Comments by "bart thomassen thomassen" (@thomassenbart) on "‘What Is Your Definition Of The Status Of Homelessness?’: Alito Grills Lawyer In Anti-Camping Case" video.

Sure but you should not be allowed to camp in public urban areas, pollute an area with your excrement, panhandle, harass and despoil the land.
7
Most of the homeless prefer this life than living normally. It's a lifestyle choice for the vast majority of people doing it.
3
@chavonj4680 Because we have laws and of course the same applies in suburbs as well. In rural areas you can camp though living in rural areas is also not legal. You have to own land and cannot appropriate it by pitching a tent. Public toilets are everywhere but if someone is doing this as part of his/her lifestyle that is illegal and must be punished. Yes, panhandling is protected but harassment is not. There is a fine line that is frequently crossed. Despoiling is to make a place dirty as is the norm in the encampments made by the homeless. The homeless are not to be pitied but dealt with. No subsidies but forced treatment, incarceration and for the mentally ill, long term institutions must be made available.
2
@TheDmitriProject It is true I am. Of course, so is the bulk of the population. The median height for American men is 5'9".
2
@TheDmitriProject Half the homeless in the USA live in one state. California, why? If you live in an area that you cannot afford. Move to someplace where you can afford to live. Sleeping in pubic is not the problem, camping and living in public spaces is the problem. You are engaged in a strawman argument. If a person is merely down on their luck, employed with folk like yourself and needs a place to sleep, that is not the same as the encampments of hundreds of drug addicts, alcoholics, dirty, nasty pan handlers we see all over the state and in Washington and Oregon and Hawaii as well. Doing more as a society is called subsidizing and we have tried that over the last 40 years only to see the phenomenon explode and this during decades of strong growth and currently with unemployment just above 3% nationally with some 10-12 million jobs available. I am not buying what you are selling Dmitri. You ignore the general reality for the anecdotal case. Homelessness in the USA is a lifestyle, and it needs to be stopped.
2
@marcyking461 you have no idea of my life and in the USA it is not a fate the befalls you but a series of choices with consequences. I would venture that of all the homeless in the USA and Europe as well, it is a lifestyle not something that happened to them. Of course individuals have bad things happen which cause them to lose their home but this is not the norm for these folk. They generally prefer life on the streets than in a shelter or to go home or to live a 'normal' life, for a variety of reasons. Living on the streets should not be an option.
2
@chavonj4680 Because they have broken the law by camping in the city or in unauthorized areas. Because they are using illegal substances. Because they are criminals. Because they are minor and runaways. Because they are on private property. etc...etc...
2
It probably would actually, however, no one is advocating such a thing, but it is a crime to camp on public streets, foul them, do illegal substances there, be publicly intoxicated etc...
2
What is the injustice here, disallowing public camping in cities?
1
@BobHaijerJr I think it far less complex than you imagine. Homelessness is growing during a time when jobs are both plentiful and wages high. The vast majority of people who are homeless fall into three categories: 1. Addicts 2. Criminals 3. Mentally ill. And of course, many occupy all three or a combination of these. As we have subsidized homelessness, it has only grown. The answer is to stop doing that, enforce laws, incarcerate the criminals, force the mentally ill into facilities and get the addicts off the streets as well. homelessness in the USA is largely a lifestyle choice, it is not about the affordability of housing.
1
@BobHaijerJr Currently there are some 8 million unfilled jobs in the USA. These jobs are throughout all industries. Jobs are very plentiful. China is not doing well. Its economy is on the verge of collapse. Housing is expensive in some parts of the country and much less so in other parts.
1
@CAPTJohn47 I think not.
1
@chavonj4680 They live in Cali because of the policies of the state and cities which subsidize the lifestyle and permit its excesses. Many states have nice weather, yet 50% of all homeless are in Cali. Housing prices in the Golden State have been high for decades but homelessness was not always a problem and yet now it is. I suggest you look at how municipalities and the state have doled out a slew of benefits to homeless folk and coddle this population rather than actually deal with the issue. The price of housing and wages vary widely across the nation. Currently wages are at all time highs, unemployment very low and jobs are plentiful. There is no reason to be homeless for the vast majority of those who are unless they deliberately choose to live this way. It accommodates their habits. People can live in houses, apartments, condominiums in a number of options. They can rent a room, they can move to another state or town where rents are less, they can move home, they can contact religious services or charities. There are a vast number of options. You don't need to stay homeless unless you refuse help and or to give up drugs, alcohol, criminality or believe in so doing 'THEY' will get you. You stop homelessness by enforcing the laws and stop people from doing what they are doing on the public streets.
1
Correct, but you also cannot camp in public spaces.
1
@Imjusttryingtotellu No law states you must have a home but you also cannot camp in public urban spaces.
1
@Imjusttryingtotellu No, it's not what is being essentially asked for. The problem is camping in urban environments. That must not stand. It is destroying urban landscapes across the country.
1
@chavonj4680 Camping is not having a picnic but staying over night and in the case of the homeless, living in urban places, outside of the law, fouling the streets, bring drugs, alcohol, needles, crime and a level of filth that is detrimental for society.
1
@chavonj4680 No, the laws apply to everyone.
1
@chavonj4680 No, the laws have been in place for some time and those people do not have to sleep in the streets. Homelessness is a choice for the vast majority of those participating. It's a lifestyle and has little to nothing to do with a lack of housing.
1
@chavonj4680 All of those areas are off-limits to homeless folk living in. You cannot simply place a tent somewhere and effectively squat. That is illegal. I'm all for bathrooms, which are ubiquitous in the USA btw but also for law and order and not surrendering public spaces to the homeless. Panhandling is protected but harassment is not and sleeping-living-appropriating space anywhere, is also not. Despoiling the land is making it filthy, i.e., crapping, urinating, vomiting, littering etc...
1
@TheDmitriProject The median height of American males is 5'9". So, most folk are below 6'.
1
@chavonj4680 Nope. It's the truth.
1
@chavonj4680 You keep confusing the issue. Existing i.e., being in public is not the same as living in the streets or on private or public property. Stop defecting and deal honestly with the issue.
1
@chavonj4680 Camping is what one does in areas set aside for the activity in public forests or parks. These areas are designated and cannot be inhabited year-round but only during certain seasons, with or without a fee to enter. They often accommodate trailers, campers, tents etc...and have fire pits and are regulated areas. In the deeper wilderness of BLM national forest land, citizens can also go, explore, hike, recreate, and hunt when appropriate. They cannot, however, live in any of these areas. Living in a space is setting up permanent or semi-permanent accommodations within legal parameters. What the homeless do, is appropriate space that is not zoned for overnight sleeping, especially on a long-term basis, has no or limited public facilities, and is not meant to accommodate numbers of dwellers, such as in public parks, city streets, parking lots, abandoned buildings, underpasses, beaches etc...The homeless pollute these areas and make access difficult to impossible for the tax-paying citizenry. We all know these things and pretending it is okay under the guise of empathy is foolish and only exacerbates the problem.
1
@TheDmitriProject I don't understand your sentence. What ass whooping and who is Brent? Kavanaugh? What ass whooping did he take and why is it relevant?
1
@TheDmitriProject I sound like it? What kind of idiocy is that?
1
@chavonj4680 You are being pedantic and ridiculous and avoiding the issue. The question not about existence but concerns establishing illegal domiciles on public land, fouling it, rendering unusable by others, committing illegal activities while there, presenting a health risk etc...
1
I have absolutely answered the questions. I also clearly defined camping and it is not the strawman of sleeping in a tent for a night, in a public park. If you are homeless or homefull and decide to pitch a tent in a non-lawful space, public park, street, parking lot etc...and stay there indefinitely, not as part of an exploration of nature, a fishing or hunting trip, not as part of a hiking expedition and not in a designated area, then you must be stopped, arrested if necessary fined and or placed in confinement if you persist. If you place yourself in the above places and engage in illegal drug consumption, public intoxication, criminal activities, harassment of others, you likewise must be stopped and prevented from continuing to behave in this way. Using the word status for homelessness is fraught for most people, given it is a lifestyle choice and not necessary but due to choices these people have made. For the vast majority, it has not happened to them but was the direct result of individual choices made. So, the punishment is not about being homeless but about breaking the law...continually with zero intent to stop. Perhaps the answer is labor camps in remote areas, where these people can detox and work and or get treatment and after a time be placed back into society.
1
@chavonj4680 Today, I would agree with you. The large majority of the two groups have chosen to be both unemployed and homeless. Right, not against the law to not own a house or be unemployed but society does not have to encourage either by subsidizing these choices. Three for three. I agree, it's freedom and I'm all for it but don't ask me to pay for other people's decisions or to put up with illegal behavior.
1
@chavonj4680 Status means nothing. It does not garner you any points. If you choose an option and it leads to a consequence that you term a status, so be it. I have no sympathy for you. I start my sentence with if, because it is not the norm, I could say, when you are homeless or being homeless or choosing to be homeless or those who are homeless, etc.. but none of these changes in verbiage impacts the reality and consequences of the situation. The state of homelessness is not being punished but what those folk do that is illegal should be. I did not say that camping when not homeless is fine. I specifically stated that one must 'camp' according to statute, in season, and to engage in certain activities within the law and regulations of the area designated. Such camping is restricted to national parks and forest areas usually restricted or forbidden in cities and is not for long-term stay within urban areas. Also, camping often means paying a fee, though not always. Re-read what I wrote. You are consistent in not engaging in honest conversation, omit what is not useful to you and conflate, fabricate or abuse language to make more strawman arguments. This leads me to believe that you are not an honest broker but an ideologue. So, explain to me your position concerning homelessness in the USA.
1
@chavonj4680 HUD ANNOUNCES $2.8 BILLION IN ANNUAL FUNDING TO HELP PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. March 28, 2023 Types of Homeless Assistance Temporary HA, which helps families pay the costs of temporary shelter. 16 days of temporary shelter including hotel or motel costs ($85 per day for a family of four or fewer + $15 for each additional family member, up to $145 daily) Permanent HA, which helps families secure housing or prevent eviction. Security deposit and last month's rent or 2 months arrearages to prevent eviction. California has spent a stunning $17.5 billion trying to combat homelessness over just four years. But, in the same time frame, from 2018 to 2022, the state’s homeless population actually grew. Half of all Americans living outside on the streets, federal data shows, live in California. California has spent billions to fight homelessness. The problem has gotten worse Nick Watt By Nick Watt, CNN 8 minute read Updated 11:41 PM EDT, Tue July 11, 2023 A total of $20.6 billion has been allocated through 2024 to combat homelessness. Nearly $4 billion went to local governments to spend on anti-homelessness initiatives. $3.7 billion went to a program called Project Homekey, which also funds local governments, but specifically to buy properties like motels and commercial buildings to turn into permanent, affordable housing. 'Where do I sign up?' San Diego homeless woman says they’re ‘spoiled' with free stuff, phones San Diego city officials will consider banning homeless camping in some public areas Hannah Ray Lambert By Hannah Ray Lambert Fox News Published June 13, 2023 More than 20 million Americans have already received a free Obama Phone and get 250 free cell phone minutes every month. Free Cell Phone Programs for Homeless or Struggling Individuals Freebies Federal Assistance Program Free Cellphones Free Dental Care Listings Free Treatment Centers Government Unclaimed Property Walmarts web site Valpack Coupons - Coupons for Free Things Free Rx Cards Section 8 Houses and Vouchers Free Clinics Free Cellphone, Free Phones and Service Free Coupons Free Things - Free Cycle website Free and low cost groceries from FoodPantries.org Homeless Information and Help HOMELESSSHELTERSDIRECTORY Helping The Needy of America The HUD mandates led a nonprofit group, OrgCode, to create the infelicitously named Vulnerability Index–Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool, or VI-SPDAT (pronounced vee-eye spi-dat), which local governments nationwide adopted. In a typical VI-SPDAT survey for single homeless adults, a homeless person can accumulate “points” toward free housing. He can get a point if he has “run drugs for someone” or “shared a needle.” He gets another point if his drug abuse got him evicted from an apartment. There’s another bonus point for taking medication other than “the way the doctor prescribed,” or selling the medication. For crime, the system awards a point if the homeless person has tried to harm someone in the last year, another for being the “alleged perpetrator of a crime,” and yet another for landing in a drunk tank, jail, or prison. If the person does enough drugs and commits enough crimes, he can get six total points. With enough time on the streets, he can get to the necessary eight points toward a free house, without showing any other issues, apart from criminal behavior and drug abuse. In San Francisco, similarly, the CONNECT program will let anyone charged with crimes vaguely associated with homelessness, such as “defecating in public,” “aggressive soliciting,” “drinking in public,” “fighting,” or even plain “destruction of property” to receive, instead of punishment, “supportive housing, case management, medical services, family & employment programs,” and “meals service.” “One program gives homeless addicts free apartments—as well as a needle exchange and drug paraphernalia.” The government’s effort to give housing priority to addicts and criminals is even more damaging because the current Housing First model discourages treatment for addiction or other problems. The idea behind Housing First, also known as permanent supportive housing, was that homeless people needed “low barriers” to get off the street and into housing; any mandates for treatment, on this view, would discourage homeless applicants. Subsidizing Addiction The government pays homeless addicts to stay on drugs and alcohol.
1
Not even close to the truth. Regardless, if homeless seek help with religions, with homeless shelters, get a job, hello? Stop the drugs and alcohol and crime and get treatment for the mental illness.
1
@blobmonster9494 I'm sure this is true for some but not for the bulk.
1
@chavonj4680 I have not said anything about forcing people to live in houses. Also, no self-righteousness on my part. My point is simply not to permit public camping in urban areas, not allow the drugs and alcohol in public as well, not subsidize the lifestyle and get rid of the crime surrounding the homeless by incarcerating criminals. If we do the above the plague of homelessness will largely disappear.
1
@chavonj4680 People choose to be homeless because A. They are mentally ill B. They like being 'free' without responsibility. C. They are addicts and drugs and alcohol abuse are generally a part of this lifestyle. D. They are viewed as victims and get sympathy and money from well-meaning idiots and the govt. E. They are running from something worse, pedophiles murderous parents etc...F. There is a society or sorts there, friends or companionship among similar folk. Are we banning restaurants? Why would we do that? I am speaking of public intoxication and the use of drugs and alcohol is generally forbidden in shelters, so those who will not abandon them, choose to stay outside. I do not favor accommodating the homeless, unless this means prison for criminals, institutions for the mentally ill and forced addiction recovery in camps or other places to end the cycle. Public toilets are everywhere. If you can set up more of these as well as showers, which are policed so that they too are not turned into areas of debauch, then I favor that too but not if it supports the lifestyle and encourages people to stay on the streets. You are under the very mistaken belief that most who are homeless are there because of a lack of affordable housing. This is not the case. They are there because they have abandoned 'normal' life and have checked out. YMCAs became synonymous with gay bath houses. If you can open facilities that will be clean and safe, then that is an option for a wider program of forced abandonment of the lifestyle. Most homeless will not voluntarily enter facilities that insist on clean living, a job and responsibilities.
1
How about arresting these people and getting them off the streets?
1
@chavonj4680 No, I think you have misread or misunderstood me. I am against subsidizing the homeless in their lifestyle. I am for punishing crime and ending this crisis by institutionalizing the mentally ill and forcing people into recovery programs if they live on the streets. Minors cannot live on the streets regardless. These kids are in grave harm and must be saved if possible.
1
@chavonj4680 It was the devil.
1