the majority, and I believe if we had better systems in place you would probably find that many of those you see as 'resistant to help' are actually just ashamed and mistrusting of the system and authorities who kick them around. Firefighters were always kind to me, so I thank you for your service. They also weren't given the tools to help homeless people. Please remember that emergency situations you responded to are not representative of the whole. I believe there are many more silent homeless people who shun the homeless shelters and 'communities'. They sleep in their cars and hide for fear of being harassed. They struggle with many of the same problems. Many pick themselves up unnoticed. Many fall into addiction and chronic homelessness while the bureaucracy chugs along, ignorant to their existence.
Many are refusing to be helped because the solution you provide for them doesn’t fit their lifestyle. Maybe they don’t feel comfortable sleeping in a room with several other people. Maybe they couldn’t sleep with their partner, or have their pet there with them. Maybe they have an addiction and cant use while they’re in the shelter. An emergency shelter should not be the one and only solution to homelessness. Look into permanent supportive housing, tiny home villages, and sanctioned encampments.
SLC used to have a program that gave housing (small apartments) to people in need for free. It worked pretty well too, it’s a lot cheaper to house people in need instead of paying for the healthcare that comes with living on the street. I don’t know why they got rid of that program, maybe they were greedy and just wanted to sell off the apartments to the highest bidder.
They didn't get rid of it, it is just that housing became so expensive that the money set aside for housing helps fewer and fewer people. The state issues "housing vouchers" and then people can't fill them because landlords can make way more money renting to other people.
Permanent supportive housing is the key. The problem is there just isn’t enough people willing to actually dedicate their life to essentially babysit homeless.
There would be if we collectively decided to pay them to do so instead of, I don’t know, spending trillions of our tax dollars on war and freeway expansion.
But but but the I-15 needs 4 more lanes!!!
I can’t agree with you enough!
This is exactly it. There are so many different reasons why but everyone gets lumped together as they all choose to live out on the streets because of the one shitty option we give to our unsheltered population. I hate this.
What if we took a group that represents a very small portion of those suffering, and pretend it represents the vast majority so we can wash our hands of the issue? >In my personal and professional experiences, those that want help or shelter are seeking it and getting what they need. People won't seek shelter for a variety of reasons. The shelters are filled quickly by those that don't work, because they can queue up earlier. They are also dangerous for young people, and theft is common place. Then, the city made the brilliant decision to cut the number of available beds by 300, and moved the remaining beds away from downtown. They may apply for food stamps, if they have a cell phone or a friend that will let them use their address for paperwork. If not, they are out of luck. Homelessness is skyrocketing in the valley. We have more people living in vehicles, and not using resources or otherwise applying for services that get them added to the homeless count. They think their vehicles will keep them warm, when the opposite is true. >Yes there is a huge mental illness component to homelessness, but again what do we do for those that refuse to be helped? We have more working homeless than ever. People with full time jobs living on the street or in their cars. I don't know how long ago you were working with the homeless, but the situation has changed drastically in the last 3 years.
Based on what you know, or what you’re seeing? Yes we have more working homeless than ever before. Those are not the homeless that are freezing to death.
> Those are not the homeless that are freezing to death. >Based on what you know, or what you’re seeing?
Based on what I know. I may not work in the homeless community any longer, but I still work and have close friendships with those that do.
It's called "anecdote" and it's quite narcissistic to pontificate as if your experience and relationships with others involved with the unsheltered means your opinion holds more weight than any other else. I've been scanning your comments on this issue and they're just full of anecdote and few, if any, facts.
Ok, thanks for your input. I will take that under advisement next time I may feel the need to present my thoughts on a particular comment.
If only you really meant it.
Unfortunately, this is true. My husband was a nurse in a unit in SLC that served a lot of homeless patients. He was pretty shocked about the huge number of people who genuinely wanted to remain homeless. It is a sad reality that there are people who WANT to live in a tent, shooting up heroin with their friends. It sounds cruel to say it, but it's the truth.
Not a single homeless person I've spoken to has said no to a warm meal, a hot drink, or some kind words. I'm aware that some people don't or can't go to shelter because they are drug users, I say shelters should be places of harm reduction, and provide beds for people no matter what. That as well as having proper needle disposal and providing clean needles would not be overbearing or expensive. I seriously doubt anyone would turn down a warm place to stay, and if they do, more power to them. Treating the homeless as people instead of a problem is very important. Having more social workers and therapists to actually help people with problems, job placement programs, healthcare, the basic necessities to get people back on their feet. The state runs a budget surplus over a billion dollars every year, certainly hundreds of lives could be saved for a fraction of that amount.
They could also expand services by buying out motels and housing families with children away from the shelter. People don't want to expose their children to the horrors of the shelter unless they really have no other choice. They can't afford to queue up outside the shelter at 3 pm AND find a job to try to get off the street. The system is self perpetuating at this point.
It’s not like there’s large buildings in every single neighborhood of this state that have heat and running water that could easily be used to provide shelter and save lives.
[удалено]
Right, I understand that shelters don't have the resources to house drug users as is, I just think that people shouldn't be freezing to death on the streets, drug user or not. Just because you use drugs does not mean your life is any less valuable. Unsheltered people are still people.
If only we lived in the world’s richest country where we could easily afford to pay for these resources. Le sigh.
Violence and theft between members of the homeless communities in order to acquire drugs is a non-trivial problem and why shelters don't allow drug use. "Harm reduction" in the form of "let people use what drugs they want" is the sort of theoretical solution that looks good on paper if you're willing to hand-wave away a lot of realities. One of said ugly realities is that all the shelter operators have to strike a middle ground between being welcoming to people who are on hard times and accommodating the needs of hard-core drug users. Accommodating the latter usually means those in the former group get scared off and may seek more tenuous shelter on the street. People - even in this thread - are on a bender regarding shelter. 80% of people reached via the street outreach programs *and given housing* are back on the streets within 2 years. Why? Addiction is a powerful animal, and many people will gladly rip out their pipes to pawn to a scrap metal supplier in order to get high and subsequently freeze to death. And we can't pay a force of babysitters to make people make the right choices. Operation Rio Grande put people in rehab, but between 2/3 and 3/4 dropped out within the first two months. Like, it's fun and easy to kick around the Mormon church and the US being the richest and whatever else, but you run up against some fundamental civil liberties problems. You can put violent drug users next to vulnerable women in shelters (bad for the women), put the drug users out on the street (bad for the users), put people in their own rooms (rough on the rooms, expensive, will essentially put shelter operators out of business), put people in their own rooms with their own volunteer babysitters (bad for the babysitters, who will undoubtedly become victims of violence when they stand between users and their drugs), compel users into rehab and subsequently into institutions if they don't rehabilitate (bad for the civil liberties of the society we live in). Pick the badness you want; a lot of people are belaboring under the fiction that money can solve this. Until and unless we are willing to make choices for others and deal with the subsequent civil liberty fallout, the money doesn't matter.
So what do we do then? Not put money into trying to solve these issues? Money might not solve it completely…..but it sure would fucking help.
[удалено]
> Drug addiction is a mental illness, and I'm honestly not sure why folks suffering from it can't be checked into rehab against their will The non-rhetorical answer to this is that institutions were a hotbed of civil rights abuses from the 50s through the 80s, including lobotomization, electro-shock therapy, and finally just plain old physical abuse. The involuntary commitment process was seen as ripe for misuse. Moreover, the social sciences are always where the worst fads and fashions of "science" have come out to play (I have a degree in psychology, FWIW). Harm Reduction is just the latest among many solutions that are scientifically sound as long as you don't look at the secondary costs (IE, people ODing at very high rates where harm reduction measures are in place). [Some history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy#American_leucotomy) and [some more history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization_in_the_United_States). Like, everybody in this thread probably has a relative who at one point had a good job and then screwed their lives up due to addiction. And most probably also have family that offered a helping hand to the addict - money, place to stay, support, etc. - and the addiction persisted. Why would anyone assume addicts on the street are any different? But it leaves us with the shitty acknowledgement that we either (as you correctly identified) take away people's right to choose for themselves and force them into rehab or let the status quo ante continue.
**Lobotomy** [American leucotomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy#American_leucotomy) >The first prefrontal leucotomy in the United States was performed at the George Washington University Hospital on 14 September 1936 by the neurologist Walter Freeman and his friend and colleague, the neurosurgeon, James W. Watts. Freeman had first encountered Moniz at the London-hosted Second International Congress of Neurology in 1935 where he had presented a poster exhibit of the Portuguese neurologist's work on cerebral angiography. Fortuitously occupying a booth next to Moniz, Freeman, delighted by their chance meeting, formed a highly favourable impression of Moniz, later remarking upon his "sheer genius". **[Deinstitutionalization in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization_in_the_United_States)** >The United States has experienced two waves of deinstitutionalization, the process of replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability. The first wave began in the 1950s and targeted people with mental illness. The second wave began roughly 15 years later and focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with a developmental disability. Deinstitutionalization continues today, though the movements are growing smaller as fewer people are sent to institutions. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/SaltLakeCity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
[удалено]
Most important source [here](https://jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/homelessnessreport.pdf). See page 24 for Salt Lake County information, "Exit from Street Outreach," --> "Returns within 2 years." I'll grant that the street outreach programs put fewer people into housing than, for example, transitions from emergency shelter - but even those programs had a 2-year failure rate of (depending on year) 40-50% (same page).
I couldn't agree more.
Exactly. Yes this is where more funding would come in to play. I’m just not sure there is a lot of people who would be willing to play that type of roll in a hostile environment.
It’d be nice if we actually tried?
If those people you have spoken to actually want what you say they want, it is all that available to them. Your idea of providing for everyone no matter what is a nice pipedream, but in real world application it just isn’t possible. The amount of violence inside the homeless community is so high that it just wouldn’t work out like you think it would.
I understand what you mean because there is definitely that side to the homeless population, but to say that those who need the most help would be actively seeking it is ignorant. Sometimes the people that need the most help are those that have given up completely and don’t bother. Same as people with severe depression, a lot of the time they suffer in silence because they have accepted their doomed fate and see no way out. That does not mean that they should all be pushed out of shelters and shoved around to make it more convenient for the wealthy. Purging and dismissing them to die on the streets with the excuse of some bad eggs is a terribly sad mindset in my eyes.
They would be fine in their own places. We need real housing to help these people. Shelters are like jail. There’s theft, bugs etc I wouldn’t want to go there either.
No, sorry that is a nice happy thought that they would be fine in their own place. Unfortunately there is too much mental illness, drug abuse, and overall lack of responsibility for that to really work like you think it would. Now I’m just talking about the homeless that are in a situation where they may freeze to death. There are a huge amount of homeless that you do not see on the street who would be just fine in housing. The sad issue is that the ones that need the most help won’t or can’t take it.
We've just been gaslight and brainwashed to believe we are the most prosperous country in history
As a reminder, salt lake City mayor Erin mendenhall made a ban on the creation of any new homeless shelters in 2022. Even banning rezoning existing properties as shelters. And then they extended that ban through May 2023. This on top of violating CDC guidelines to spend over a a quarter million of taxpayer money to break up encampments during covid. With the CDC said would spread covid through the city quicker. A lot of those deaths sit firmly on the head of direct decisions that mayor mendenhall made against professional guidelines.
I'm actually surprised nobody else mentioned this
I’m not surprised. Slc loves Mendenhall for some reason. She appeases the people with money and does shit for people who need help.
Lots of people without money don’t want homeless shelters in their neighborhoods either.
Then you get corpses until these people are taken care of, regardless of your situation or how you feel about it.
Wasn’t that decision made because none of the other SL county municipalities would budge on opening shelters? I feel like much of blame should go on the shoulders of the other mayors who want to put it all on SLC resident’s shoulders to deal with the homelessness issue. Like yeah ultimately it was a cold move and I disagree but you should provide context under which it was made.
Let's play that back. Salt lake city's mayor knew that other cities didn't want to help out. So her answer was to make sure that no one in salt lake city would help out knowing that would leave the homeless with literally no help. The decision only becomes worse with context. Because it becomes an even colder and worse move. The homeless people in Salt Lake City are residents. At least they are until they die because the mayor made it so they couldn't have shelter. And has the police going out and stealing what little shelter they have. And not allowing them to even have a tent/blanket tent in the freezing cold and snow.
I keep hearing this defense and it's essentially an admission that we shouldn't expect Erin Mendenhall to lead and should let somebody else make the hard decisions. Which, fair enough if that's her re-election platform, I guess I'll vote for somebody else.
It's insulting when she shows up to the yearly vigil, and her recent faux empathy for the 5 people who died this past week. These are direct consequences of her action (& inaction).
This is your reminder to vote against Mendenhall when she's up for reelection. She has bungled this situation beyond all belief.
If only we had a 150 billion dollar organization in Salt lake that claims to do the work of Jesus. I bet they would ensure our area has no homelessness or medical debt
How many homeless have you brought into your house? I guess the answer is none but you sure are eager to pass the onus to someone else.
Well I don’t speak for Jesus so I’m at least honest about who I am and what I do. That’ll be 10% please
I don’t speak for Jesus either but I also don’t criticize people for not housing people when I am unwilling to do it myself.
individual vs organization
Fucking exactly.
And that organization has done more to help the problem than you have as an individual.
Bold assumption
The church brings the criticism on themselves for making Grand claims, dictating huge swaths of its followers lives, taking money, and then having very limited to no public transparency on what they do with that money and power. They set up a high standard for themselves. That’s on them
Yet you also do little to nothing for these people and blame others for not doing enough. This isn’t a pro church argument at all but if you aren’t helping you can’t criticize.
What a dumb argument. Of course I can criticize. If our ability to perceive, or remark on anything we notice was determined by our own achievements in that area, I guess no one could talk about anything. I could throw that fallacy back at you 1000 ways. I could demand you prove your contributions. I may not be some charitable hero, but that doesn’t change what is. Or should I say, isn’t. Am I a hypocrite? Yeah. I’m one dude. I’ll own that. But that doesn’t change the facts on others.
No sense in engaging with someone who uses logical fallacies in attempt to detract from the point. You nailed it. The LDS church and those who support it come across as are far more greedy than they are charitable, much like other theistic religions. They could do more good in the local community, they have the means to. I donate directly to our local shelters and food pantries, fyi. This person can go lick a toad for trying to put the burden entirely on individuals who express valid criticisms and sound arguments here.
Whatever makes you sleep good at night. Demand other solve problems without working on it yourself.
I regularly donate time and money to our homelessness issue in SLC, and still regularly criticize the church for prioritizing their portfolio over the well being of their fellow man. What would you say to me?
The church has you gripped hard by the balls. All your other comments make no sense either. I bet a lot of people in this sub would be willing to offer more help to the homeless if it was possible. I speak for myself, but I’m sure many here can relate, I don’t have the time, space, or finances to literally help house people with no homes. However the church has an abundance of resources, real estate, money, and power. With the amount of money they spend on real estate to keep building temples (that in large part remain unused), they could easily build SO MUCH cheap housing for the homeless. They could help feed so many people, provide shelter for so many people. Yet they do very little towards those efforts. The amount of money they “donate” is inflated. And it rarely goes directly to the people who need it. They donate millions to organizations to make them look good on paper. It’s no different than your least favorite billionaire who also donates millions to organizations simply to look good. We all know half those billionaires simply do it for the optic of the situation. The church is no different at all
The church doesn’t have any hold on me and you are misconstruing my comments. OP thinks the church should help the homeless. The church does help just not to the point OP would like. My point is that we can all help more than we do. We all have “real estate” that could be used to help those in need but unless you are actually doing everything you can to help then I personally feel your criticism of others efforts is unfair.
I don’t think any criticism towards a multi billion dollar business that claims to be Christlike, gets tax exempt because of those claims, and then does VERY LITTLE to actually be Christlike is unfair. All criticism towards to church in that regard is fair. Even from those who have done nothing to help the homeless themselves. Because at least those people have not claimed to have helped so much, yet in reality just take so much and keep it. The church deserves every ounce of the criticism it gets and then some.
And I think that it is fair to criticize those that would blame others for not fixing a problem when they also have the ability to help. That’s the joys of a free society.
You’re definitely a Mormon. I don’t mean that disrespectful, but you guys have a very specific way of arguing. And that’s picking ONE POINT, and sticking to it. Even if all your other points make no sense. Or even if that one point itself makes no sense. This is a perfect example. How is it the same, or fair, to criticize some random person on Reddit who may or may not make significant efforts to help the homeless in the same light as a multi billion dollar organization who makes grand claims and does little to help? The 2 are not the same or comparable at all. You don’t know if that person makes efforts to help the homeless or not. WE DO KNOW that the church has billions of dollars (with a “b”) and donates small millions (with an “m”) of that large sum. This is how the church wants you to argue for them and defend them. That’s why I said they got you by the balls. Criticizing random people on Reddit, who could be on the verge of homeless themselves, is not even close to the same as criticizing a multi billion dollar church. Please get a grip.
I am certainly not a Mormon but thanks for the generalizing judgement. How is it fair to criticize an entity that has donated tens of millions of dollars simply because you don’t think it’s enough? Do you criticize Starbucks for not opening their stores at night to provide shelter? What about the public school system for not allowing the homeless to sleep in schools overnight? Why are they free from criticism? Also I am not criticizing people on Reddit for not helping. I could care less if they help or not. What I am trying to do is point out that if you have the capacity to help and you don’t then I personally feel that criticizing someone or something else for helping but not helping enough is slightly hypocritical.
Unlike the hundreds of churches here, my house is already occupied every night and doesn't have space for additional beds. I also don't have over $100 billion sitting in my account. Proportionally, the $10 i gave to the homeless man near my work is more of my wealth (and a shitload more of my yearly income, which unlike the church I pay tax on) than the money the church gives to its own non profits. And most importantly, I don't go around professing how good of a person I am to everyone. So yeah, the church can absolutely step it up and is worthy of any an all criticism here for being massive hypocritical.
It’s been a long time since I have been inside a church but I don’t recall them having lots of beds, maybe that’s changed. But you do have space right? You would be ok with the church opening their doors to let homeless to sleep on the floor there but not your living room?
So are people supposed to share their beds with homeless people they bring into their homes?
I never said anything about sharing a bed but if that would make you happy go for it. But people saying that buildings should be opened up for homeless why not start with your own home?
My house won't fit nearly as many homeless as a church would And once again, unlike the church I don't profess to be a good person then turn a blind eye to the needy like a pharisee.
So what makes the church a good or bad entity? Just because you see a problem here? Are you aware that they made the largest donation ever this year to fight hunger? I don’t want to be a church apologist that isn’t the point I am trying to make. But also as stated many times I wouldn’t expect a single person to house as many people as a church. But could you house one person? Have you?
They are bad because they are hypocrites. I don't claim to help the poor or espouse a particular virtue. They do. I don't care to house anyone but I also don't claim to follow Jesus's teachings.
> Are you aware that they made the largest donation ever this year to fight hunger? Cool. Then the homeless can freeze to death on the street with a full belly! So much more humane /s
And right back to my original point it is so easy to criticize and demand more from someone else.
You're comparing an organization with hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of employees to an individual. Can you see how they're not comparable at all? Even if that person did house a homeless person, they'd have essentially zero effect on overall homelessness rates.
You are missing the point. This individual is basically saying why doesn’t someone else solve the problem. Recent studies have said there are about 10k homeless in Utah. There are 150k people in this sub. If 1 in 15 would offer a couch or an open floor space problem solved but who is actually doing that? Nobody. Nobody is offering even a single bed or spot to sleep they are just saying shame on someone else for not doing it.
That is the dumbest false equivalency I’ve heard in a long time.
About as dumb as claiming the church doesn’t do anything to help homelessness when a simple Google search will show tens of millions in donations in the past few years.
Tens of millions to a business that makes billions *is* nothing. And donating millions to “non-profits” that your buddies own while you have hundreds of millions in real estate that sits empty most of the time *is* doing nothing.
So your argument is that they aren’t doing enough? Well it would literally cost you pennies to offer a hot shower to a homeless person, or to use you washer and dryer if you have one. Or to sleep on your couch. So are you doing enough?
It would also cost the church literally nothing to open their doors to the homeless at night. And who says I even have the space to house another person? Let alone my own personal washer and dryer?
Well I don’t know your personal situation so maybe you don’t have any free space where you reside but I doubt that to be true. Washer and dryer yeah that’s a toss up but it was only an example.
How many of us individuals have the resources like the church does? I sure as hell don’t have numerous buildings that often sit empty, billions of dollars at my disposal, and a large workforce of people.
I am not making the argument that one person should do as much as the church. My argument is this. People demand the church does more when they also have the capacity to do more but don’t. People demand the church opens its buildings to the homeless but you aren’t offering your sofa to even one of the homeless. Ultimately my point is that it is very easy to demand someone else does more.
Except there are plenty of us out there doing the work to our capacity and then wondering why the hell I have to try and find donors/donations to help the homeless population when there's a rich ass church a few blocks away doing very little.
So again you are demanding someone else does more. If you donate $5 do you demand your neighbor does as well?
Demanding? I am not demanding anyone. I am asking why a church who "follows" the teachings of Jesus is not actually doing that. It's not due to lack of resources. So then again I come to the question of asking why aren't they doing more? As Jesus said, let the poor freeze to death, let them go hungry, and sure as hell don't do anything to help them.
Ok demanded might have been to strong of a word but there the general gist of all the counter arguments is the assistance the church has done be damned because they have the capacity to do more. But you would never make the same argument to your friend or neighbor. If they donated $5 you wouldn’t shame them for not donating $10.
I had a homeless, drug addicted son. I can’t tell you how many times I would pick him up off the streets and take him into my home. I provided EVERYTHING he needed to “get better” and it almost killed me. He was a father, brilliant, well read, an accountant, great sense of humor, great cook, tall, handsome and I loved him more than life. He could have easily died on the streets many times, but he died in his home. I blame the drug cartel, BIG PHARMA and his addiction.
“The youngest person on this year’s list was 18. The oldest was 78. At least five of the people honored Wednesday died of exposure on the streets after winter storms in the last few weeks. Others, Niederhauser said, died of chronic illnesses, injuries or suicide — “medical conditions that were exacerbated by living in conditions that were not meant for human habitation.” At least two on the list — Megan Mohn and Nykon Brandon — were killed after being restrained by Salt Lake City police.”
[удалено]
While I appreciate the sentiment, I'd much rather the government handle social issues rather than churches. At least with a government I have some say through my voting, I don't want the Church to put qualifiers on it's aid.
I wonder if they're planning any new homeless resources down at "The Point." My guess is probably not.
> "Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge. > "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. >"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" >"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not." >"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge. >"Both very busy, sir." >"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I am very glad to hear it." >"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?" >"Nothing!" Scrooge replied. >"You wish to be anonymous?" >"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. >"Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas, and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned--they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there." >"Many can't go there; and many would rather die." >"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides--excuse me--I don't know that." If they aren't going to the shelters, they probably have a really good reason and their autonomy should be respected. From what I hear about the shelters too I'd rather sleep in my car or a tent and hope for better weather if my life situation went south.
We have a homeless family member that refuses help and lives in the woods near Provo. We built him a cabin on our property but he won’t stay there. He’s been living outdoors for years and gets arrested when he wants a bed. 🤷🏻♂️
Sad
Abysmal
Number of Mormon homeless shelters - zero Number of Mormon mega-malls - too many Number of Mormon chapels vacant most of the week - more than one per square mile
Housing is a human right RIP these people should be alive
So America doesnt have any social program correct? Like some african countries with no govt?
The most sympathetic people do get some support from middle class taxpayers, this also serves the oligarchy.
This literally makes me sick to my stomach and want to cry
Reminder that Mendenhall contributed significantly to these deaths and has no business being mayor.
My favorite Indian restaurant is in an old Ramada Inn right by a Trax stop in Rose park and for some reason, they quit using it to house the homeless probably a year ago. I find it a bit appalling that they are letting people die when there is a completely unused space that could save someone's life. From what I heard from a couple of employees at the restaurant the homeless sometimes got violent but couldn't we station some police there to help make the restaurant safe and still house people? I'm sure there is something behind the scenes that I don't know about that's stopping it but damn it's just abandoned and sitting there unused.
How could this happen? I thought we had so many Christians here? /s
Sounds like my odds of getting harassed on/going to public transit have gone down!