If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS San Francisco)   San Jose to offer 'pods' to homeless people. Don't trust them, I've seen this movie before   (sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com) divider line 81
    More: Obvious, sci-fi, San Jose Leaders, San Jose, tags, homeless, emergency shelter  
•       •       •

4308 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2014 at 5:48 AM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-01 09:08:45 AM
Can't we just build big buildings with individual rooms that have doors that lock on the outside. Lots of cameras to monitor these guys, three meals a day, people to protect them from themselves and each other, isolated from society, and free health care. Can't we just build and put them in communal containment for their own good?
 
2014-05-01 09:15:29 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Can't we just build big buildings with individual rooms that have doors that lock on the outside. Lots of cameras to monitor these guys, three meals a day, people to protect them from themselves and each other, isolated from society, and free health care. Can't we just build and put them in communal containment for their own good?


Sounds great! But first, define what gets these people locked up. Oh wait, you're talking about a jail. What crime did they commit that gets them a life sentence?

/not sure if serious
 
2014-05-01 09:28:13 AM

Jaws_Victim: You haveto make 30$/hr to afford an apartment in san jose? Holy crap. How do people in cali manage to survive?


That's  $60K.
About $40K after taxes, or about $20 an hour take home.

Garden sheds are your future, people.
 
2014-05-01 09:28:34 AM
And the mini-fridge in the pods is filled with...

www.moviemonstermuseum.com
 
2014-05-01 09:35:08 AM

calbert: San Francisco, San Jose.

basically the same.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-05-01 09:48:31 AM
It just must be that Nannys are bred stupid.

Pods will not work.

Better doorways would be nice.
 
2014-05-01 09:49:43 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Can't we just build big buildings with individual rooms that have doors that lock on the outside. Lots of cameras to monitor these guys, three meals a day, people to protect them from themselves and each other, isolated from society, and free health care. Can't we just build and put them in communal containment for their own good?


Oh, you mean like a prison or sumptin?
 
2014-05-01 10:13:15 AM

Ishkur: Oh come now, I don't hate you. I just think you're wrong most of the time.


Riiiight. Don't go getting all soft on me just because I defended you. I always stand up for what I believe is right. Also, in closing, "I thought I was wrong, once, but I was mistaken."
 
2014-05-01 10:34:59 AM

Lonewolfe: This is what I see as the end result.


That is what it's like already.

One encampment ("the jungle") already has 300 people, apparently it's the largest in the us.

San jose is being sued by the water district because the creeks are becoming polluted by the homeless.
 
2014-05-01 10:39:10 AM

snocone: Slaves2Darkness: Can't we just build big buildings with individual rooms that have doors that lock on the outside. Lots of cameras to monitor these guys, three meals a day, people to protect them from themselves and each other, isolated from society, and free health care. Can't we just build and put them in communal containment for their own good?

Oh, you mean like a prison or sumptin?


I prefer "camp", where individuals are gathered, or "concentrated" if you will...
 
2014-05-01 10:44:03 AM
Garden shed concentration camps!
Pure genius!

/Who's a good little fascist?!
 
2014-05-01 11:41:48 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Garden shed concentration camps!
Pure genius!

/Who's a good little fascist?!


It is possible we will have a housing glut, iff'n they let the marijuana convicts out.

Maybe if you had bus service, you could offer sort of a voluntary Nite Care thingie???
 
m00
2014-05-01 12:19:40 PM

Any Pie Left: Based on work I've done supporting social workers, a large number of homeless people - certainly not all, but a goodly number - have various mental problems, and a common feature of these problems is a highly developed fear of using the kinds of spaces most of us would welcome, if we had no shelter.


Have you worked in an area where you can't rent a place on a wage less than $30/hour. During an economic recession life can get ugly, even for skilled workers in a sensible field. I'm fortunate that if things ever get that tough for me, I have family and could swallow my pride and go to them for help. But it's pure luck I'm in that situation.
 
2014-05-01 12:21:19 PM

Any Pie Left: it may well be that a simpler and more cost-effective solution is to re-use excess existing housing capacity with subsidized rents


But that's SOCIALISM!!!! Isn't it better to let them sleep in the alleys while empty houses fall down from disuse?!?

HeartBurnKid: Why not build, say, a five-story building with the same kind of layout (small, single-room dwellings with communal restrooms and bathing facilities on each floor)?


You're right, that's better. They used to have those all over, called SROs; I lived in a few. Adding small kitchens on each floor would be good too, though most people would still be content with coffee makers and microwaves most of the time. (It's painful to watch people who have full kitchens fill grocery carts with TV dinners and frozen pizza, but cooking seems to be on its way out.)

dragonchild: But if all it takes is a cheap tent to keep them dry while they live in ways that don't give them a panic attack, that's probably the most reasonable solution.


You want to be reasonable? About this? What planet are you from?

untaken_name: Ishkur: Oh come now, I don't hate you. I just think you're wrong most of the time.

Riiiight. Don't go getting all soft on me just because I defended you. I always stand up for what I believe is right. Also, in closing, "I thought I was wrong, once, but I was mistaken."


GET A ROOM!!!
 
2014-05-01 12:30:15 PM

Jaws_Victim: You haveto make 30$/hr to afford an apartment in san jose? Holy crap. How do people in cali manage to survive?


Maybe in a nice apartment, I live in Santa Clara, I don't make that much, my apartment isn't ghetto, but it isn't exactly posh either.
 
2014-05-01 12:33:40 PM
What about in a van down by the river, in this case the Guadalupe.
 
2014-05-01 01:07:49 PM

Wake Up Sheeple: SF tried "Care, not Cash" but it turned out that a significant population didn't want the Care. All they wanted was their next fix, and didn't care where they slept. I'm not saying it was a complete failure, but the only way to wipe out the problem doesn't come with a solution other than taking away someone's freedom (which is obviously problematic on its own).


The "street people"- that subset of the homeless that begs on the street and causes the vast majority of the trash and problems, wouldn't be out there doing what they do, if it weren't for bleeding-heart types who hand them money.

My solution: anyone observed handing out money would be held directly responsible for the side-effects.   It's just like feeding pigeons; people doing it should be held accountable for the clean-up.   Calculate the cost of the trash-cleanup, police and EMS calls, shelter costs, etc. and send bills out directly to the do-gooders.  Maybe once they realize that handing money to street people doesn't really "help" them, and instead enables bad behavior that ends up costing us all, they might stop the handouts.   Once the handouts stop, these people will move on.
 
2014-05-01 01:08:11 PM
Are these really more cost effective than a large building full of apartments that are each the same size?
 
2014-05-01 01:32:02 PM
I just finished a 3600 mile road trip through Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, and everywhere I went I saw small towns half empty.  Houses stand vacant with $5000 pricetags, no one wants to live there.

It would be easy enough to relocate the homeless to small towns, charge them $50 a month mortgage on a discount, and let them live where their monthly checks would go farther.

It is actually so bad, Libertarians are advocating socialism because it's better than what we have right now.

3 million homeless in Amerika, 18 million vacant houses?  You do the math.
 
m00
2014-05-01 01:32:36 PM

htomc: Wake Up Sheeple: SF tried "Care, not Cash" but it turned out that a significant population didn't want the Care. All they wanted was their next fix, and didn't care where they slept. I'm not saying it was a complete failure, but the only way to wipe out the problem doesn't come with a solution other than taking away someone's freedom (which is obviously problematic on its own).

The "street people"- that subset of the homeless that begs on the street and causes the vast majority of the trash and problems, wouldn't be out there doing what they do, if it weren't for bleeding-heart types who hand them money.

My solution: anyone observed handing out money would be held directly responsible for the side-effects.   It's just like feeding pigeons; people doing it should be held accountable for the clean-up.   Calculate the cost of the trash-cleanup, police and EMS calls, shelter costs, etc. and send bills out directly to the do-gooders.  Maybe once they realize that handing money to street people doesn't really "help" them, and instead enables bad behavior that ends up costing us all, they might stop the handouts.   Once the handouts stop, these people will move on.


8/10 :)
 
2014-05-01 01:38:36 PM
When I worked in an oil field boom town I got sick of paying premium apartment rates to live in a flophouse, so I bought a 23' travel trailer for $2600.

Lived in it 3 and 1/2 years, sold it for $2300.

Works out to around $0.28 per day, quite affordable.
 
2014-05-01 01:41:50 PM
It's a solution to a problem that plagues many cities.First, you give the homeless a place to stay, then the clamoring for infrastructure starts. When I lived in Texas, there were one of the long term low income housing areas of the city, the Victoria Courts. In my opinion, it was a hell-hole, but to many it was home. The cops had a standing order to have units on patrol there 24/7. Finally, the city shunted the people out, making a deal with Sheraton to build a hotel there, moving people out. The backlash, people saying they had a right to live there, some claiming they were the 4th generation to live there, so they felt they had a right to be there. Finally the city moved the whole area up to the North side, having the residents there complain of having that blight moved to their neighborhood. I've noticed in years past, visits to the malls in the area are decidedly lower scale now. Many residents see it as trying to cover up an unsightly blemish on a city, but many of those on assistance see it as a right.
You don't expect people to be dependent on the government teat, but it happens.
 You work so hard to get to a better level of life, and some don't, yet expect the same.
 
m00
2014-05-01 02:09:10 PM

Ex-Texan: You don't expect people to be dependent on the government teat, but it happens.


You mean like Wall Street banks? It's not like I can go get a piece of land, not pay taxes on it, build a house and work the land and eat food I grow. Because property tax. Because building code permits. Because regulations on land use. For better or worse, to live in society you need money that is only issued by banks at the behest of the government. Because government requires you to have money so that it can take it from you.

When you consider that even EBT cards (welfare) is administered by banks that make a hefty profit from it, I don't think the real welfare queens are people. Unless by people you mean corporations, which according to the CBO 50% of the largest ones haven't paid any taxes for decades. GE gets 2 billion from the government every year in tax rebates. Taxpayers subsidize large corporations that are already making billions in profits already.

But yeah, the problem is the homeless...
 
2014-05-01 02:22:41 PM

HeartBurnKid: I don't disagree with anything you said


I do.

I admit I don't have statistics or numbers, but i have been seeing the whole "homeless people want to be homeless" meme before.  Both it and its usual sources have the stink of "math conservatives do to make themselves feel better" all over them.

I could be wrong, but without a better source than "some bloke on the internets" I still question the base assumption.
 
2014-05-01 02:51:40 PM

Lonewolfe: This is what I see as the end result.
[img.fark.net image 552x402]


Pretty much. It would be more cost effective to buy an older hotel and turn it into SRO for homeless people. The facility already has the spaces needed for social workers to come do their things.  It wouldn't be perfect, but it would help at least some of the people who are currently sleeping in cars, or the ER.

People keep forgetting that the driving force behind eliminating the state mental hospitals was the Kennedys, whose sister was imprisoned in one.  They also forget that these places were absolute hellholes.  Closing them was hailed as a huge step forward. It was assumed that smaller facilities and families would gladly take up the slack. And I know that cleaning up this mess is going to create another, unintended one somewhere along the way.
 
2014-05-01 02:54:40 PM

olddinosaur: 3 million homeless in Amerika, 18 million vacant houses?  You do the math.


Problem is, the implied "solution" would be a good way to insure that there will soon be 0 vacant houses, and still have an awful lot of homeless.

Ever seen any of the campsites and makeshift slums where the people that beg on the street corners often stay?
They are absolute disaster areas.   It's sad but true that some of those people are in the circumstances they are in, primarily as a result of their own poor decisions and actions.   I don't doubt that some are truly mentally ill and can't help it.  Regardless of the cause, these people are destructive toward everything around them.   There's a reason that shelters and housing projects tend to turn into hell-holes, fit only for demolition after a short period of occupancy.  Some people "consume" dwellings- any landlord knows exactly what I mean.
 
2014-05-01 03:06:48 PM

htomc: olddinosaur: 3 million homeless in Amerika, 18 million vacant houses?  You do the math.

Problem is, the implied "solution" would be a good way to insure that there will soon be 0 vacant houses, and still have an awful lot of homeless.

Ever seen any of the campsites and makeshift slums where the people that beg on the street corners often stay?
They are absolute disaster areas.   It's sad but true that some of those people are in the circumstances they are in, primarily as a result of their own poor decisions and actions.   I don't doubt that some are truly mentally ill and can't help it.  Regardless of the cause, these people are destructive toward everything around them.   There's a reason that shelters and housing projects tend to turn into hell-holes, fit only for demolition after a short period of occupancy.  Some people "consume" dwellings- any landlord knows exactly what I mean.


so, better to just spend $0.30 / homeless person and eliminate the problem right?

previewcf.turbosquid.com
People like you (people who seem to think it's a good idea to take away all social programs in the hopes that the problem will move elsewhere) are sick. You are sociopaths. Please get help.
 
2014-05-01 03:13:41 PM
I live in the Bum Capital of America, which is sometimes known as Santa Cruz.  Bums suck and there's no real solution to the problem (each new idea is more expensive and dumber than the previous).  The more you help them, the more they multiply.  Don't like me?  I don't care, don't believe me, visit Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz and make your own call.
 
2014-05-01 03:24:44 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: People like you (people who seem to think it's a good idea to take away all social programs in the hopes that the problem will move elsewhere) are sick. You are sociopaths. Please get help.


What's sociopathic is throwing millions and millions of dollars at problems that persist for decades, with little or nothing to show for it.   Just how many municipalities have launched much-ballyoo'd "Campaign to End Homeless" initiatives, only to have it fizzle out after a short period?  answer: plenty.

It doesn't seem to matter how much money you have, or how noble you might think your intentions may be.  Some people just can't be helped, because they aren't willing to help themselves.  It would be nice if reality was different in that regard, but it isn't.  Sure, help the ones who truly can be helped.   But we need to have enough wisdom to realize that it just won't work for everyone, and what limited resources we have don't need to be thrown down a black hole.
 
2014-05-01 04:13:42 PM

Jaws_Victim: You haveto make 30$/hr to afford an apartment in san jose? Holy crap. How do people in cali manage to survive?


Afford means spend 30% or less of income.  Which on $60K of income, means that you're spending $20K/year on taxes and $18,000 on rent.  $22K in CA is nothing, but that's more than a lot of people I know with like actual houses and middle-class lives.

Functionally, most people won't let you rent once you're over 1/2.4th of your pre-tax income, so 42%-ish.
/Oh, and 50-something professionals making $400K/year have roommates.  It's THAT farked up out here.
//So build 1 Million new housing units, fark the NIMBY's, fark the Environmental Impact Report (Mildly fark Obama for strengthening the EIR), and drop a couple hundred billion dollars on new housing and better transit.
 
2014-05-02 04:52:06 AM

The One True TheDavid: GET A ROOM!!!


If you pay for the room, you can watch.
 
Displayed 31 of 81 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report